[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.
____________________