[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 2 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H62-H85]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stupak). Pursuant to section 4 of House 
Resolution 5, proceedings will now resume on the resolution (H. Res. 6) 
adopting the rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th 
Congress.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Thursday, 
January 4, 2007, the portion of the divided question comprising title 
II had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 5, the portion of the 
divided question comprising title III is now debatable for 60 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

                              {time}  0945

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here in the first hours of the 110th Congress we rise to 
restore decorum and civility to what has been from its founding the 
greatest deliberative institution. In doing so, we open a new chapter 
in the history of the House of Representatives, one that is dignified.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loud and clear this past 
November, and I am proud to say that the Democratic majority is 
responding to that call. This legislation marks a new beginning. The 
Democratic reform package, H. Res. 6, enacts long overdue congressional 
reform: restoring an open government, an honest government, an ethical 
government; and it marks the restoration of the American people's 
priorities to the people's House. It is my hope that by enacting these 
changes we will be able to change the tone of how we conduct business 
in this Chamber and with each other.
  I recall a time in the House of Representatives and not too long ago 
when Members had friends on both sides of the aisle. Our children 
played together, they got to know each other, they became friends. Our 
families ate dinner together. We treated each other as friends and 
colleagues, and debate on the House floor reflected mutual respect even 
when we disagreed and an understanding that we all have a role to play 
in the legislative process.
  We are here today to say that this sense of civility and decorum is 
not dead. This institution is too great to permit any tarnish of its 
honor to become permanent or to allow the slights of yesterday to 
interfere with our efforts to build a better tomorrow. Civility can 
return to this great institution with the right style of leadership.
  As we turn here and now in the first hours of the 110th Congress, 
part of that process is making sure that House rules can prevent the 
abuses of prior Congresses. This is the overarching intent of H. Res. 
6. In particular, there are several provisions in title III of that 
resolution that will begin to restore civility and decorum to the 
legislative process and which will honor this Chamber's place as the 
people's House by making us more accountable to the people who sent us 
here.
  The first provision of title III prohibits floor votes from being 
held open for more than 15 minutes for the sole purpose of changing the 
outcome of a vote. Voting is a Member's core responsibility and our 
primary means of giving voice to the view of our constituents. This 
reform is important and long overdue.
  The other two provisions address the handling of conference reports, 
with the goal to end backroom deals for special interests. In the 110th 
Congress, conference committees will be conducted in an open and fair 
manner, and conference reports containing last-minute provisions will 
not be considered on the House floor.
  A Chamber worthy of the title the people's House is one which 
conducts its business within the people's view. By making this reform 
package the very first item considered in this Congress, our new 
leadership is sending a strong message to all of the American people, 
Democrat, Republican, Independent, that we have heard the message you 
have sent us, demanding honest and ethical leadership, and we are 
heeding that call.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by, now since I have the first 
opportunity to formally see my California colleague here on the floor, 
to congratulate her and all of the members of the new majority. I have 
congratulated Ms. Slaughter and of course Ms. Pelosi, and now I join in 
extending congratulations to Ms. Matsui for her move into the majority, 
and to say as I did yesterday that I anxiously look forward to working 
in a bipartisan way as was said by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner 
here yesterday.
  I believe it is absolutely imperative that we meet the demand that 
was put forth by the American people in the November election. The 
message that I received from that election was that they want us to 
work together, they want us to solve their problems. Clearly, there 
needs to be a clash of ideas which was envisaged by James Madison, and 
I believe that that is something that we can't forget, because we are 
not supposed to pursue what I like to call the Rodney King view of the 
world: can't we all just get along. The fact of the matter is we do 
need to recognize that there are disparate views and they need to be 
voiced on this House floor.
  Now, the question is, can we in fact do that and at the same time 
maintain civility? And I think that is what title III is all about 
here. It is titled ``civility'' and it is something that I have always 
prided myself on, and I will say that I am saddened that it is 
something that has been often lacking in this House.
  Frankly, as I have seen the debate take place even yesterday, I was 
concerned that some of the statements made would indicate a lack of 
civility, and that is all I am going to say about it. I hope very much 
that the title ``civility'' used for this title III is one that is 
recognized by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Let me get into some of the specifics now, Mr. Speaker, if I might. 
In February of last year, almost a year ago, Ms. Slaughter, the then-
ranking minority member of the Rules Committee, and all of the members 
of the Rules Committee joined in introducing House Resolution 686. It 
is a resolution which called for virtually all of the things that my 
colleague, Ms. Matsui,

[[Page H63]]

outlined are very important for us to pursue: openness, transparency, 
disclosure, making sure that we meet our obligation to vote here on the 
House floor, that we have it done in the light of day.
  The concern that I have is that what has happened here is we have 
unfortunately gotten a package which does not have the kind of 
enforcement mechanisms that were envisaged by H. Res. 686 as introduced 
by the members of the Rules Committee in the last Congress, and I 
believe unfortunately it really is not reflective of anything other 
than sort of the spirit of what it was they were talking about. And the 
spirit is of things that we all can agree on. I am supportive of those.
  The fact is when they were in the minority, Resolution 686 calls for 
consultation and agreement with the minority. Now that they are in the 
majority, unfortunately, this measure does not in any way reflect the 
need to have consultation with the minority.
  For example, on this notion of keeping votes open beyond the 15-
minute period of time, when they were in the minority they called for 
it to only take place if they had consultation with the minority. Well, 
unfortunately, this measure does not call for that. And what I am 
reminded of as I look at these items which touch on the issues that 
were raised in Resolution 686, I am reminded of again the experience 
that I had in the past on this when I moved from minority status to 
majority status 12 years ago. We had something known as the Contract 
With America. Some may remember that. What we said was that there would 
be 10 items that we would bring to the floor and we would have up or 
down votes on those items because, frankly, we were denied the chance 
for many, many years to consider them. They were items that were 
supported by broad-based backing of the American people.
  Frankly, at the end of the day, President Clinton, who was President 
at that time, signed over 60 percent of the measures that were 
incorporated in the Contract With America. What we did is we outlined 
in detail what that would consist of. We said it would be considered 
under an open amendment process, and that is exactly what we did. It is 
exactly what we did with those measures that came forward.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately with this measure have not seen the 
same kind of reflection of the goals that were outlined by the then-
minority in this measure, and I thought I would take a moment just to 
go through a few of those items specifically and say that, 
unfortunately, this package is not what they called for.
  Now, in the package that we had introduced in 686, it called for a 
requirement that conference reports contain an itemized list of any 
provisions in violation of the Scope rule. That is not included in this 
measure. It said that a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from 
reporting martial law rules could not be in order. That is not included 
here.
  A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from waiving points of order 
against the conference report were a serious violation of the Scope 
Rule, or additions or deletions made after final agreement. That is not 
included here.
  Another provision in Ms. Slaughter's resolution as introduced in 
February of last year: a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from 
waiving points of order against a conference report where the minority 
party managers of the House were not allowed to fully participate in 
the conference. Well, they of course said they want to have this 
happen, but the kind of specificity and enforcement mechanisms that 
were outlined in the Slaughter Resolution, H. Res. 686, introduced in 
February of last year, not included in this measure.
  A rule permitting consideration of a conference report only if a roll 
call vote in open meeting was held on its final version and the results 
included the accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers. 
Well, sounds great, we are all for that, but that wasn't included in 
this resolution that we are now considering.
  A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from calling up a rule within 
24 hours of reporting it. Well, everybody talked about that. We know 
that on the opening-day rules package that we considered, we received 
it maybe 19 hours before we brought it up or something like that, but 
it clearly was in the violation of the 24 hours that was insisted upon 
by the then-minority.
  A rule requiring the Speaker of the House to publish in the 
Congressional Record a log of all voting activity occurring after the 
first 30 minutes of any recorded vote whose maximum time for voting 
exceeds 30 minutes. That is not included in here at all.
  A rule prohibiting suspensions costing more than $100 million. I 
don't see that in here at all.
  A rule requiring the Speaker of the House to allow an equal number of 
bills and resolutions sponsored by majority and minority parties under 
suspension.
  A repeal of the Gephardt rule. A rule requiring a 24-hour layover of 
unanimous consent requests.
  A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from reporting a rule unless 
at least one minority party member of the committee is allowed to offer 
an amendment to it.
  Now, again, I know that we are hearing words from the new majority 
that they want to do all these things, but when they introduced House 
Resolution 686, they made it very clear that they had to have 
enforcement mechanisms and that they were going to provide guarantees 
of minority rights. Unfortunately, while the word ``civility'' sounds 
great, this measure falls way, way short of that.
  So I again go back to when we went from minority to majority and I 
looked at the fact that we were able to maintain our promise, we were 
able to keep our word. And I am very proud of that fact. The thing that 
troubles me, while I am supportive of what we are trying to do here, is 
that it does not comply with the promises and the commitments and the 
vision and the goals that were set forth in February in House 
Resolution 686 as was introduced by the then-minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments so that all Members may 
keep in mind the heart of what we are doing today.
  These two days of debate on the House floor mark a historic moment 
for reform of the people's House. The American people grew tired of a 
Republican Congress too unethical to conduct its business in the light 
of day and too deaf to hear the people's complaint. And so this past 
November the people exercised their right to vote in order to send a 
message. It was a mandate for change, to restore civility, decorum, and 
ethical behavior to Congress. Democrats are acting swiftly in response 
to their call.
  When it passes the House later today, the Democratic ethics package 
will be the greatest reform of this institution in history. There will 
be no more corporate jet travel paid by special interests, no more roll 
call votes held open for hours in the middle of the night so that 
Members could be arm twisted on the floor, no more anonymous earmarks, 
no more last-minute provisions slipped in conference reports.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic reform package is far tougher 
than anything Republicans ever proposed or enacted, and it will restore 
integrity to this sacred institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman, our new Member from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Together, we have a lot of work to do: To help working families get 
ahead, restore America's standing in the world, and bring our budget 
back in balance. Making progress is what our constituents in 435 
districts around this country have elected us to do.
  To be sure, our differences will be intensely debated. However, our 
mutual obligations is to do everything we can to move our country 
forward by confronting directly and immediately the challenges before 
us. To succeed in the job our constituents sent us here to do, we must 
lay out rules in a regular order that Members can count on. These 
ground rules will not guarantee an outcome, but they will set out a 
framework where we, as an institution, make progress and serve the 
public.
  That is why the Democratic leadership embraces three very simple,

[[Page H64]]

straightforward principles that will help us succeed. As the Member 
from California has laid out, we set out today to establish a regular 
civility in this body.
  Civility, it is mutual respect, really, requires straightforward 
ground rules to guide debate. It requires adherence to rules that apply 
to all. Each of us will know and be able to assure the citizens who 
elected us when it comes to votes in this, their representative body: 
Members will have time to read what they are voting on; Members will 
have time to vote, but votes will not be held open for the purpose of 
changing the outcome; and Members will vote on conference reports that 
are the ones agreed upon by the conferees, not ones altered after the 
fact.
  These rules, applied to all, will help us do the work of the people 
we represent. Our debates at times will be intense, as they should be, 
but we must strive to have our debates on the merits. The rules we 
propose for your consideration are basic. They are rules that apply to 
legislators in Vermont where I am from, and probably rules that your 
own legislators take for granted: Time to read and review before 
voting, timely voting procedures, and considering conference reports as 
signed.
  Mr. Speaker, I served 13 years in the Vermont legislature, sometimes 
in the minority and sometimes in the majority. We in Vermont were proud 
of the legislative process and standards that we set. Those in the 
majority couldn't do things simply because they had the power. Minority 
voices were heard, Members were kept informed, and our legislative 
process was respected. We did have intense debates on the issues, but 
more often than not, not always, at the end of the day, good ideas were 
considered and we were able to move Vermont ahead.
  These changes that we present for your consideration today are not 
just about process, they are about passing good, substantive 
legislation.
  These new rules to establish civility to this body are essential for 
Congress to do the work of the American people and to build the trust 
of those we serve.
  We face looming challenges in America, to the security of our 
families and to the security of our country. And nobody and no party 
has a monopoly on the good ideas required to steer us forward. The 
simple and straightforward rules of engagement will help all of us do 
that.
  Yesterday, the minority leader, in handing over the gavel to the new 
Speaker, was graceful and was wise when he reminded us that we can have 
disagreements without being disagreeable. Both the Speaker and the 
minority leader stated on our behalf what we all know to be true: All 
of us are here for the common purpose, to make America a better place. 
There is and must be room for all of our voices to be heard to achieve 
our common purpose.
  The rules we propose will help us do that. How? By establishing very 
clear ground rules that apply to all, the majority as well as the 
minority, to every Member, committee chairs and ranking members, House 
veterans and House freshmen. One and all alike.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reminding my California 
colleague that yesterday we passed the ethics package about which she 
spoke, indicating that we would be voting on it later today. We voted 
on that yesterday. It has already gone into effect, I am very happy to 
say. And we did it with very strong bipartisan support.
  I am proud that the ethics reform legislation, of course, was based 
on and incorporated most of the items that were already passed in the 
House last year. Again, a year ago this month, Speaker Hastert and I 
stood in the well and we outlined our call for ethics and lobbying 
reform, bringing about the kind of accountability and transparency and 
disclosure, calling for the ban on gifts and dealing with the travel 
and all of these problems that were out there. We recognize that they 
are there in a bipartisan way, and yesterday we voted that out in a 
strong bipartisanship way.
  I am very pleased to see the distinguished Chair of the Rules 
Committee here, and I will again, as I did yesterday, extend 
congratulations. And, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of civility that we 
are pursuing, I think it is very important for us to debate these 
issues, and I would like to engage my distinguished new Chair in a 
colloquy, if I might.
  Mr. Speaker, as I look at the resolution that is before us, the thing 
that I find most troubling as we focus on the issue of civility is the 
fact that those items that I outlined that were included in H. Res. 686 
that was introduced on February 16, 2005, which called for the litany 
of items, and I can go through them again quickly: A requirement that 
conference reports contain an itemized list of any provisions in 
violation of the scope rule; a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee 
from reporting martial law rules; a rule prohibiting the Rules 
Committee from waiving points of order against a conference report with 
a serious violation; and it goes on for basically two pages.
  What I would like to ask my distinguished Chair is why it is that 
those items that were incorporated in the base of H. Res. 686, the 
commitment that was made by the then-minority as to what would be done 
if they were to move to majority, are not included in this title that 
we are considering here, and not, in any way, included in the opening 
day rules package.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think, Mr. Dreier, my good friend, that we have done 
a remarkable job considering we have been sworn in less than 24 hours.
  We are, by no means, through when we finish the 100 hours, and we 
will be moving toward, again, a more just democracy in this House in 
the future. We have never said this is all of it.
  Frankly, everybody has known what is in this package since we first 
unveiled it at the Library of Congress last January.
  In addition, many of our colleagues in the House on both sides of the 
aisle are already on record through votes on many of the things that we 
want to bring up. Certainly minimum wage, absolutely stem cell 
research, and what we want to do on ending the war. And the war itself 
is not addressed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say I have 
been supportive of stem cell research, and I have supported the minimum 
wage increase. That is not what I am talking about here.
  Mr. Speaker, in terms of our civil debate, which I think is very 
important, we are talking about the opening day rules package which is 
going to set forth, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines around which we will 
consider all of these items.
  Now I would ask my friend, am I correct from inferring from the 
statement she just made that there is a commitment, a commitment that 
as we proceed forward to modify the rules of the House to include those 
items in H. Res. 686, which were really the cornerstone of the package 
that was introduced by Mrs. Slaughter and the other then-minority 
members of the Rules Committee, which guarantee these rights to the 
minority that they believed were so critically important when they were 
in the minority; and, unfortunately, are not included in the package.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. You really liked those, did you, my colleague? You 
thought those were good reforms, the ones you are talking about?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the spirit of civil 
debate, let me say that I believe these measures that were authored by 
Members of the new majority as being critical rights that the minority 
should have, that those Members in the majority who believed them to be 
so important should obviously stand by them.
  All I am asking is that the promise that was made in the 109th 
Congress by the then-Members of the minority about what they believed 
minority rights should be should be, in fact, implemented. Because, 
unfortunately, while we can talk about these great things, when you go 
down the line seriatim, looking at each individual item, making sure 
that we do have Members of the minority guaranteed to have a right in 
conference committees to be there, bringing an end to considering 
measures without a 24-hour waiting period, these kinds of rights that 
the

[[Page H65]]

then-minority believed were imperative for the minority to have are, 
unfortunately, not included in this package. This is what I find to be 
very troubling.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished Chair.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sure you recall the time in the Rules Committee 
when we took this package and broke it down vote by vote, and the 
majority, led by you, voted down every single one of them. This seems 
somewhat hypocritical to me.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time so I might respond, these were not my 
proposals, Mr. Speaker. These were not my proposals. These were 
proposals put forward by Members of the new majority, and they were the 
commitments, the promises, and the obligations that they made as far as 
enforcement of minority rights that they believed to be so important. 
That was the platform on which they ran in November, Mr. Speaker.
  I believe that what we should do is do all that we can to simply 
point to the fact that this title III on civility, which is supposed to 
be reflective of these notions, is in no way emblematic of H. Res. 686 
that was introduced by the Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Slaughter to 
respond.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me say, just watch us, Mr. Dreier. I want to 
reiterate what I said last night: We have no intention of keeping our 
foot on your necks the way you did us. And you are just going to have 
to watch us and see. But you have voted against every one of these, 
along with many other things.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairman of Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and 
thank her for her wonderful job.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are taking up the third title of the new 
Democrat rules package which will restore civility to this body.
  The House was always intended to be a place where civil discourse and 
the courteous exchange of ideas would be the normal state of affairs.
  But referring to this portion of our rules package as the 
``civility'' title is actually a civil term for what we are talking 
about: The restoration of democracy itself in the House of 
Representatives.
  Over the last several years, parliamentary procedure has broken down 
here, and I don't know anybody who can deny that. The standard 
practices of this body, carefully designed rules that are fundamental 
to our democratic process, fell by the wayside. Far too often, they 
have been shunned and ignored whenever doing so fit the needs of the 
former majority.
  At the end of 2003, the House took up a Medicare prescription drug 
bill. It is a perfect example of the broken legislation produced by a 
broken process.
  Instead of proceeding in an open and transparent manner, conference 
discussions were held behind closed doors for months, excluding all 
Democrats. On one occasion, Democratic conferee Charles Rangel and 
Marion Berry, men who have spent their lives and careers fighting for 
the good of the Nation, were not let into the conference room and were 
physically prevented from coming inside, even though they had been 
appointed to be there. Why? Because the lobbyists were in the room. The 
lobbyists were writing the bills, not the Members of Congress, and 
certainly not the minority who had no fingerprint at all on the 
Medicare prescription drug bill.
  That abuse of secrecy was for a good reason: It was bad for the 
country and the Republican conferees didn't want anybody to find out 
about it. But one group that did learn of its dangerous provisions was 
the Republican conference, and when the bill was brought to the floor 
on November 21, a significant number of principled Republicans refused 
to vote for it.

                              {time}  1015

  And so once again civil and democratic procedures were denied. The 
Republican leadership had lost the vote after the standard time 
allotted; so they simply kept it open. I have never seen anything like 
that in my years in the House. There were Cabinet Secretaries all over 
the floor. There were strangers or people we didn't even know on the 
floor as for over 3 hours they worked on people who were in tears, many 
of them, to make them vote for that bill. There was also a blanket 
liability exemption for drug manufacturers inserted into the language 
without the approval of the conference about 5 hours after the 
conference had been signed off on, and so absolutely the process was 
broken. According to reports, the President of the Senate simply walked 
over to the House side and inserted 40 pages into the bill. It amounted 
to a multi-billion dollar gift to drug companies.
  Mr. Frist's liability exemption had been brought up during the 
conference process, but it was rejected, just like the Medicare 
legislation of 2003 had, in truth, been rejected by this House. But in 
each case, Members of the Republican leadership wanted something they 
couldn't get through the democratic process, and so they ignored the 
process. By doing so, they did more than pass flawed legislation. They 
undermined our democracy itself.
  This democracy is a system designed to prevent abuses like these from 
occurring, a system constructed and improved over two centuries so that 
bad legislation could be exposed and voted down.
  If we profess to care about democracy, the proof will be in the 
process. And, Mr. Speaker, we must save the democratic process in this 
House. How hypocritical is it that we try to spread democracy to other 
parts of the world when we disallow it in the American House of 
Representatives?
  The civility portion of the Democratic rules package before us today 
will prevent the abuses of recent years from happening again. It will 
prohibit the Speaker from holding open votes just so the outcome can be 
changed. Democracy is the art of compromise, not the art of coercion.
  We are also going to insist that conference committees operate in an 
open and fair manner and that House conferees sign final conference 
papers at one time and in one place. In other words, they have to be 
present at the conference to do so. Never again will the esteemed 
Members of this body on either side of the aisle be locked out of this 
democracy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it does not go too far to say that 
about half of the American public was disenfranchised. Because of the 
closeness of the majority and minority, we left half of America out of 
the room.
  This package prohibits the consideration of any conference report 
that was altered after it was signed by the conferees. If a conference 
can't agree on a legislative provision, it should not be in the 
conference report, period. If the Members of this body believe in the 
power of their ideas, there will be no need for tactics like those we 
have seen of late. An open, democratic, and civil process will promote 
good ideas and good legislation and will eliminate corruption and 
influence peddling.
  In this new Congress and with this new rules package, we are standing 
up for our system of government and the needs of the people it serves 
and bringing back the government that they think they had, up until 
this last November. Democrats are going to return civility and common 
sense to this body, and I encourage everyone on both sides of the aisle 
to join us.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, I am very enthusiastic about this return to civility, and 
I am very proud of engaging in civil debate on a regular basis. And I 
thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, 
for engaging in debate with me on this issue once again.
  And I would say that as I listened to her prepared statement, I was 
struck with, once again, how the notion of not keeping votes open for a 
long period of time is an admirable one. It is a great one. But guess 
what, Mr. Speaker. There is not one single item in this package that 
guarantees enforcement. In fact, Speaker Pelosi introduced her 
legislation, H.R. 4682. I remember very well looking at that 
legislation. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you exactly what it said. It said 
that if a vote is kept open beyond a 20-minute period of time, there 
had to be consultation with the minority. Now, that is not something I 
proposed. That was the proposal of Speaker Pelosi. Now, the sad thing 
is

[[Page H66]]

that in this measure there is no enforcement mechanism.
  Now, of course, people are busy. They come over here for a 15-minute 
vote. They would like to have it take place within 20 minutes. We are 
hearing that votes won't go beyond that period of time for the sole 
purpose of changing a Member's vote. But, again, there is no 
enforcement mechanism. And, again, the enforcement mechanism was not my 
proposal. It is a proposal that the then-minority offered. But now that 
they are in the majority, they just decide to say, well, we want to 
keep this process going and we want to keep doing it, but we are not 
going to consult with the minority. So, again, those aren't my 
proposals. Those are their proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to 
my very good friend from Marietta, Georgia, a former member of the 
Rules Committee, who is very thoughtful on these issues, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the majority in 
regard to title III and the overall civility tone as it pertains, of 
course, to conference committees and having the opportunity for Members 
of the minority conference team to be present, not to have things added 
at the last minute after all the conferees signatories have read the 
report and designate it as complete and then add something at the 
midnight hour. All of these things are good.
  I was in the Georgia State Senate in the minority, and I remember the 
Democratic president of the senate appointing me to my first conference 
committee. I was thrilled. It was an issue on which I had worked very 
hard with the majority, and I couldn't understand why I was never 
called to a conference committee. And then at the sine die hour, all of 
a sudden this conference report was stuck under my nose and asked for 
my signature without even reading it, and I was absolutely appalled at 
that. So I commend the majority for wanting to clean that up, and I 
support it.
  But I agree with my former chairman, now ranking member, of the Rules 
Committee in regard to the argument that was proffered just a minute 
ago that it doesn't really go quite far enough. But let me spend a 
little time continuing to make the point that he just made in regard to 
this issue of holding votes open.
  Now, during the last 2 years, during almost the entire 109th 
Congress, after we passed an historic prescription drug benefit for 38 
million seniors who had been waiting for 45 years because the now 
majority, when they were in control, could never deliver on that 
promise, all we heard for 2 years were these complaints of, well, you 
held the vote open 3 hours and 28 minutes. You were breaking arms of a 
former Member from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and others, and it was 
inappropriate, how appalling that was.
  And now maybe you are right. Maybe holding the vote open for that 
purpose is inappropriate when the concerns of our constituents might be 
that when a Member in good conscience is opposed or in favor of a 
particular controversial piece of legislation and his or her vote is 
not going your way and so you get him in a corner or a back room and 
say, hey, what can we do for you? Or maybe what can we do to you if you 
don't vote with us? Like removing you, a good productive Member, from a 
certain select committee, or maybe we promise to put you, who is not 
quite qualified, on a good select committee that you have been wanting 
and pushing for for a number of years, and all of a sudden you grant 
them some earmark that is absolutely egregious, maybe almost as bad as 
the ``bridge to nowhere.''
  So I would say to my friends in the majority, why the modifier 
``sole'' purpose? If you really believe this, as the gentleman from 
California just pointed out, take out that modifier. Let us not hold 
votes open beyond 15 minutes for the purpose of breaking an arm and 
trying to change someone's mind when they in good conscience have had 
plenty of time to consider the bill, to think about it, indeed, maybe 
even pray about it. I think it is inappropriate, and I agree with you. 
But let's get serious about this. Let's make sure we really change it 
and it is not just some window dressing to kind of make your argument 
that you have been trying to make over the last 2 years. Let us take 
out the modifier, close the loophole, get serious about this, and that 
is real reform.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield 
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to show my support for 
the House rules, as we are dealing with them today, but I am also 
calling for an independent investigating arm for the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my full support to these changes to 
our House Rules.
  These rules are the foundation that will govern how this body 
operates, but also serves as a reflection of our collective values and 
character.
  I have served almost 6 years on the House Ethics Committee.
  I have seen more investigations than I care to in the last 6 years of 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  These rule changes should restore a tone of civility and honesty in 
this chamber and that is why I am supporting this package and urge all 
my colleagues to do the same.
  However, I would like to raise an issue that is not contained in this 
package today.
  I strongly believe that the House Ethics Committee needs an 
independent investigative office.
  Currently, my colleagues on the Ethics Committee and I are tasked 
with determining whether rumors and innuendos have any merit to launch 
investigations that at times bring disgrace to this body and end the 
careers of our colleagues.
  We are the Court of Congress, yet we serve as both the investigators 
and the judges of our colleagues. This is no easy task.
  Those of us on this Committee have accepted this position and stand 
poised to enforce the Rules of the House and preserve the integrity of 
this body.
  However, it would be beneficial to the Members of the Ethics 
Committee and this House if we had an independent investigation arm so 
we may have unbiased, thorough information regarding any accusation of 
impropriety by a Member of this body.
  I believe this would help remove any partisan sentiments regarding 
origination of investigations and may help restore America's faith in 
our ability to enforce our rules.
  With this information the Members of the Committee would then 
determine whether or not there is sufficient information to further the 
investigation, or take action on the issue before the Committee.
  Allowing an independent investigating office to begin investigating 
then bring information to the Ethics Committee would not make our job 
easier, but it would help us have this nonpartisan information to do 
our job better.
  I strongly support the changes proposed today, but I believe it is 
necessary for us to begin a dialogue on creating an Independent 
Investigative Office to serve the House Ethics Committee and the House 
of Representatives.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding.
  Of the many concerns my constituents had as they looked at the 
Congress over the last few years, one of the most important and 
troubling had to do with the minimal amount of time we were repeatedly 
given to address important pieces of legislation. Indeed, it seemed 
often that the more important the legislation before us, the less time 
we had to read it.
  My colleague from Georgia talked momentarily ago about the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. During debate on that bill, there were 
important elements of it that no one seemed to understand. I asked 
repeatedly if people could explain it. I was told by one speaker on the 
then-majority side, You will have to ask somebody on the Ways and Means 
Committee; I am only on the Rules Committee. But we all voted on it. We 
voted on things repeatedly that we had not been given a chance to read, 
that were not allowed for amendment, and that was wrong. And I commend 
our leadership for trying to set a new tone, and I welcome the support 
of our colleagues on the minority side as they commit to trying to work 
with us.
  Included in this rules package is a commitment by our leadership to 
allow adequate time for consideration of legislation before it comes to 
a vote. The situation here is this: we ought to make sure that we can 
look our constituents and our colleagues in the eye

[[Page H67]]

and say that before we voted on this legislation, we had ample time for 
ourselves and our staff to study it and we knew what was in it.
  For too long lobbyists have written legislation. On some of the 
legislation I have talked about before, I had lobbyists calling me to 
say I should vote for a bill, the text of which was not even available 
to the Members themselves.
  Members of Congress have the responsibility to give themselves and 
one another time to study legislation, to debate it, to hear from both 
sides, because there are good ideas on both sides and, frankly, there 
are bad ideas on both sides. So let's work together in this new 
Congress to set a new tone and a new precedent and a new practice.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to engage in colloquy with my friend. I wonder if the 
gentleman has had an opportunity to look at what we consider to be the 
opening-day rules package that we are considering.
  He has talked about, Mr. Speaker, some very important provisions. I 
believe that the 24-hour layover idea which was propounded by the then-
Members of the minority is an important one. It is not guaranteed here; 
so it is not provided.
  Number two, if you look at title V of the measure that is before us, 
title V provides 5 minutes of debate on five closed rules. The Rules 
Committee will not even be giving the minority the opportunity to have 
its amendments defeated in the Rules Committee, and we are not going 
through the committee process at all.
  Now, I will acknowledge that the items that we are going to be 
addressing, a majority of which I support, are very important for us to 
proceed with, and an argument has been made that this was debated and 
discussed in the last Congress. Well, look at the tremendous number of 
new Members of the House that have come in, especially on the majority 
side. They are denied any opportunity to participate in this process at 
all. So as I hear my friend talk about, yes, we need to proceed in a 
civil manner, and I am all for that, I believe we need to proceed with 
fairness. I believe these things are all very important. It is just 
unfortunate that the facts are not reflected in the rhetoric that we 
are getting on the need for civility and openness and debate.
  If my friend would like to respond, I would be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond. And let me say I 
acknowledge the gentleman's concern and I share it to a significant 
degree. Personally, I would prefer that there had been more time and 
more opportunity for debate in some of these measures and more 
opportunity for input from the minority side.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.

                              {time}  1030

  What I would say is that based on the fact that we have never before, 
in the 230-year history of this republic, we have never had the 
greatest body known to man come forward with five closed rules in an 
opening day package denying Members an opportunity to participate in 
any way.
  So that is why I would argue this notion that we are beginning with a 
new tone, we are going to have an openness and all, is, in fact, not 
reflected in what we are facing in the next few days.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman's point. I would just echo the 
sentiments of the gentleman from New York earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us in these early opening days of 
this session is legislation that has been debated extensively and been 
available extensively over the past couple of months, indeed, some of 
it was passed in the last Congress. I would suggest that we have had 
time to look at this.
  I would concur, and I will say that in the future, when future 
measures come up, especially measures that are new to this body, I will 
work very vigorously to ensure that the minority has adequate time to 
study, to debate and offer amendments to that legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just respond. I know his time has expired.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond.
  We haven't seen any of the items. Maybe you all have those items, but 
we have not seen those items that we will be voting on. They haven't 
been submitted to us at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do have to 
speak up for Iowa, although I wish Iowa was playing in the national 
championships coming up.
  Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Members and leaders of the current 
majority party of the House spent countless hours attempting to draw 
the attention of the American people to what they defined as a culture 
of corruption here in Congress. Hoping to use this, they wanted to turn 
this phrase, usher in a new Democratic majority. That was their wish on 
election night that Members of the new majority stood in this Chamber 
prior to that, and on numerous soap boxes across the country and 
promised that if the American people gave them the chance to run things 
here on Capitol Hill, they would do things differently.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree that things should be done differently here in 
this body. Last year in the 109th Congress, I introduced H.R. 4967, the 
Sunlight Act, and that was of 2006. This bill would have, on a number 
of things, required that bills, conference reports, joint resolutions 
and amendments be available to the public on the Internet in a 
searchable format before a bill could be voted on.
  It also would have required and will require, if passed, privately 
funded travel be approved in advance by the Rules Committee with the 
costs being fully disclosed in 5 days. It would require that Members 
report exact assets and liability values on their financial disclosures 
instead of vague ranges, vague ranges that allow a Member to report 
between $5 million and $25 million in assets. That is too broad a 
range.
  A $20 million range would require the subject of debate to be 
projected on the wall so it is visible to Members and people that are 
in the gallery. It would require that donations to political campaigns 
be reported in a searchable, sortable format on the Internet and have 
that within the last 30 days each day, within each 24 hours a report be 
filed.
  I believe that passage of my Sunlight Act would do much to raise the 
levels of transparency in the affairs of this body, and it would also 
restore the public's confidence in our Members. It is disingenuous for 
the majority claim that they want to change things when they don't want 
to give a consideration of commonsense reforms like those outlined in 
this bill.
  Yet this bill, as I worked it hard last year, could not earn one 
signature from a single Democrat as a co-sponsor. Now, I am refused the 
opportunity to even offer this as a bill. This is my only opportunity 
to even make the argument.
  So I would make this argument, Mr. Speaker, that there were a lot of 
campaign promises that were made. It seems to me that the one that is 
the most obstructive to all of us is the promise to accomplish this 
series of things in the first 100 hours. The first 100 hours has been 
redefined. Many of these promises will be also given up on, and it will 
be difficult, and in many cases, impossible to keep those promises.
  Mr. Speaker, why don't we just waive this promise of accomplishing 
all these things in the first 100 hours so the people of America can be 
heard on the floor of the Congress.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  (Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the civility 
provisions offered in part today as one of the new rules of the 110th 
Congress. I applaud the new Democratic leadership for offering this 
reform package, because our country needs a fair and functioning 
Congress if we are ever going to meet these huge challenges that we 
face as a Nation.

[[Page H68]]

  When my constituents in Connecticut's Second District voted for 
change, they knew to create that change. We need a legislative body 
that allows real debate and discussion, not a rush to judgment that 
deprives our democracy of good ideas. To achieve that goal, this rule 
will curb past abuses of this Chamber's processes.
  This rule will prohibit votes being held open for the sole purpose of 
affecting the outcome, a practice that in the past damaged the public's 
confidence in laws passed by this institution. It will reform the 
conference committee process, a reform that will give all Members, the 
press and the American people, the opportunity to understand the 
content of legislation at its most critical moment, right before 
passage.
  Mr. Speaker, the Gallup poll that came out recently December 19 
ranked the Congress' performance that only 20 percent of the American 
people rated it good. It is time to fix the broken branch by adopting 
these rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chair how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Illinois). The gentleman from 
California has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from 
California has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to one of our new Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Braley).
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be here today to 
talk about the need for more civility in this body. I would like to 
remind the House that the last Member to be sanctioned for being 
assaulted on the floor of this House was Lovell Rousseau, who was 
involved in an assault on a representative from Grinnell, Iowa, the 
city I was born in.
  I think we can all think back to those days and be grateful that we 
now serve in a body where respect is a daily part of the operations. I 
think it is never too late to learn from the past and to make sure that 
we continue to express the importance of treating each other in a 
manner that provides respect to this body and also brings honor to it.
  When I was out on the campaign trail, I often talked about growing up 
in my hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. When people had a problem there, they 
never asked if you were Republican or a Democrat, they asked for your 
help, and they got it. I think that is the purpose this body, to solve 
problems and to do it in a way that brings respect and honor on this 
body.
  I am very honored that this new rules package promotes greater 
civility and does it in a manner that is consistent with House rule 
XXIII, which requires us to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner 
that shall reflect credibly upon this House, and by promoting an 
atmosphere where we are required to be on guard against abuses in 
voting time and reforms to the conference committee process. We will 
all do more to bring respect for the people who elected us to this body 
to serve.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had no idea that we had used so much of 
our time, so I am going to continue to reserve our time.
  I would ask my colleague from California how many speakers she has 
remaining.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the 
gentleman from California would like to use his time.
  Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very 
hard-working Member, who will continue on the Rules Committee, my good 
friend from the Big D, Mr. Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Dreier, I appreciate the opportunity for you to 
yield time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit shocked and surprised with the 
reformers that have come to Congress, the brand-new Democrats who are 
talking about all these things that they are going to get done. Yet it 
seems to me that with the respect we would have for the voters who sent 
us here, that we would not be asked to approve and get ready to vote on 
things without even seeing the bills.
  The new Democrat party, in their openness and trying to do things 
right, is asking Members of this body to vote for and approve getting 
rules to the floor without even knowing what the bills are about, the 
substance.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this. I rise in opposition 
because I think it is a step backwards, not a step forwards. It 
represents less transparency and is a slap in the face for regular 
order to this House.
  Section 503 of this flawed package rolls back the Sunlight reforms 
implemented by the Republican Party in 1995, and it creates a secret 
ballot in the Rules Committee for votes that are taken right upstairs, 
Mr. Speaker, where we would meet, where rules, as they are debated and 
brought before this House, Members always had to make sure that the 
votes that they were going to support would be recorded. That is not 
going to happen. There is no compelling reason for this bait-and-switch 
that has happened now by the new Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this. I think it is a step backwards, and it is 
my hope that the newest Members of this body will listen to what is 
being said, that their rhetoric about the openness and change in this 
body is simply a step backwards. What a shame. They thought they were 
coming to Washington to change things, and what they are doing is to 
make it more like central government that we are told what to do by a 
few people in the Democrat leadership.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I do 
so to say that I am supportive of this title called civility. We will 
be having a vote on that. Mr. Sessions was very appropriately raising 
concern over title V. We only had 5 minutes of debate on that. So he 
raised concern about the closed rules and shutting down operations of 
the Rules Committee that would record votes and make them public.
  My concern about this measure we are going to have, which as I am 
going to support, because I am not going to oppose civility, is that 
when we look at the promises that were made by the then minority to do 
things like have a 24-hour waiting period before measures are brought 
up, it is denied in this rules package itself, because we got it about 
19 hours before, so the spirit of that was denied there.
  The whole notion of ensuring that we have consultation with the 
minority when it comes to keeping votes open, when it comes to the 
issue of ensuring that we will have minority participation conference 
in committees. As we go down the line and look at these items, Mr. 
Speaker, it does trouble me.
  But there is a little bit of hope, and that hope was offered by the 
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, when she told me there has 
been such a short period of time between the election and opening day 
and consideration of this package, that we in the Rules Committee will 
have an opportunity to do more.
  So I always hold out, where there is light, there is hope, you know. 
I will tell you, I would do everything I can to help her maintain that 
commitment, and we will continue to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, these 2 days of House floor debate will culminate in a 
reform of House Rules unlike any other in history. This reform is a 
response to the American people to their mandate. This past November, 
the people exercised a right to vote in order to send the message. It 
was a mandate for change to restore civility, decorum and ethical 
behavior to Congress.
  As I said in my opening remarks, debate on House floor must reflect 
mutual respect, even when we disagree. I look forward to restoring 
decorum and civility to this House, restoring integrity to what is 
truly the people's House. I urge all Members to join us in that effort.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
Title III 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 restore civility, open government, and honest 
leadership to the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the civility 
rules contained in Title III 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.

[[Page H69]]

  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 terrible way of 
considering and voting on legislation last November and voted for 
reform. House Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and won 
the majority. Restoring open government and honest leadership is one of 
the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why 
we have included Title III in the Rules of the House of Representative 
for the 110th Congress. 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 the rules 
package. The reforms contained in the package are necessary to ensure 
that all Members of Congress, each of whom is elected to represent the 
interests of nearly 600,000 constituents, have sufficient time to 
consider important legislation before casting an informed vote. The 
reforms we are considering also will discourage manipulation of the 
voting rules to alter the outcome of roll call votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the elements of the civility package, which 
(1) prohibits holding votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the 
outcome; and (2) reforms the conference committee process by requiring 
adequate notice of meetings, ensuring information is available to all 
conferees, and prohibiting changes to the text of signed conference 
reports.
  Mr. Speaker, under the previous House Republican leadership, several 
votes were held open for hours in order to change the outcome. The most 
notable example was the November 2003 vote on the conference report on 
Medicare legislation (PL 108-173) that was held open for two hours and 
53 minutes, the longest recorded vote since electronic voting began in 
1973. After the expiration of the 15 minute time limit, the measure 
lost 216 to 218. But the vote was held open hours to afford House 
Republican leaders, the president, and the Health and Human Services 
Department, enough time to lobby enough Republican members to change 
their votes, or cast votes, in favor of the measure, eventually 
achieving a majority of 220 to 215. This kind of unfair manipulation of 
the rules would not take place under the voting rules package we are 
considering today.
  With respect to Conference Reports, the rules package we consider 
today includes provisions intended to ensure that conferees have notice 
of conference meetings and the opportunity to participate, as well as 
to prevent the insertion of material into a conference agreement after 
the conferees have completed their work but before the House votes on 
the measure. These new rules also require House managers to ensure that 
conference meetings occur under circumstances that allow every House 
conferee to have notice of the meetings and reasonable opportunities to 
attend. Under the prior Republican leadership, Democratic conferees 
frequently were not invited to meetings of conferees, which prevented 
U.S. from having a meaningful role in crafting an agreement.
  The rules also require conferees to ensure that all provisions on 
which the House and Senate have disagreed be considered open to 
discussion at any meeting of the conference committee. Additionally, 
House conferees will be required to ensure that papers reflecting a 
conference agreement are held ``inviolate to change,'' unless there is 
a renewal of the opportunity of all House managers to reconsider their 
decision to sign or not to sign the agreement. This change is designed 
to prevent material from being inserted into a conference agreement 
after conferees have ``closed'' the measure. In this connection, the 
new reforms requires that House managers be provided with a single time 
and place, with access to at least one complete copy of the final 
conference agreement, for the purpose of recording their approval, or 
lack of approval, on the signature sheets that accompany the conference 
report and the joint statement of managers.
  Last, the new reforms bar the House from considering a conference 
report if the text differs materially, except clerical changes, from 
the text that reflects the action of the conferees when they signed the 
conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 
six years by putting the needs of the American people ahead of partisan 
political advantage. To do that, we must start by adopting by Title III 
of H.R. 6, the civility reforms to the Rules of the House of 
Representatives for the 110th Congress.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous 
question is ordered on the portion of the divided question comprising 
title III.
  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.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The portion of the divided question comprising title IV is now 
debatable for 60 minutes.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate 
only, I yield 30 minutes to the minority leader, my friend, or his 
designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Title IV of our rules package is one of the ones of which I am most 
proud. Over the past 12 years, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, while allegedly praying to the gods of fiscal responsibility, 
have nearly sunk our ship of state in red ink. Today we begin to right 
this ship and staunch the unmitigated gall of telling the American 
people that, on the one hand, they need to be more responsible with 
their money, but, on the other hand, Congress should face no such 
obstacle.
  Today we will say ``no more'' to spending money that the government 
doesn't have, only to pass down to the young people of America, some of 
whom we saw here yesterday afternoon, passing it on to them before they 
even have a say in how their money is being spent.
  Yes, today we say to the American people that Congress, like you at 
home, Jane and Joe Lunchbucket, will not spend money that we don't 
have. Our credit card is maxed out and we start to reduce it today.
  My fellow Democratic colleagues will provide more details about this 
new set of House rules presently, but there is one more point I want to 
make perfectly clear. I am not going to, and I hope my colleagues 
aren't going to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle 
lecture us about not doing enough here today.
  I have read some of their ``talking points'' from the Budget 
Committee. And while I may not be a whiz kid, I know a little something 
about being lectured to.
  And having this particular group of Republicans lecture us on fiscal 
responsibility is a little like having the horses on the farm complain 
to the ranch hand that he is not using a big enough shovel to clean up.
  This analogy is not only appropriate, Mr. Speaker, it is perfect.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes of our time to the 
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, 
Mr. Ryan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized and will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this 
title IV part of the package. And I learned, when we were in the 
majority, watching the minority speak and criticize virtually every 
move we made, I thought it would be wrong if you thought there were 
good elements of a package to criticize it. There are good elements in 
this package, and I want to start off by talking about those good 
elements that are contained in this package before I start my 
criticism.
  First, the earmark reforms. I am an earmark reformer. I was one of 
the parts of the team that reformed earmarks, that negotiated the 
earmark reforms we passed last fall. I think these earmark reforms in 
this package that the majority created are very good. They are very 
commendable. They work. So I want to compliment the majority for their 
serious earmark reform package that they have in here.

[[Page H70]]

  I think it is high time that when a Member of Congress requests an 
earmark, that that Member's name be associated with that earmark, that 
that Member's justification be associated with the earmark, and that 
we, as Members of this body, have the opportunity to vote on whether or 
not that earmark should be funded or not. We need more transparency and 
more accountability in the way we spend taxpayer dollars.
  I am very pleased that in the last Congress, in the 109th Congress, 
we in the House passed those rules, and I am very excited that the 
majority has decided to continue those rules and build on that success 
by improving the package of earmark reforms we passed in the last 
Congress. So that part of this package, I want to compliment the 
gentleman from South Carolina and the others who put this together.
  I want to direct my comments on the PAYGO part of this. I had high 
hopes for this part of the package. I had high hopes that the PAYGO 
rules that we are about to vote on would provide much needed fiscal 
discipline to Washington and to the way we spend taxpayer dollars. 
Unfortunately, this package just doesn't cut the mustard. I see this as 
a timid, weak, watered down, paper tiger PAYGO. What I mean when I say 
that, Mr. Speaker, is I believe this will have the practical effect of 
simply raising taxes.
  Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. We don't have a tax revenue 
problem in Washington. We have a spending problem in Washington. Tax 
revenues have been coming into the Federal Treasury at double digit 
rates over the last 2 years. That is not the problem. We are getting 
plenty of money from workers' paychecks, from families in their taxes. 
It is leaving the Treasury too fast. That is our problem, and that is 
where the budget discipline ought to be placed, on spending.
  The problem with this PAYGO is it will have the practical effect of 
simply having higher taxes to chase higher spending. It does absolutely 
nothing to address the deficit we have today. It does absolutely 
nothing to address today's level of spending. It does not address the 
uncontrollable and unsustainable rates of spending that we have with 
our entitlement programs today.
  Now, I realize that the last majority wasn't perfect on spending. I 
will be the first to note that because many people saw me coming to the 
floor saying that in the last Congress. But when we enact spending 
discipline, and when we are telling the American people that we are now 
going to get tough on spending, we are going to be fiscally 
conservative, that is what we should do; and this does not do that.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this PAYGO regime, if 
it does actually work, will make it clear that the tax relief of 2001 
and 2003, which got us out of a recession, which brought new revenues 
into the Federal Government, which created seven million new jobs, will 
go away. This is putting the American taxpayer on a collision course 
with higher taxes. And why is it doing that? Because this system, this 
PAYGO system, will make the pressure toward raising taxes to pay for 
new entitlement spending. And so for that reason, I am opposed to this 
PAYGO regime, Mr. Speaker. There are many others I would like to speak 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, for purpose of 
debate only, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina, one of the true rising stars in Democratic politics today, 
Heath Shuler.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, the times of reckless and unchecked spending 
in Congress are over. With my fellow Blue Dogs, we are cutting our 
Nation's credit card. It is time to have a commonsense budget, just 
like our families, and just as we do in business, have a commonsense 
approach of budgeting.
  Congress followed these rules in the 1990s. George H.W. Bush signed 
on, and in 2 years we saw a record budget surplus. Unfortunately, 
Congress has abandoned these rules and started financing spending 
increases with borrowing money from China.
  China's share of the U.S. debt has grown faster than any other 
nation, from $61.5 billion in 2001 to $165 billion in 2004. We cannot 
borrow ourselves out of debt.
  This is an important first step of implementation of a statutory 
PAYGO. Congress should be able to justify every line item of every 
spending bill to the American people. This should be supported by all 
Members for the future of our children and grandchildren.
  This rules package also prevents inserting earmarks into bills in 
conference, and requires that all Members be given time to examine all 
bills before voting on them.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, the 
ranking member on the Budget Committee, on which I have had the 
pleasure of serving for the past 2 years.
  And it is ironic that I follow another colleague from North Carolina 
who is in favor of the Pelosi PAYGO plan that we have before us here 
today on the House floor. It is unfortunate that it is being offered in 
a closed rule, in a setting whereupon Republicans cannot offer any 
constructive amendments or perfecting amendments to ensure that tax 
increases don't arise out of this Pelosi PAYGO plan.
  According to the Wall Street Journal editorial today: ``Under her,'' 
Pelosi's, ``PAYGO plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts 
would have to be offset by either cut-backs in other entitlement 
programs or tax increases. This version of PAYGO is a budget trapdoor, 
designed not to control expenditures, but to make it easier to raise 
taxes while blocking future tax cuts.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to include the Wall Street Journal editorial from 
today, entitled ``Tax As You Go,'' for the Record.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007]

                             Tax As You Go

       Congressional Democrats are dashing out of the gates to 
     establish their fiscal conservative credentials. And as early 
     as today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push through so-
     called ``pay-as-you-go'' budget rules for Congress. Keep an 
     eye on your wallet.
       ``Paygo,'' as Washington insiders call it, sounds like a 
     fiscally prudent budget practice: If government spends more 
     on program A, it has to spend less money on program B, and 
     thus budget deficits will be restrained. We're all for that. 
     But when Republicans proposed exactly that budget rule in 
     recent years, House Democrats voted it down.
       Ms. Pelosi has something different in mind. Under her paygo 
     plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would 
     have to be offset by either cutbacks in other entitlement 
     programs or tax increases. This version of paygo is a budget 
     trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures but to make it 
     easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts.
       Supporters of paygo claim it will help restrain entitlement 
     spending. It won't. Paygo doesn't apply to current 
     entitlements that will grow automatically over the next 
     several decades. Ms. Pelosi's version of paygo applies only 
     to new entitlements or changes in law that expand current 
     programs. And on present trajectory, Medicare, Medicaid, 
     Social Security, food stamps and the like are scheduled to 
     increase federal spending to almost 38 percent of GDP by 
     2050, up from 21 percent today. Paygo won't stop a dime of 
     that increase. This may explain why one of the leading 
     supporters of paygo is the Center on Budget and Policy 
     Priorities, a liberal outfit that favors far more social 
     spending.
       Paygo enthusiasts also claim that when these rules were in 
     effect in the 1990s the budget deficit disappeared and by 
     2001 the budget recorded a $121 billion surplus. Sorry. The 
     budget improvement in the late 1990s was a result of three 
     events wholly unrelated to paygo: the initial spending 
     restraint under the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 as 
     part of their pledge to balance the budget; a huge reduction 
     in military spending, totaling nearly 2 percent of GDP, over 
     the decade; and rapid economic growth, which always causes a 
     bounce in revenues. Paygo didn't expire until 2002, but by 
     the late-1990s politicians in both parties were already re-
     stoking the domestic spending fires.
       What paygo does restrain are tax cuts, by requiring that 
     any tax cut be offset dollar-for-dollar with some entitlement 
     reduction. Congressional budgeteers always overestimate the 
     revenue losses from tax cuts, which under paygo would require 
     onerous budget cuts to ``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a 
     political matter, those spending cuts will never happen.
       First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the 
     investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010. 
     Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new 
     Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender, 
     gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could 
     enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the 
     Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million.

[[Page H71]]

       Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and 
     dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record 
     $550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally, 
     thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax 
     revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in 
     just two years--without paygo.
       Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some 
     conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our 
     friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become 
     obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised 
     Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage 
     notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from 
     any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003, 
     it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would 
     ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about 
     returning Republicans to their historical minority role as 
     tax collectors for the welfare state.
       That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly 
     desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to 
     identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and 
     failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the 
     budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore 
     spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules 
     would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic 
     agenda.
       Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending 
     discipline while making it all but impossible to let 
     taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be 
     called ``spend and tax as you go.''

  The fundamental budget problem here is spending too much, not taxing 
too little. Federal revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past two 
fiscal years because of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages. Now, 
this has led to a robust economic growth for our country; and as a 
result of that economic growth, we have had higher tax revenues to 
government. In fact, government revenue this year is the largest it has 
ever been in the history of man. Not just the history of the United 
States, but we have more revenue flowing into government.
  So we have a spending problem, Mr. Speaker. And with this PAYGO 
trapdoor, the Pelosi PAYGO plan ignores the annual appropriations, and 
it only applies to new spending. So this is an absolute trapdoor that 
will lead to tax increases put forward by this new Democrat majority.
  I urge us to vote this down and to actually have real constructive 
budget reform.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick Murphy).
  Mr. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an 
original cosponsor of this vital measure.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one of the most important issues 
facing America today, fiscal responsibility.
  PAYGO is straightforward. If Congress is going to buy something, we 
need to figure out how we are going to pay for it. That is what the 
small business owners, farmers, and families in the Eighth 
Congressional District of Pennsylvania do every single day.
  If the Mignonis in Bristol want to expand their store, they have to 
roll up their sleeves and figure out how they are going to pay for it. 
When the Russos of Fairless Hills started saving for their daughters' 
college tuition, they had to figure out how they were going to pay for 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are voting on here today. If you 
or I have a good idea, we are going to have to roll up our sleeves, 
just like the Mignonis and the Russos, and figure out how we are going 
to pay for it first.

                              {time}  1100

  As most of you know, I have a 6-week-old daughter, Maggie. Maggie and 
every other newborn born in America are saddled with $28,000 in debt. 
That is immoral. Voting ``yes'' to implementing PAYGO is the first step 
toward getting our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains between the two parties?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 24 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. And the gentleman from Florida?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 26 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the 
distinguished budget chairperson, I want to respond to Mr. Ryan by 
saying, we don't have a spending revenue problem. I would remind him, 
when he said that, that he and his colleagues, with this President, 
have run up a debt larger than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
  No problem, Mr. Ryan? Please.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished budget 
chairman, who knows more about this process than all the rest of the 
Members in this body combined, Mr. Spratt.
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for the compliment and wish I could 
accept it, and I am glad to have the time to explain what is before us.
  The budget summit in 1990 ended up with a 5-year deficit reduction 
plan and a kit of budget process rules known as the Budget Enforcement 
Act of 1991. Among these process changes was something that we have 
come to call the PAYGO rule, or pay-as-you-go.
  Basically, the pay-as-you-go rule provides that any increase in 
entitlement benefits has to be paid for by a new revenue source, and 
that any cut in taxes has to be offset by equivalent cuts in 
entitlements or by equivalent increases elsewhere in the Tax Code. In 
other words, entitlement increases or tax cuts have to be deficit 
neutral. They cannot worsen the bottom line. This is the basic 
principle of PAYGO; a common-sense, truly conservative principle.
  PAYGO was originated by Democrats, but it was embraced by the first 
President Bush in 1991, in the Budget Enforcement Act. It was adopted 
by President Clinton in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. It was 
confirmed again by Clinton and by this Congress in a bipartisan way in 
the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. It was even endorsed by the 
second President Bush in his 2001 budget submission: Reinstate PAYGO. 
That is what the President requested.
  But the Bush administration soon found that if we did that, it would 
get in the way of its huge tax cut agenda, and that was its driving 
force behind all the budget policy of this administration. So in 2002, 
even though it had worked, demonstrably worked, and brought the deficit 
down, in 2002, the Bush administration and this Congress, under 
Republican leadership, allowed the PAYGO rule to expire.
  PAYGO had been renewed three times. From 1991 to 2001, it was the law 
of the budget. It worked. But it was allowed to expire. The result was 
a deficit that soared. President Clinton handed over to President Bush 
a budget that was in surplus, in surplus by $236 billion the year 
before President Bush took office. By 2004, without the PAYGO rule, 
without the strictures of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1991, the 
surplus was gone, wiped out, replaced by a deficit of $413 billion. 
That was a swing of more than $600 billion in the wrong direction.
  In an effort to diminish these debts and to rein in the deficit, 
Democrats tried repeatedly over the last 6 years to reinstate the PAYGO 
rule. And Republicans, just as repeatedly, rebuked us at every turn. 
Today, with a new majority, we want a new commitment to fiscal 
responsibility. We want to pay as you go. We want to quit stacking debt 
on top of debt.
  The statutory debt, on the watch of this administration, has 
increased by 60 percent, 60 percent since President Bush took office, 
more than $3 trillion in new debt. This is not a sustainable course. 
Nobody in this House would rise to support this course. So let us 
reverse course. Let us start today. Let us enact something that worked 
for 11 years, the PAYGO rule that was adopted first in 1991.
  Today, we add two new rules to the rules of the House, section 402 
and section 405 of title IV in the package before you. The original 
PAYGO rule was statutory. It set up a scorecard on which tax cuts and 
tax increases, entitlement cuts and entitlement increases were all 
entered. At the end of the fiscal year, the tally was taken by the 
Congressional Budget Office, and if there was an adverse balance, it 
had to be rectified. If it was not rectified and removed, then it would 
result in across-the-board abatement or sequestration cuts.
  Why not just reenact the statutory rule, since that is the form that 
worked? I wish we could. But it is not at all clear we can pass a 
statutory change or reenactment of the PAYGO

[[Page H72]]

rule in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed. And it is even less 
clear, and extremely doubtful, that the President would sign a 
statutory PAYGO rule if it reached his desk.
  So what we propose today is the art of the possible. What we propose 
is a House rule, setting up a point of order to any PAYGO violation. We 
also correct here the practice of using the reconciliation process, an 
extraordinary process in order to do things, that would worsen the 
budget deficit. But I want to focus mainly on the PAYGO result.
  The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, and I look 
forward to working with him, he is a good man who knows his stuff, and 
I look forward to a good relationship, but I have to take exception 
when he says this rule does not reduce the deficit. By itself, it may 
not. But it establishes in the rules of this House a commonsense, truly 
conservative principle that when the budget is in deficit, deep 
deficit, at the very least, we should avoid making it worse. We should 
avoid entitlement increases that are not paid for and we should avoid 
tax cuts that are not offset.
  This rule is not immutable, it can be waived or modified, but it 
establishes a strong working presumption in favor of fiscal 
responsibility and it holds accountable every Member who votes 
otherwise.
  Mr. Ryan claims this bill will set a double standard favoring higher 
spending. But in truth it is a double-edged sword. It applies to 
entitlement increases as well as tax cuts. So if you want to start the 
110th Congress on the foot of fiscal responsibility, the right thing to 
do is to vote to reinstate PAYGO. Vote for this package and its fiscal 
responsibility provisions.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I want to start off by saying I appreciate the 
gentleman from South Carolina. He is a good man, knows his stuff, and I 
very much look forward to working with him. I just want to respond to a 
couple of points.
  In fact, we attempted to put PAYGO in place, PAYGO on spending. So if 
you try to increase spending somewhere else, you should cut spending 
elsewhere and not raise taxes. That went down in 2004, largely because 
of the minority opposing it.
  Second point. The reason PAYGO worked well in the 1990s is because it 
was statutory. If you did not comply, an across-the-board sequestration 
would take place, and the threat of that was one of the reasons why 
PAYGO was successful.
  The third point I simply want to make is, you are going to hear a lot 
of talk about we had a surplus, we handed it to the Republicans and 
they squandered it. What was the surplus? The surplus was projected. It 
was projected. And in those economic projections they did not foresee 
the Enron scandals, they did not foresee the dot-com bubble bursting, 
and they did not foresee 9/11. Of course, they did not foresee that. 
They did not see the perfect storm of economic calamity, and that is 
what evaporated the surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, last night, I came to the floor and joined 
my Democrat colleagues in supporting meaningful ethics reform. As a 
former law enforcement officer, I understand as well as anyone the need 
to abide by the strongest ethical guidelines, and I agree with and 
commend my Democrat colleagues for presenting a rules package that 
brings much-needed transparency to earmarking process.
  In the last Congress, I consistently supported greater public 
disclosure of Federal spending. I will be the first Member of this body 
to stand up and attach my name to earmark requests and justify the need 
for the expenditure. The taxpayers in my district and across our Nation 
deserve to know how the government spends their hard-earned dollars.
  But I rise against title IV because I cannot stand and support a 
reform package that irresponsibly attaches a rule known as PAYGO that 
will almost certainly lead to higher taxes on these same hard-working 
taxpaying Americans.
  Tax cuts unequivalently spur economic growth and create jobs. The tax 
relief Congress enacted in 2003 produced tremendous growth and a record 
high stock market. These tax cuts created nearly 6 million jobs across 
the Nation and 88,000 jobs in Washington State alone.
  Again, I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we 
need more fiscal discipline. That is why I supported the balanced 
budget amendment in the last Congress and I hope to work to enact that 
in this Congress. But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in 
spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenue. It is not 
to raise taxes on families and small businesses, and I fear that this 
provision will do that.
  I am deeply disappointed the earmark reform contained in this title 
was not attached to the ethics reforms that I enthusiastically joined 
my Democrat colleagues in supporting. While I support the earmark 
reforms that have been proposed here, I must urge my colleagues to 
oppose this measure so that we can work together to enact significant 
earmark reform.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is to take some time 
on the floor today to separate fact from fiction with respect to 
earmarks.
  Let me start by saying that I think my record is clear. I have tried 
as long as I have been in this Congress to restrain both the dollar 
amount spent on earmarks and the number of earmarks that we have had. 
But I want to make certain that if we are looking at earmarks we are 
asking ourselves the right questions.
  I do not want anyone on this floor, or anyone else, including the 
White House, to suggest that if you eliminate funding for earmarks you 
save one dime. You do not. The right question to ask about earmarks is 
simply whether that money is put in the right place or not. And let me 
explain what I mean.
  When the Appropriations Committee, for instance, brings out its 
appropriation bills, each subcommittee operates under a spending 
ceiling. And if that bill exceeds that spending ceiling, then a single 
Member can knock the entire bill off the floor. That means that 
earmarks, if they are provided, are provided within the predetermined 
ceiling for that bill. So, for instance, if the committee decides that 
it is going to earmark 50 after-school projects, those after-school 
projects are financed within the predetermined ceiling, not above that 
ceiling.
  So if people want to pose for holy pictures on the issue of earmarks, 
be my guest. Just make sure you have your facts when you do so. That is 
all I ask.
  A second thing I would point out. If we are going to talk about 
earmarks, then let us talk about the guy who does the most earmarking. 
That is the guy in the big White House at the other end of the 
Pennsylvania Avenue. He is called the President. And I want to give you 
an example of what happens with the President's budget.
  The biggest earmarker in the land is the President of the United 
States of America. Let me give you one example. Last year, the 
administration provided 18,808 FIRE grants in districts represented by 
Republican Members of Congress. It provided 11,470 FIRE grants in 
districts represented by Democrats. Every single one of those FIRE 
grants is the functional equivalent of an earmark.
  Now, does anybody believe that that ratio of FIRE grants in 
Republican versus Democratic districts was not political? If you do, I 
have got a lot of things I would like to sell you after the session is 
over.

                              {time}  1115

  Let me also make one additional point: What is an earmark? If the 
President sends down an Army Corps of Engineers' list of projects, 
let's say he suggests 800 projects for the Army Corps of Engineers. 
Let's say the Congress, after its hearings, determines that 16 of them 
don't make any sense and so they substitute other projects. Are the 16 
which the Congress substituted the only earmarks in that bill? What 
about the original President's list? He has selected those. Doesn't 
that represent an earmark on the part of the executive as well?
  So I would simply ask, if we are going to start talking earmarks, 
let's

[[Page H73]]

not have the pot calling the kettle black. Let us remember that the 
Congress has a right to make policy judgments, indeed it has an 
obligation to make policy judgments, that direct money to one place or 
another.
  When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee 12 years ago, the 
Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill didn't contain a single 
earmark. Last year, our Republican friends on the other side of the 
aisle were planning to have 3,000 earmarks in the Labor-Health bill. I 
think that is a gross exaggeration of what our staffs have the ability 
to review.
  I don't want a single earmark in any bill that the committee staff 
cannot review to make certain that the reputation of this House and the 
reputation of the committee is protected. That is why we have the 
provision in this language that says if any Member asks for an earmark, 
he also has to certify that that earmark will provide no financial 
advantage to him or his spouse. To me, that is the way you protect the 
integrity of the institution and still protect the power of the purse 
and still protect the prerogative of the Congress. That is the way you 
protect the prerogatives of the Congress, while also protecting the 
reputation of this institution.
  So, please, keep your terms straight. Keep your facts straight. Let's 
not claim things that are not so about some of these changes. Let's 
recognize what the definitions are and the fact that this is a very 
complicated matter.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to 
a new Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a word of caution about the 
proposed PAYGO rules which will hurt this body's ability to keep our 
economy moving forward. By putting more money into the hands of 
families and taxpayers, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have helped 
stimulate our economy, create jobs and cut our Federal deficit in half. 
The proposed PAYGO rules wrongly identify these types of tax cuts as 
``deficit spending'' and will all but eliminate our ability to provide 
additional tax relief to the families and taxpayers we represent.
  It will also set the framework for repealing the tax cuts that have 
already been enacted. This amounts to a two-pronged threat to the 
pocketbooks of the families and taxpayers across Ohio and across 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I wholeheartedly support the 
earmark reform contained in this rule, and I strongly support the 
spending restraint at the heart of the PAYGO concept, but I believe 
these rules will, in effect, take money out of the hands of families 
and taxpayers, hurting our ability to grow our economy and cut our 
deficit in a fiscally responsible way.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, an important part of the honest leadership, open 
government rules package is the new commitment to more stringent fiscal 
responsibility under Democratic leadership and Speaker  Nancy Pelosi.
  Under the current administration and past Congresses, the Nation's 
debt has been climbing out of sight. Currently we are faced with a 
nearly $3 trillion national budget deficit. The rising interest rates 
and a projected individual share of the national debt of more than 
$28,000 per person is outrageous.
  As a mother with two young daughters, I am concerned, like so many 
other parents today. You see, the personal cost of spiraling debt to 
the American public is overwhelming. Families are working to provide 
the best opportunities for their children, while juggling mortgages, 
credit card debt and student loans, as well as rising health care costs 
and housing costs.
  How can our neighbors back home decrease their debt loads until the 
Federal Government begins to do its part? That is why the restoration 
of pay-as-you-go budgeting is the right step in a new direction. Pay-
as-you-go is not entirely new, however.
  Let me close by saying that these rules changes are essential to 
assure our neighbors that Congress is working earnestly to do our part 
to relieve the financial crunch on working families, while providing a 
transparent framework in which to do it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, two plus two does not equal 
six, but if I were to assume that it did, I could take care of the 
budget. Easy.
  PAYGO assumes that when you increase taxes, revenue goes up, and when 
you lower tax rates, revenue goes down. But history shows that that is 
not what happens, because there are economic factors, and people change 
behavior.
  Since the tax cut-rate cuts of 2003, revenue has been up every year, 
and in 2 of the last 3 years has been up by double digits.
  Two plus two does not equal six. PAYGO does not equal fiscal 
responsibility. What PAYGO does equal is tax increases that will hurt 
the economy and will not raise revenue and will not help the deficit.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a budget enforcement tool that has both a 
history of success and a history of bipartisan support. In its original 
form, PAYGO was part of an agreement between the first President Bush 
and a Democratic Congress. A Democratic President and Congress extended 
it in 1993, and a Democratic President and Republican Congress extended 
it in 1997. Unfortunately, it was allowed to expire in 2002 and the 
results have been a disaster. Deficits and debt have reached historic 
levels and the debt limit has been raised four times.
  This rule takes the first step toward restoring fiscal responsibility 
in the Federal Government by requiring the House of Representatives to 
pay for the bills that we pass.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
passage of this rule.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the element of the rules 
package that we will consider today, but I do so conflicted; 
conflicted, because as a long-time advocate of earmark reform and 
fiscal discipline, I am in large measure encouraged by the efforts of 
my colleagues in the new Democratic majority to step forward in good 
faith and open the process whereby we spend the people's money to 
greater transparency, particularly in the area of earmarks.
  I say from the heart that I appreciate the substantive reforms and 
transparency and accountability that my Democratic colleagues will 
bring forward today on earmark reform. That being said, I will oppose 
this element of the rules package having to do with the pay-as-you-go 
provisions, which, while they sound in a common sense way attractive, 
this particular version I believe is lacking for three reasons:
  Number one, I believe it is a weak and watered down version of PAYGO 
proposals of the past, including Democrat party PAYGO proposals of the 
past.
  Number two, it doesn't reduce current spending levels or require a 
reduction of current spending levels.
  Number three, it is, as so many of my colleagues have said, a means 
of justifying tax increases on working families, small businesses and 
family farms. In a very real sense, the American people ought to know 
that this proposal translates to you-pay-as-Congress-goes on spending.
  In the category of a watered down provision, other PAYGO versions 
were enforced by across-the-board spending cuts. That is what created 
the incentive to control spending. But the Democrats PAYGO proposal is 
only enforced by a point of order, which can be waived fairly easily, 
as we all know.

[[Page H74]]

  Secondly, it only applies to new spending. Mr. Speaker, I say with 
some pain, having been a part of the former majority, but we currently 
don't pay for what goes out the door now. The 2007 budget right now is 
projected at $286 billion in deficit. This does nothing to require us 
to address our current deficits.
  Lastly, as others have argued, I truly believe that by assuming that 
the 2001 and 2003 tax relief will automatically expire, this Democrat 
PAYGO provision will cause a substantial tax increase for working 
families, small businesses and family farms.
  The American people just simply need to know, however well-
intentioned, and I assume good intentions by my colleagues in the 
newly-minted majority, however well intentioned, I believe this PAYGO 
provision comes up short. It is, in a very real sense, the American 
people pay, as Congress goes on spending
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to talk. I was just trying to clarify a 
couple of things on the package to make sure that we understand what it 
is we are actually doing to ourselves.
  I spent 2 years on the Budget Committee, and it was a very 
informative time. I sat through hours and hours of conversation by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle touting the virtues of PAYGO 
and that they thought this would solve the problems of the world, 
knowing all along that their version of PAYGO that they talked about 
was, in fact, a stealth tax increase, given the current Code that we 
have in place with respect to the taxes on capital gains and dividends, 
as an example, and the death tax that will come back in full force in 
2011 unless we actually do something to it.
  So as we consider this PAYGO concept, I would like for the American 
people to know that the devil is in the details, as with everything 
that we, in fact, do.
  When I campaigned, when most of my colleagues campaigned, none of us 
campaigned on increasing deficits. We all campaigned, on both sides of 
the aisle, on reduced spending, on smaller government, all those kinds 
of things that both sides are saying during this debate today. But I am 
not sure this PAYGO version will, in fact, do that.
  Also the point we were trying to check right now, I believe in 
addition to the rules included in this rule is a change in the Rules 
Committee itself to allow for votes in the Rules Committee to be not 
reported out in the rule. So the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee 
can waive this PAYGO rule and we won't know which of the members 
actually voted to do that because of the way this rule is.
  It is interesting yesterday that the word ``transparent'' was used 
often by the folks on the other side of the aisle, and yet one of the 
areas in which transparency seems to have been reduced is with respect 
to the rule that is included in here with respect to the Rules 
Committee.
  So with respect to PAYGO, I want my colleagues and others to know 
that this is a stealth tax increase that is being foisted upon our 
economy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 1 minute to a gentleman that was a sheriff that had to pay as 
he went with reference to equipment for his department, Brad Ellsworth 
from Indiana.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I thought I was going to get to follow a fellow Hoosier, Mr. Pence, 
until we changed the rules. But as a proud member of the Blue Dog 
Coalition, I am proud to stand today to voice my support for restoring 
the pay-as-you-go budgeting. Inclusion of the PAYGO provision in the 
new House rules will undoubtedly force us to make tough decisions, but 
quite frankly we have no choice. The total National debt is an 
astounding $9 trillion, and tough decisions need to be made by 
Congress. By restoring PAYGO budgeting, we will take a positive step 
toward reducing and easing the Federal deficit. Hoosier families in my 
district make tough decisions every day about how to balance their 
budget, and it should be no different from the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to be fiscally disciplined in 
implementing pay-as-you-go budgeting, and this is a great place to 
start.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I wish to join a number of my colleagues in congratulating the new 
Democrat majority for their work in the area of earmarks. We know that 
earmarks are perhaps a small portion of spending in this body, but they 
are a large portion of the culture of spending. And I certainly salute 
them for that work; but, Madam Speaker, I must reluctantly oppose this 
rule because of the so-called PAYGO provision which has been adequately 
pointed out is really a tax-go provision.
  If PAYGO indeed lived up to its name, it would be worthy of support, 
but it is not. I fear that it is nothing more than false advertising. I 
listened very carefully to our new Speaker yesterday when I believe she 
said that there would be no new deficit spending under the watch of the 
Democrat majority. But as I look at this so-called PAYGO provision, I 
see nothing that deals with entitlement spending, which threatens to 
bankrupt future generations, our children and our grandchildren, with 
either massive debt or a massive tax increase.
  Over half of our budget deals with entitlement spending. There is 
nothing that deals with that. It doesn't deal with baseline budgeting. 
Now, most Americans don't know what that is, it is inside baseball, but 
it is an accounting concept that would make an Enron accountant blush. 
It puts in automatic inflation for government programs, yet we don't 
call it new spending. And yet there is nothing in this so-called PAYGO 
provision dealing with that. And we don't even have a statute.
  It is also false advertising, Madam Speaker, because it doesn't live 
up to what the Democratic majority advocated when they were in the 
minority. We have a rule; we don't have a statute, the rule that will 
end up being waivable. We don't have the sequester mechanism of earlier 
PAYGO. We don't have the wedding with the discretionary caps that we 
had. And, indeed, what we have is a subterfuge here. What we have is a 
Trojan horse for more tax increases on small businesses and American 
families that threaten the jobs of Americans, and we must vote this 
down
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to one of 13 members of the physicians in the House of 
Representatives, the distinguished colleague, my friend, Mr. Kagen.
  Mr. KAGEN. Madam Speaker, my good friend Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin, I 
was elected to send a message to Congress to balance its budgets and to 
be fiscally responsible. As Paul Ryan notes, in Wisconsin thousands of 
hardworking people have lost their jobs; and when they lost their 
manufacturing jobs offshore, much of the wealth of this Nation was sent 
offshore along with those jobs.
  We need a positive change in America, and it needs to start now, 
right here and right now in the people's House. Let's begin to build a 
better future for everyone by dedicating ourselves to becoming fiscally 
responsible today, not next week. And then when we do, let's ship our 
values overseas and not our jobs.
  I rise before you today to urge you to support pay-as-you-go as a 
means to become fiscally responsible. We cannot realistically begin to 
solve the many problems we face until we completely reverse the 
misguided fiscal policy of borrow and spend, and borrow and spend, and 
borrow and spend, which has driven our country into more debt than our 
children can possibly repay. Let us agree to live within our means here 
in the House as we do in our own homes back in Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I think everyone will agree, when it came 
to earmarks, the big concern

[[Page H75]]

about the abuses of the past were two components: one is transparency 
or the lack of transparency in previous proceedings when it came to 
earmarks. The other was the issue of what is called air drops, those 
that could be in a conference and at the last minute add things into 
the budget without going through the review of the committee or 
subcommittee and a public review of that aspect.
  I have to compliment both sides of the aisle when it comes to 
transparency. I think that both Republicans and Democrats are working 
together to make sure the public knows who has asked for earmarks to be 
included. But I ask that at the same time, and to say we are a little 
let down, I think the public is going to feel let down, because both 
sides, both Republicans and Democrats, have not addressed the air drop 
issue. In fact, let's face it, why put your earmark or your request 
through the review process of committee and subcommittee if you can get 
put on the conference committee at the last minute, and just before the 
votes are brought to the House floor add your item in without going 
through the review process?
  So I would ask the majority and the minority to take a look at this 
aspect and not move this bill without having it specific that unless an 
item has been voted on in the House or the Senate before it got to 
conference, that it shouldn't be added in at the last minute. And I 
come from the 50th District of California, as you know, and we saw the 
crisis in credibility and government that was created by the Member 
that preceded me, and one of those crises was the fact that the game 
here was get on that conference committee so you could add your item 
in, in an air drop, at the last minute.
  So I would ask the majority to go back and take a look at this item 
and bring back something that stops the abuse of air drops, the last-
minute inclusion of earmarks that doesn't go through the review 
process, doesn't allow the public to know about it, and doesn't allow 
you and me as Members to be able to address this issue individually.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance, and I ask you to reconsider 
that before we move this item.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to one of the co-chairs of the Blue Dogs, my friend from 
California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. I thank my friend and gentleman from Florida.
  Madam Speaker, as a fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat, I rise 
in strong support of reinstating pay-as-you-go budgeting and the rules 
that accompany it.
  As Blue Dogs, we believe, as do the American people, that restoring 
fiscal responsibility in Washington is an urgent national priority. For 
far too long now under the previous leadership of this Congress and of 
the current White House, we have seen reckless fiscal policies that 
have undermined the future of America's economy. Now the time has come 
to take our country in a new and responsible direction.
  PAYGO rules are the centerpiece of the Blue Dog 12-point reform plan 
for putting an end to deficit spending. We know PAYGO rules work 
because they have in the past. During the 1990s, with PAYGO rules in 
place, the massive deficits that we were seeing at that time were 
converted into record surpluses. We saw the greatest period of economic 
growth and prosperity in American history. We can do that again, and we 
must. This will do, in fact, that.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And 
first I want to compliment the Democrats for earmark reform that is 
stronger than the Republicans did. Democrats in this way had more guts 
than we did to tackle earmark reform in a meaningful way, and I 
compliment them for that. And let me just note, though, with regard to 
earmarks something that was said a little earlier. It was said that we 
can't save money by eliminating earmarks. That is simply not true. It 
was not true when it was said on this side of the aisle last year, and 
it is not true when it is said from that side of the aisle today.
  It is like saying, and the best analogy that I think of is if you go 
to McDonald's and you order a combo meal and you are sitting there and 
you say, I am going to save money by not eating the French fries I just 
ordered, you are correct, you can't. That is the same analogy that is 
being made on that side. Once you get to the appropriation process, 
once the 302(a)s and 302(b)s are already set, that is right, you are 
not going to save money. But you can save money by not ordering the 
combo meal, by saying, We are going to be spending, we spent last year 
$3 billion in earmarks in this bill, let's lower our allocation and 
let's spend less.
  So this notion that we can't save money by deciding not to spend 
money on a teapot museum or the Wisconsin procurement initiative is 
simply not right.
  But I appreciate, and again I want to compliment, the Democrats for 
doing stronger earmark reform than we did.
  Let me make a few comments about PAYGO. If you are going to do PAYGO, 
I would argue do it whole hog. Let's apply it to mandatory spending; 
let's apply it to automatic adjustments that come up in the 
appropriation process every year. This PAYGO reform is incomplete, and 
it may simply lead to tax increases because you will say the only way 
we can make this mandatory adjustment is to increase taxes. So the 
PAYGO restrictions, it is disappointing that they aren't stronger. I 
would support PAYGO on spending. There is a difference between saying 
you can keep your own money or we are going to spend your money. And 
that ought to be made plain in PAYGO.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to my friend from Utah (Mr. Matheson). Jim came here fighting 
for fiscal responsibility and continues that effort.
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this provision. 
This is a great first start. It is a great first start that this is in 
the rule; but I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), this 
ought to be done in a statutory way. And, quite frankly, if we want to 
replicate the success of the 1990s, you have got to include spending 
caps, too, and I hope that we work together in a bipartisan way to do 
that. Because that is really, if we want to have fiscal responsibility, 
you have got to put some teeth in this and you have got to make us all 
live under what are going to be some tough circumstances. But as a 
first step, I am pleased this is part of the rules package. I endorse 
it, I encourage people to support it, and I hope we recognize this as a 
first step and we are all going to work together to employ all of the 
12 points of the Blue Dog plan that are really going to give fiscal 
responsibility back to this country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to title IV. I am a 
fiscal conservative and I strongly support a balanced budget, fiscal 
discipline, and earmark reform; but I am afraid that this version of 
PAYGO means taxes will go up.
  I think that the problem that we have had between the two sides of 
the aisle is over what is spending and what is tax relief. And I think 
that we see tax relief as tax relief and that it is the people's money 
and they know best how to spend it; and the other side of the aisle 
includes tax relief as spending. So I think until we can iron out that 
difference, I think we are going to have problems.
  Madam Speaker, the Wall Street Journal today in an editorial called 
``Tax As You Go,'' that is January 5, puts it best and much better than 
I can say it and I would just like to quote a couple of lines from 
there. It says: ``PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending 
discipline while making it all but impossible to let the taxpayers keep 
more of their money. It really should be called spend and tax as you 
go.'' I would urge everyone to look at this Wall Street Journal, and I 
submit it for inclusion into the Record.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007]

                             Tax As You Go

       Congressional Democrats are dashing out of the gates to 
     establish their fiscal conservative credentials. And as early 
     as today

[[Page H76]]

     House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push through so-called ``pay-
     as-you-go'' budget rules for Congress. Keep an eye on your 
     wallet.
       ``Paygo,'' as Washington insiders call it, sounds like a 
     fiscally prudent budget practice: If government spends more 
     on program A, it has to spend less money on program B, and 
     thus budget deficits will be restrained. We're all for that. 
     But when Republicans proposed exactly that budget rule in 
     recent years, House Democrats voted it down.
       Ms. Pelosi has something different in mind. Under her paygo 
     plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would 
     have to be offset by either cutbacks in other entitlement 
     programs or tax increases. This version of paygo is a budget 
     trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures but to make it 
     easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts.
       Supporters of paygo claim it will help restrain entitlement 
     spending. It won't. Paygo doesn't apply to current 
     entitlements that will grow automatically over the next 
     several decades. Ms. Pelosi's version of paygo applies only 
     to new entitlements or changes in law that expand current 
     programs.
       And on present trajectory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
     Security, food stamps and the like are scheduled to increase 
     federal spending to almost 38% of GDP by 2050, up from 21% 
     today. Paygo won't stop a dime of that increase. This may 
     explain why one of the leading supporters of paygo is the 
     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal outfit that 
     favors far more social spending.
       Paygo enthusiasts also claim that when these rules were in 
     effect in the 1990s the budget deficit disappeared and by 
     2001 the budget recorded a $121 billion surplus. Sorry. The 
     budget improvement in the late 1990s was a result of three 
     events wholly unrelated to paygo: the initial spending 
     restraint under the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 as 
     part of their pledge to balance the budget; a huge reduction 
     in military spending, totaling nearly 2% of GDP, over the 
     decade; and rapid economic growth, which always causes a 
     bounce in revenues. Paygo didn't expire until 2002, but by 
     the late 1990s politicians in both parties were already re-
     stoking the domestic spending fires.
       What paygo does restrain are tax cuts, by requiring that 
     any tax cut be offset dollar-for-dollar with some entitlement 
     reduction. Congressional budgeteers always overestimate the 
     revenue losses from tax cuts, which under paygo would require 
     onerous budget cuts to ``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a 
     political matter, those spending cuts will never happen.
       First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the 
     investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010. 
     Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new 
     Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender, 
     gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could 
     enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the 
     Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million.
       Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and 
     dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record 
     $550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally, 
     thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax 
     revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in 
     just two years--without paygo.
       Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some 
     conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our 
     friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become 
     obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised 
     Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage 
     notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from 
     any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003, 
     it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would 
     ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about 
     returning Republicans to their historical minority role as 
     tax collectors for the welfare state.
       That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly 
     desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to 
     identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and 
     failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the 
     budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore 
     spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules 
     would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic 
     agenda.
       Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending 
     discipline while making it all but impossible to let 
     taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be 
     called ``spend and tax as you go.''

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The Bush administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion 
surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit, and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would come here and complain that we are 
cleaning up their mess.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from California, 
the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Schiff.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to speak 
very strongly in favor of these PAYGO rules as a very strong step to 
restoring fiscal responsibility to this House.
  Over the last 6 years, the President and the Republican-controlled 
Congress essentially had a policy of borrow and spend. We didn't have 
the discipline to turn down new spending requests; we didn't have the 
discipline to pay for additional tax cuts. We even had, in the most 
ironic of weeks, a situation where we voted to increase the national 
debt by $800 billion in the same week we voted to cut taxes by $800 
billion, and we made it very clear that we were borrowing the money to 
fund these additional tax cuts.

                              {time}  1145

  This is not the way to restore fiscal responsibility to this House. 
PAYGO is. The first rule of PAYGO is when you are in a hole, as we are 
in, when you are in a budgetary hole, stop digging. If we want new 
spending, we need to find a way to pay for it. If we want new tax cuts, 
that is great, too, we need to find a way to pay for it. And we cannot 
pay for it by asking these young men and women fighting for us in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and elsewhere to come home and pay for it later and 
have their children pay for it. Because right now all we are doing is 
shifting this obligation onto our children and grandchildren. That has 
got to stop.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to a gentleman from Indiana whose committee was called, ``Bring 
back Baron'' and I am very glad we brought back Baron.
  Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank you for 
waiting for 12 years to sit in the Speaker's chair. I also thank you 
for the opportunity to speak on an issue that I think is one of the 
most important actions we can take for the American people.
  I am a proud member of the Blue Dog Coalition. I have been 
advocating, along with my colleagues in the Blue Dogs for years that 
the House implement rules that ensure that the Federal Government's 
expenditures equal its revenues, otherwise known as PAYGO.
  PAYGO rules will not only help us rein in out-of-control spending 
that has led to record deficits, but they will also help us clearly 
outline our country's priorities.
  Including PAYGO rules as part of the House rules package is a great 
first step. And I, along with my Blue Dog colleagues, will work with 
leadership to ensure that they are followed. However, it is a first 
step. We must also work together to enact statutory rules for PAYGO as 
well as discretionary spending limits.
  Madam Speaker, thank you again for this opportunity for the House and 
the country to get its spending in check.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here, and I am glad that 
the Democrats are interested in fiscal discipline. That is a good 
thing. It is a good bipartisan debate. But there are three flaws in the 
Democrat PAYGO approach that I think are very important.
  Number one, this tax issue that just won't go away. You know, based 
on scoring and based on reality and based on fact, when Kennedy cut 
taxes, when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush cut taxes, revenues went up.
  Now we all know that scoring in this town counts a tax cut as a 
spending increase. How silly in the face of economic reality over the 
past 40 years.
  Maybe the Democrat Party could look at scoring and change that. I 
think that is something we were unable to do as the majority. It would 
be a good idea for you to pursue it. But you and I both know that 
revenues went up in 2005 14 percent, in 2006 11 percent, and it was 
because of the economic growth brought about by the 2003 Bush tax cuts. 
PAYGO ignores that. How silly. How disingenuous.
  Number two, I want to talk about entitlement reform. The big money, 
while I think we do need earmark reform and have supported it, but the 
big money, as we know, are in entitlements: 53 percent of the budget.
  The Democrats were getting a lot of good credit for what I would say 
is kind of a golden oldies agenda, bringing out no original ideas, 
minimum wage, stem cell and student loans. And I understand those are 
safe things. But it is kind of like starting out the World Series by 
bunting instead of trying to get on base with real serious hits.

[[Page H77]]

  The reason why I submit that criticism is there is nothing in your 
agenda about immigration reform, Social Security reform, Medicare 
reform, the heavy-lifting ideas of entitlement, and PAYGO completely 
ignores those as well.
  Number three, the real world, where is the Senate on PAYGO? My friend 
from Florida may know, but isn't it possible that unless they are going 
to do PAYGO, it is a silly exercise. It is boilerplate. It looks good, 
but the truth is if the Senate is not on board, which they are not, we 
are wasting time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I say to my friend from Georgia that what I do know is he is not 
proud of the $3 trillion deficit that his party ran up in this country 
that we have the responsibility of cleaning up. I hope he is not proud 
of that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida, a new Member, whose district abuts mine, Mr. Mahoney.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today representing 
Florida's 16th District in support of title IV of the House rules 
package to return fiscal responsibility to Congress.
  As a former businessman, as of a couple of days ago, I cannot 
overstress the importance of restoring fiscal discipline and 
accountability to our government. Over the past 6 years, this House has 
allowed record surpluses to be turned into record deficits that have 
increased our national debt to a nearly staggering $9 trillion.
  Earmarks, an important prerogative of this great body, have been 
abused for the purposes of greed and as a tool to hold onto power, 
costing Americans billions of their hard-earned money. Make no mistake, 
our debt is a tax on America's future as it threatens both the security 
and prosperity of our country.
  Today we have the opportunity to demonstrate to the American people 
that we have heard their voices this past November and we are prepared 
to make our government live within its means, just like every American 
family. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support title IV.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very 
pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  (Ms. BEAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the House rules 
package, and especially title IV which reinstalls PAYGO budget rules.
  One of the reasons I came to Congress was to bring real world 
business perspective to government. In the business world, 
accountability and results matter. To get our fiscal house in order, 
Congress must do what every business does: Balance its books. If it is 
worth doing, it is worth paying for. We must pay as we go. It is a 
simple concept with a proven track record.
  I am pleased Congress is returning from the recent borrow-and-spend 
irresponsibility to fiscal soundness and the accountability our 
constituents expect.
  I want to thank the Blue Dog Coalition and my colleagues for their 
leadership on this issue. Today's vote is a result of their steadfast 
guidance of our Democratic Caucus and Congress on the importance of 
fiscal responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the Blue Dog's lead and support 
reinstituting pay-as-you-go budget rules. Now accountability in 
government will be more than just a catch phrase.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida.
  I rise basically to support my colleagues for introducing this 
important and long overdue rules package. This sets the tone for a more 
open and ethical Congress. In addition to other changes, the resolution 
creates important pay-as-you-go rules to clean up our fiscal house.
  As a successful business owner, I learned the importance of balancing 
the books. If I hadn't, I would not have been successful in business. 
Our government needs to live by the same rule, and I join my fellow 
Blue Dogs to push PAYGO as part of the solution to the problems we are 
experiencing today.
  We know it works. When PAYGO was on the books in the 1990s, we saw 
the deficits disappear. Now with an out-of-control national debt, we 
need PAYGO more than ever. We need fiscal responsibility in America.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  First off, I want to start off by congratulating the majority on the 
very commendable earmark reform legislation that is contained in this 
title. I just want to emphasize that. But this PAYGO package is 
woefully inadequate. It is a paper tiger.
  Three quick points. Number one, this protects all current spending, 
even the programs that are scheduled to expire. However, it assumes 
that expiring tax relief will lapse; and, thus, require offsets to 
continue. This is a double standard that reflects their preference, 
protect higher spending but not lower taxes. It is a recipe for tax 
increases.
  Number two, it contains a huge loophole. Spend now, save later. You 
can enact new spending now and come up with savings down the road, 
which we know never really happens. Big loophole.
  Number three, this is a weaker version of PAYGO than what the 
majority was proposing just last year. They were not allowing points of 
order to be waived when you violated a PAYGO rule in their earlier 
version. But now when they are in the majority, you can simply waive it 
with a majority vote upstairs in the Rules Committee.
  This is a much weaker version of PAYGO. But I want to address a few 
other things.
  Number one, you are going to hear this all year: They gave us a 
surplus. We inherited a surplus; we squandered the surplus.
  Madam Speaker, what was the surplus? The surplus was a projection. It 
was a projection by economists at OMB and CBO that said we are going to 
have all of this money coming in.
  You know what they didn't project, they didn't project 9/11. They 
didn't project war. They didn't project the dot-com bubble bursting or 
the recession or the Enron scandals. What did that do? It was a fiscal 
train wreck for America, and our numbers went down and we had to spend 
more money when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Where are we today? The budget deficit went down 40 percent. In 1 
year, the budget deficit went down 40 percent off projections. Why, 
Madam Speaker? It went down that much because revenues increased. Why 
did revenues increase, because we let the American people keep more of 
their own hard-earned dollars. They were able to keep more of their tax 
dollars.
  There is a very deep difference between our two parties on principle 
and on philosophy. We believe that the money in America in the Federal 
Government is the people's money. That the money we spend is not our 
money, it is the money of our constituents. It is their money.
  When you see rules like this, which I want to quote from the Wall 
Street Journal: PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending 
discipline while making it all but impossible to let taxpayers keep 
more of their own money. It should really be called spend and tax as 
you go.
  This bill does nothing to control current spending. It does nothing 
to reduce the current deficit, and it puts us on a path to raise taxes.
  We believe the priorities ought to be different: That we ought to 
control spending and reduce spending to balance the budget, not raise 
taxes because after all, the money that comes to the Federal Government 
is not our money. It is the people's money. It comes from the paychecks 
of working Americans, men and women, small businesses, farmers and 
businesses. By letting people keep more of their own hard-earned 
dollar, our economy grows, revenues grow. We have to watch spending. 
That is where the priorities ought to be placed. This does not deliver 
that.
  Hopefully we can work together in the future to have a real spending

[[Page H78]]

mechanism that actually controls spending rather than puts us on a 
pathway to higher taxes.
  Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this legislation because of the 
honorable earmark reforms.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to Mr. Ryan that the Democrats are 2 days 
in the majority. The Republicans were 12 years in the majority with the 
purse strings, and this deficit ran up on your watch.
  On the second day that we are here talking about what we are going to 
do as a first step to clean up your mess, you would complain? Cut me 
some slack.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) 
such time as he may consume.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. EMANUEL. Six years, $3 trillion in new debt. The largest 
accumulation of debt in the shortest period of time in American 
history. That is the legacy. And the one thing you can say about George 
Bush and this economy is we will be forever in your debt. That is the 
one thing that is clear.
  Now, folks, I am glad that you have the sentiment to be for this, but 
you had the inability to do it. We are going to do something you talked 
about, but we actually are going to walk the walk and not just talk the 
talk. We are going to put this fiscal house in order.
  And you did get handed a surplus prior to total Republican control. 
You got handed a surplus. It wasn't illusory. Nobody could not find it. 
We knew exactly where it was. And you spent it. You did something no 
American President and no Congress had ever tried in American history. 
Three wars, three tax cuts, $3 trillion in new debt. I don't know what 
your fixation is about that. You have got a fixation for the number 
three. I have no idea why. But that is what you did. You had a war in 
Iraq, a war on terror, a war in Afghanistan. You tried three major tax 
cuts, and you got $3 trillion in new debt. And on day number two, the 
Democrats have said enough is enough with running up the debt and the 
deficit of this country. We are going to begin to take steps to put our 
fiscal house in order.
  And let's start with number one, and that is earmark reform. When the 
Republican Congress took over in 1995, throughout the entire Federal 
budget, 1,400 earmarks. At the end of the Republican Congress, there 
were 13,997 earmarks. Now, I know your kids know the explosion on those 
numbers from 1,400 to nearly 14,000 earmarks. And we are going to use 
the disinfectant of sunlight. And everybody is going to know everything 
they need to know about these earmarks.
  Now let me use one quote over the years when we were dealing with 
earmarks. A famous lobbyist called earmarks ``an ATM for lobbyists.'' 
Well, folks, that is part of ethics and lobbying reform, and we are 
going to change that. It is not going to be an ATM machine for the 
special interests anymore because this Congress, that gavel, is going 
to open up the people's House, not the auction house. And that is what 
has happened here over the years.
  Number two, pay-as-you-go rules. I worked for an administration that 
had pay-as-you-go rules. It created discipline not just for 
Republicans, not just for Democrats. For the government. For the 
American people's money. And we created a surplus through hard work and 
discipline. These two steps, pay-as-you-go rules, no new spending 
without the revenue to pay for them; and earmark reform, will actually 
change our fiscal house and also the attitude in which we deal with 
things, and there won't be this insidious relationship between 
lobbyists and the American people's money. We will do what we need to 
do. And step one is lobbying and ethics reform, to change how 
Washington does the people's business; and step two is to put their 
government's fiscal house in order. That is what we are doing, and I 
know in your heart of hearts because I know you as individuals, and I 
see a number of Members here who are nodding their heads ``yes,'' you 
would like to be for this, but you just can't seem to find that little 
green button. So this is a chance to vote for it.
  Remember all the rhetoric and all the speeches you gave on earmark 
reform, fiscal discipline. You believe what is going on here is the 
right thing to do. You know it is the right thing to do. But because of 
party loyalties, you won't do that. That is exactly what we applauded 
yesterday was to put partisanship aside and join us in the act of 
patriotism. I know you would like to vote ``yes.'' In your heart of 
hearts you would like to vote ``yes.'' And I am proud that we are doing 
what you have only talked about because we will not just talk the talk. 
We will walk the walk.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Pay-as-you-go was the law of the land from 1990 until 2002, paving 
the way for a balanced budget in the late 1990s, 4 years of budget 
surpluses, and bringing down the national debt by $453 billion. The 
Bush administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion surplus 
into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. America's debt has already climbed 
50 percent to more than $28,000 per person, and President Bush has 
borrowed more from foreign nations than the previous 42 United States 
Presidents combined.
  Something has to change and that change is coming now. The pay-as-
you-go budgeting with no new deficit spending is just a first step, a 
key first step, in reversing record budget deficits.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
Title IV 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 restore fiscal responsibility, open government, and 
honest leadership to the House of Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the ``pay as 
you go'' or ``paygo'' rules contained in Title IV. We must restore 
budget discipline with no new deficit spending as the first step to 
reversing record budget deficits that are passing trillions in debt on 
to our children and grandchildren. We must also amend House rules to 
require full transparency in order to begin to end the abuse of special 
interest earmarks.
  Madam Speaker, the Bush Administration has turned a projected 10-year 
$5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. Under this 
Administration, America's debt has climbed 50 percent to more than 
$28,000 per person, and the United States has borrowed more from 
foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined. Rising 
interest rates caused by Bush deficits cost middle-class families as 
much as $1,700 a year on credit card and mortgage payments, with 
interest payments on the debt becoming one of the fastest growing 
categories of spending in the federal budget.
  Madam Speaker, pay-as-you-go was the law of the land from 1990 until 
2002, paving the way for a balanced budget in the late 1990s, four 
years of budget surpluses, and bringing down the national debt by $453 
billion.
  Forty-two percent of the American public says reducing the deficit 
should be a top priority. On November 5, 1990, President George H.W. 
Bush signed a deficit reduction bill imposing pay-as you-go discipline 
in a bipartisan deal supported by 47 House Republicans and 19 Senate 
Republicans. Republicans such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan and Senator John McCain support pay-as-you-go budgeting. It 
is supported by the Concord Coalition, the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and the 
Committee for Economic Development.
  Madam Speaker, earmark reform is needed to bring transparency and 
accountability for special projects. The status quo has permitted some 
Members of Congress, with no transparency and accountability, to 
provide favors to special friends through earmarked special projects--
putting special interests ahead of the public interest. The American 
people deserve to know who is sponsoring earmarks to begin to stop the 
cases of flagrant abuse of earmarks.
  The number of earmarks has exploded under the Republicans, climbing 
from 3,023 in FY 1996 to 13,012 in FY 2006, and the lack of 
transparency and accountability has led to problems--of which Rep. 
Cunningham is an example. Former Representative Duke Cunningham pleaded 
guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors in return for his 
help in securing defense contracts.
  The Democratic reform package will amend House rules to clearly 
define what constitutes an earmark, along with its proper use. 
Specifically, the package will prohibit earmarks that personally 
benefit Members and their spouses.

[[Page H79]]

Earmark reform under Democrats will ban earmarks that benefit lobbyists 
who chair a Member's Political Action Committee.
  Madam Speaker, to restore public confidence in this institution, we 
must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most 
responsive, most fiscally responsible Congress in history. We can end 
the nightmare of the last six years by putting the needs of the 
American people ahead of partisan political advantage. To do that, we 
must start by adopting Title III of H.R. 6, the fiscal responsibility 
reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th 
Congress.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
change and real Pay-As-You-Go or ``Pay-Go'' budget requirements.
  Madam Speaker, the 109th Session of Congress left behind a legacy 
that is certain to go down in the annals of history as the height of 
fiscal irresponsibility. Unless you consider an additional $781 billion 
extension of the debt limit, the fourth of a series approved since 2003 
that added an additional $3 trillion in new debt, the 109th Session can 
boast of no budgetary accomplishment.
  In fact, it failed in its most basic responsibility: passing a budget 
for the Federal Government and failing to enact 9 of the 11 regular 
spending bills that fund the government's operations.
  But, it simply didn't just fail pass a budget, it actually made the 
Nation's fiscal problems worse. It took what it already knew were large 
projected deficits and passed legislation that makes them even larger 
in future years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
legislation enacted last session actually increases the projected 
budget deficits by $452 billion above what they would have been between 
2005 and 2011 had they never been in session.
  Over the course of the past 5 years, with full control of the White 
House and both chambers of Congress, the Republican leadership 
inherited an estimated 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion and 
after 5 years has turned the same 10-year period (2002-2011) into a 
projected budget deficit of $3 trillion--a disastrous $8.6 trillion 
turnabout.
  This explosion of budget deficits is largely the result of 2 
irresponsible budget policies of the former Republican majority:
  First, was its decision to waive all budget rules and not to pay for 
the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, letting emergency spending 
bills be enacted within the discipline and restraints on the regular 
budget process; and
  Second, was to make tax cuts its highest priority, enacting a series 
of tax cuts, targeted primarily at the wealthiest Americans and 
corporations that need them the least, with no offsets.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 3 major tax cuts 
enacted over the past 5 years cost $1.5 trillion between 2001 and 2014. 
The actual number is somewhat higher once you tack on the additional 
costs of debt-servicing.
  I don't pretend to have all the answers to solve our fiscal problems. 
But, one thing we should not do is more harm. We should not increase 
the amount of debt our children will inherit.
  Adopting a real Pay-Go requirement as part of the Rules for the 110th 
Congress will keep this institution and the White House from digging an 
even larger budget deficit hole.
  The pay-go rule we are considering today is not unlike the original 
one adopted as part of the 1993 budget agreement that required any 
spending or revenue measure we consider before the full House be fully 
offset and not increase the budget deficit.
  The first Pay-Go requirements were adopted in 1993 as part of the 
largest deficit reduction package that Congress ever approved; a 
package that passed both chambers with a single Republican vote. It 
included both real spending cuts and real tax increases and placed us 
on a course toward balanced budgets.
  The Pay-Go requirements were subsequently extended as part of the 
1995 bipartisan budget agreement and closed the final gap in deficit 
spending that in 1999 produced the first balanced budget in more than 
30 years.
  We would be in a much better situation today had the original ``Pay-
Go'' rule remained in effect.
  Instead, a Republican-controlled Congress allowed the Pay-Go 
requirements to expire, enabling them to adopt irresponsible tax cuts 
that are largely responsible for the deficits we face today.
  Adopting a true Pay-Go rule today gets us back on track toward 
responsible fiscal policy. I encourage my colleagues to support its 
inclusion in the Rules of the 110th Congress.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I rise to express concerns about the 
budget items in the Democrat Rules package.
  I believe that we can do better and this proposal does not go far 
enough. I am committed to curtailing special-interest, pork-barrel 
spending and reforming earmarks.
  While on the face it appears Democrats are concerned about reducing 
the deficit because they mention Reconciliation. This is only smoke and 
mirrors. Simply put, the language in their rules package makes it easy 
to raise taxes and difficult to reduce them. The language allows the 
use of expedited procedures (budget reconciliation) to raise taxes. At 
the same time, the language prohibits using reconciliation for tax 
relief.
  We need transparency, accountability, and better control for the 
federal spending process. Earmark Reform and Reconciliation are 
baseless without a Rescission process for cutting spending.
  Businesses and families often review their planned budget with actual 
spending on a monthly basis to spot and eliminate unnecessary spending. 
While common sense would lead taxpayers to believe that similar 
oversight exists for our federal budget, this would be wrong. Congress 
has no formal process that allows members to force votes to trim 
wasteful spending at any time after federal spending gets signed into 
law.
  Soon I plan to introduce my legislation, the Cut the Unnecessary Tab 
(CUT) resolution, that would make any unspent federal funding 
vulnerable to a recorded vote for cuts at the beginning of each fiscal 
quarter. Any Member of the House could offer an amendment to these 
quarterly bills to cut spending.
  Under my bill, Members of Congress will have four opportunities every 
year to propose elimination of programs that are superfluous or 
incompetent. This gives Congress a tool that individual Members can use 
to bring the chamber into commonsense spending cuts. No longer would 
any Member of Congress have the excuse that one individual acting alone 
would not have a way to reform the Federal Government's spending.
  It is my hope that the Democrats live up to their promise for no new 
deficit spending. However, I fear that it's a plan to raise taxes. The 
resolution allows Democrats to increase spending as much as they like--
as long as they ``pay for'' it by cutting other spending or--more 
likely--by chasing that spending with ever-higher taxes. This watered 
down PAYGO proposal does not reduce current spending--it stops tax 
cuts. This PAYGO applies only to NEW spending. All previous PAYGO 
versions were enforced by across-the-board spending cuts--that's what 
created the incentive to control spending. But the Democrats' PAYGO is 
enforced only by a point of order--which they can easily waive for 
their pet spending increases.
  Congress can and must do better. The easiest and best way to stop the 
growth of federal spending and let American families keep more of their 
hard earned taxpayer dollars is to make these tough decisions now.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Title IV Sec. 
405 Pay-As-You-Go rules before the House today. I support these rules 
that will enable us to patch a sinking ship. The Republican tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans have driven us into permanent deficit 
spending. These rules will stop the sacrifice of the nation's well 
being for the benefit of the few.
  I continue to be concerned about our weakened economy and the 
shrinking industrial base. I believe Congress should be enacting 
measures that will expand the economy, revitalize the rust belt, expand 
our manufacturing base, prime the pump when needed in recession, and 
invest in infrastructure improvements. I believe Congress should enact 
universal healthcare for all and universal pre-kindergarten. Unlike the 
irresponsible tax cuts in the past 4 years, I am prepared to ensure 
these programs do not run up deficits over the long term. This can all 
be accomplished under these rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on the portion of 
the divided question comprising title IV.
  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. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The portion of the divided question comprising title V is now 
debatable for 10 minutes.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.

[[Page H80]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, since the title of 
the rules package that we are seeking to debate now includes five 
closed rules for legislation that we haven't seen and we only have 10 
minutes to debate this title, I ask unanimous consent for 1 hour of 
debate, at least 1 hour of debate, for these, in effect, five closed 
rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  ``The disinfectant of sunlight,'' Madam Speaker. I just heard that 
term.
  The alternation of power can sometimes be healthy, often be healthy 
in democracy. Progress is made by the cumulative efforts and reforms of 
succeeding generations in this Congress, often from both parties. But 
retrogression, Madam Speaker, from progress is neither healthy nor 
certainly commendable.
  As I mentioned before, in this section of the rules package brought 
forth by the new majority, first of all, the Rules Committee will no 
longer be required to disclose roll call votes on rules brought forth 
or amendments in committee. I believe, and I haven't heard it from the 
other side because no pretext has even been brought forth here in the 
House, but I believe that the pretext is for closing out sunshine 
completely in the Rules Committee, that some mistakes were made 
reporting in the past roll calls. In the last 12 years, there were over 
1,300 recorded votes in the Committee on Rules, and not once, Madam 
Speaker, did the committee file a report with incorrect vote totals.
  And then, as I made reference before, this title of the rules package 
that the majority brings forth includes five closed rules for 
legislation that we still haven't seen. And we have received a lot of 
criticism. I have heard a lot of criticism over the last years when we 
have come to the floor from the Rules Committee with closed rules, but 
at least we have had Rules Committees meetings and there has been an 
opportunity for Members to go to the Rules Committee and present 
amendments.
  Well, now we are, in this rules package, in a totally unprecedented 
manner, seeing that the majority is bringing forth five closed rules 
for bills that we haven't seen. And in addition, they are waiving all 
points of order, all points of order, against all of those five bills 
that we haven't even seen. So that is most unfortunate, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask how 
much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute 
to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
proposal. For the first time in more than a decade and in recent 
memory, the new House leadership, and this is hard to believe, is 
attempting to keep secret the votes of one of our most important 
committees, the Rules Committee. It determines which bills are sent to 
the House floor, for how long they may be debated, and what amendments 
the people's House will consider. It is a critical part of our 
democratic process. Hiding these votes from the public, cloaking this 
committee in secrecy where backroom deals are shielded from the 
American voter, is an outrageous and arrogant step backward from open 
and honest government. This is abuse of power that must be stopped. 
And, sadly, I will file a Freedom of Information Act request on every 
Rules Committee vote so that the American public can see what this 
committee is trying to hide.
  We ought to defeat this proposal
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me respond to my colleagues from 
Florida and Texas by simply saying you are wrong.
  Let me ask, has the gentleman yielded back all his time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, I have not.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  So not only can we not have an hour, but now we have to finish our 
debate before hearing our opponents.
  No, again, we heard ``the disinfectant of sunlight'' has arrived. An 
interesting definition for what has arrived, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, what we are voting on today, this rules package, this 
provision, this title V, constitutes serious retrogression from 
progress made in this Congress throughout generations of work, of 
reform, from both parties, that has brought openness and transparency. 
The Rules Committee now is closed off from the public, and closed rules 
are brought to this floor in this rules package before we have even 
seen legislation. Most unfortunate, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the words of my colleagues from Texas and Florida. And I 
should remind my colleague from Florida when you are in the majority, 
you get to close debates. And he should have known that since he was in 
the majority for 12 years.
  And I think for anybody to talk about abuse of power, it takes a lot 
of chutzpah. I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas to look at 
what happened over the last 12 years in this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, this is the final title of the rules package. It 
consists of basic technical changes to the House rules.
  First, this title 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.

                              {time}  1215

  Second, it shields the 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 and 
committee reports and/or through other means, such as the Internet.
  Third, it 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.
  Fourth, this title continues the budget deeming resolution for the 
second session of the 109th Congress until such time as a conference 
report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2008 is adopted.
  Fifth and finally, this title renews the standing order approved 
during the 109th Congress that prohibits registered lobbyists from 
using Members' exercise facilities, which is something I know is very 
important to the Members on the other side of the aisle.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have focused a lot of 
attention incorrectly on the second provision regarding the publishing 
of votes taken in the Rules Committee.
  Let me explain in detail what this provision actually accomplishes 
and why we have included it in this package. Section 503 is a 
straightforward clerical change to clause 3(b), rule XIII, that will 
make it a little easier for the Rules Committee to transmit its work 
product to the House in a timely manner.
  Despite what you may hear from the other side of the aisle, this 
section will not reduce the amount of information available to the 
public about what we do in the Rules Committee, and it will not stop us 
from taking public votes in the committee.
  Let me make something else clear. The House rules already require 
committees to keep a record of all recorded votes and to make those 
votes available publicly.
  That requirement has been in the permanent rules since 1953. The 
Rules Committee has always and will always comply with that rule. In 
fact, it is our goal to make Rules Committee votes available to the 
public more quickly

[[Page H81]]

than they do under the current practices. Our committee often meets on 
short notice and under severe time restrictions.
  Unlike other committees, which usually have several days to put 
together reports, our committee is often required to assemble large, 
complex reports in a matter of hours. The proper reporting and filing 
of these reports in the House is essential to the efficient operation 
of the House.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, I will not. We sometimes report and file a special 
rule late one night, and the next morning the rule and the bill are on 
the House floor. There is just not much room for even minor clerical 
errors when you are under such tight deadlines. This rules change does 
not mean that the public will have any less access to what happens in 
the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker.
  We plan to include record votes in the Rules Committee reports and, 
even better, we intend to post committee votes on the Rules Committee 
Web site as soon as they have them, so that the American people will 
know what is going on.
  Even better than that, we plan to have more meetings during the 
daylight hours so that the public and the press know what we are doing 
in the Rules Committee.
  Well, let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you 
feel that the votes taken in the Rules Committee are not being made 
public fast enough, or are clear enough, you have my word that we will 
work to fix it, and we will work with you. You have my word on that.
  More importantly, Madam Speaker, after our business here in the House 
concludes today, we will have made historic progress. We will have 
ended the culture of corruption that has plagued this House for the 
past dozen years. We will have paved the way to accomplishing what the 
American people voted for, to give minimum wage workers a raise.
  Right now the average CEO of a Fortune 500 Company earns $10,712 in 1 
hour 16 minutes. It takes an average minimum wage worker 52, 40-hour 
weeks, an entire year, to earn the same $10,712. It is wrong, and we 
are going to fix it.
  We will have paved a way to make college tuition and prescription 
drugs more affordable, to make our homeland safer, by implementing the 
9/11 Commission recommendations, and to invest in lifesaving stem cell 
research. All of these measures, Madam Speaker, have been the subject 
of hearings. Many of them have been voted on. But the majority on the 
other side has stalled and undermined these measure at every step. No 
more.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, let me assure my friends, including the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida, that we will conduct the business 
of this House in a much more fair, civil and open way than has been the 
norm of the last 12 years. Your views will be heard more than ours 
were. Your ideas will be given more consideration than ours were. Your 
voices will be more respected than ours were, because that is the right 
way to run the people's House.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Title V of 
H. Res. 6 and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
  Since the election we have heard promises of grandeur from the new 
Democrat majority. They have promised to usher in a new era of 
civility, bi-partisanship, and cooperation into the halls of Congress. 
They have repeatedly stated that the American people want a civilized 
tone in Washington. But it appears the Democrats are ignoring their own 
message.
  In the opening hours of this Congress, with their very first piece of 
business, the Democrats have put forth a resolution that is the 
opposite of civility and transparency--indeed, a total contradiction of 
the way they pledged to conduct business. For the first time in the 
history of this body, Madam Speaker, the Democrats have included closed 
rules governing future debate in the House rules package, and have even 
gone so far as to prevent the Rules Committee from meeting to 
deliberate these rules or the larger rules package.
  But they did not stop there, Madam Speaker. After promising an open 
and fair process, the Democrats have allowed just 10 minutes of 
debate--that's 5 minutes per side--on Title V of this resolution.
  This is no small measure, Madam Speaker. Included in Title V are 
closed rules governing debate on stem-cell research, the 
recommendations of the 9/11 commission, the cost of prescription drugs, 
and the federal minimum wage. Certainly the American people expect a 
debate of ideas and the proper congressional process for some of the 
most important issues facing our Nation. Instead, the Democrats will 
deliver 10 minutes of debate.
  Further Madam Speaker, Title V of this resolution will prevent the 
votes of the Rules Committee from being made public. A veil of secrecy 
will fall over this critical committee they now control. This is not 
the transparency and accountability in our political process the 
Democrats have promised.
  So, Madam Speaker, it appears the new age of the Democrat majority 
will unfortunately not live up to its much-hyped billing. Instead of 
more openness, fairness, and transparency, the Democrats have revealed 
the hypocritical nature of their disingenuous promises with their very 
first piece of legislation. Reneging on their campaign promises in the 
opening hours of this session is no way to build the spirit of trust 
and cooperation across the aisle.
  Madam Speaker, I hope for the sake of the American people that the 
Democrats start adhering to their pre-election rhetoric and conduct the 
business of this body in a civilized manner.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 6, 
the House Rules Package for the 110th Congress. With the passage of 
this resolution, we are committing ourselves to restore honest 
leadership, civility, and fiscal responsibility to the U.S. House of 
Representatives. It is a commitment that we owe to our constituents and 
to our Nation.
  Unfortunately, over the past several years, the House of 
Representatives was transformed from the people's House into a 
legislative body where those who could afford to make their influence 
felt far too often held sway. Legislation was enacted that benefited 
the wealthy few instead of the vast majority. Legislation was enacted--
often in the middle of the night--without time for review or careful 
consideration. Legislation was enacted to benefit those who could 
afford to pay for fancy meals and golf vacations while legislation that 
would improve wages and the quality of life for working Americans was 
ignored. The process was abused, votes were held open, and amendments 
were prohibited from being offered. The losers have been the American 
public.
  Perhaps the single best example of these abuses is the Medicare 
Modernization Act, a law which actually prohibits Medicare from 
negotiating for drug savings, as the VA and large employers do today, 
and by doing so guarantees that senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities will pay more than they should for the drugs that they 
need. This law would not have been enacted if pharmaceutical companies 
had not been allowed to use undue influence, if Democratic conferees 
had not been locked out of the negotiations, if Members had not been 
intimidated on the House floor, and if the final vote had not been held 
open for nearly 3 hours to change the outcome.
  During the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will eliminate 
this prohibition and require that Medicare use its bargaining clout on 
behalf of consumers. Today, we are taking steps to make sure that the 
procedural abuses that were used to enact that prohibition will become 
a relic of the past.
  We also begin the 110th Congress by putting our financial house in 
order. The past 6 years of fiscal mismanagement has turned a $5.6 
trillion surplus into an over $3 trillion deficit. The passage of H. 
Res. 6 will help us get our current debt and financial crisis under 
control while allowing us to make the investments needed for American 
families and our economic future.
  With the restoration of pay-as-you-go budgeting, Congress will not be 
able to increase the deficit and make future generations of Americans 
carry a debt load so that today's wealthy can get tax cuts like the 
ones passed over the past few years. According to the non-partisan 
Congressional Budget Office, those tax cuts, which primarily benefit 
the very rich, are the main cause of our country's fiscal reversal. 
Reining in the spiraling debt will give us a chance to invest in our 
communities, create jobs, provide retirement security, and stimulate 
our economy.
  Transparency requirements for earmarks will also help us make certain 
that taxpayers' dollars are put to good use while eliminating wasteful 
spending. I believe that district-specific earmarks on appropriations 
or other legislation should not be provided unless they directly 
improve our communities. Requiring better disclosure of sponsorship of 
earmarks and ensuring that Members have no personal financial interest 
in the request will help us guarantee that the funding is targeted to 
essential infrastructure improvements, community development, vital 
research, and other important programs. Congress has a long history of 
providing earmarks for such projects, and I support their continued 
funding and eliminating

[[Page H82]]

the abuses of earmarks like the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
  H. Res. 6 is the first action of the 110th Congress. By its passage, 
we are demonstrating to the American public that we are going to return 
the House of Representatives to its rightful role as being the people's 
House--not just in procedures but also in policy.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, today the House of 
Representatives will consider an important package of reforms that, 
when adopted by this chamber, will take the first necessary steps 
toward restoring fiscal responsibility in our government. I am proud to 
be a cosponsor of these measures, which will allow us to undertake the 
critical tasks of balancing our budget and controlling our national 
debt.
  For too long, our government has operated under a ``buy now, pay 
later'' philosophy that, if left unchanged, will force our children and 
grandchildren to foot the bill with increasingly dire consequences. The 
fiscal responsibility provisions put forward today will help us avoid 
this generational buck passing by imposing some much-needed discipline 
on the budgeting process. The package of reforms put forward today 
accomplishes that by preventing the House from considering budget 
measures that would increase the federal deficit.
  One of the most important reforms we are advancing today is the 
reinstitution of ``PAYGO'' rules to govern the Congressional budgeting 
process. Although the overall budget process can be technical and 
complex, ``PAYGO'' simply means what it sounds like: you pay as you go. 
The ``PAYGO'' provision creates a barrier to passing legislation that 
would further inflate our huge national deficit and mortgage our 
country's future.
  Congress operated under ``PAYGO'' rules from 1990 until 2002 with 
clear results. Under the ``PAYGO'' constraints on spending, our 
government was able to balance the budget, create budget surpluses, and 
reduce the national debt by $453 billion. Since the mistaken move away 
from the ``PAYGO'' rules, deficit spending is back and our national 
debt has spiraled out of control. As of today, the total national debt 
is almost an astonishing $8.7 trillion or almost $29,000 for every 
person in the United States. Disturbingly, much of this debt is held by 
America's economic competitors, including China. Instead of 
demonstrating the leadership needed to turn this dangerous fiscal tide, 
our government has not taken steps to curtail earmarks, our President 
has never vetoed a spending bill, and we have yet to demonstrate the 
will to do what is necessary.
  I am proud to say that with today's reform package we can begin to 
change that. It is in our vital interest to get spending under control 
to eliminate deficits and return to paying down our debt. It will 
require difficult choices and the will to change business as usual in 
Washington, but it is our responsibility to meet that challenge by 
passing these reforms.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rules 
package before us. As we begin the important work of the 110th 
Congress, it is imperative that we set the tone for how the people's 
work will be conducted in this chamber, which is the people's House.
  In the November elections, Democrats offered Americans a new 
direction and a more ethical Congress. The American people responded 
with great clarity. Exit polls revealed that 74 percent of voters in 
November cited corruption as an important issue in determining their 
vote.
  Now it is our turn to act. That's why we are taking immediate steps 
to fulfill the promise of a more ethical Congress by passing a 
comprehensive rules package that bans gifts and travel from lobbyists; 
requires adequate time to review legislation and bans the insertion of 
special interest provisions in the `dead of the night' to ensure that 
Members have time to read the bills being considered and know exactly 
what is in them; mandates annual ethics training for all Members and 
staff; curbs abuses of voting time to ensure that votes are not held 
open to change the outcome; requires full disclosure of all earmarks, 
as well as requiring that a Member certify that earmarks do not 
financially benefit them or their spouses; and reinstates Pay-As-You-Go 
budget rules to prevent all new spending and tax cuts from adding to 
the federal debt.
  Passage of this legislative package will begin the process of 
restoring integrity to the House of Representatives, assuring the 
people of our country that we are here on their behalf, not our own. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this rules package.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California). Pursuant to 
clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings will resume on questions previously 
postponed.
  Votes will be taken in the following order:
  Adoption of title III of House Resolution 6, by the yeas and nays;
  Adoption of title IV of House Resolution 6, by the yeas and nays.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
  The pending business is the vote on adoption of title III of House 
Resolution 6, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on that portion of the 
divided question.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 430, 
noes 0, not voting 5, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               YEAS--430

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     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 (KY)
     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)
     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
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     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)

[[Page H83]]


     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
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Barton (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Neal (MA)
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1246

  Ms. WATERS changed her 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the vote on adoption 
of title IV of House Resolution 6, on which the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on that portion of the 
divided question.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280, 
nays 152, not voting 3, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               YEAS--280

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     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
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     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
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Neal (MA)

                              {time}  1259

  Mr. WELLER of Illinois and Mr. POE changed their 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). Pursuant to House Resolution 
5, the previous question is ordered on the portion of the divided 
question comprising title V.
  The question is on that portion of the divided question.


           Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin moves to commit the resolution (H. 
     Res. 6) 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:
       After section 510, insert the following new sections, and 
     redesignate the following sections (and cross references 
     thereto) accordingly:

     SEC. 511. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH 
                   PLANS

       On January 16, 2007, or, if the House is not in session on 
     such day, the next day on which the House is in session 
     thereafter, following the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall immediately proceed to 
     the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 241) to 
     amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with 
     small businesses with respect to medical care for their 
     employees. 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 and any amendment thereto 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 with or without instructions to be offered by the 
     Majority Leader or his designee.

     SEC. 512. 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

[[Page H84]]

     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.''.

  Mr. McGOVERN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 5, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
  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. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This 15-minute vote on the motion to commit 
will be followed by a 5-minute vote on title V of House Resolution 6, 
if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200, 
nays 232, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               YEAS--200

     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
     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
     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

[[Page H85]]


     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
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     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
     Neal (MA)

                              {time}  1320

  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). The question is on the portion 
of the divided question comprising title V.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 200, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 11]

                               YEAS--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
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     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

                               NAYS--200

     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
     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
     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--3

     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Neal (MA)

                              {time}  1328

  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.

                          ____________________