[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 11 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H769-H772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, 
Mr. Hoyer, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are going to meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour on Monday and at 
2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under 
suspension of the rules, including, and every Member ought to pay 
attention closely to this announcement, to the important bill, I think 
frankly it is going to pass with every Member's vote; we will consider 
several bills under suspension, but including legislation regarding 
Members' pension accountability.
  I think everybody in this House believes that we ought to have 
legislation, we have had it; when the minority was the majority they 
pushed for this legislation, we agreed with them, we are pushing it as 
well. We think there will be agreement on making sure that if you 
commit a crime while a Member of Congress that is contrary to your 
duties that you are going to lose your pension. We think the American 
public believes that is fair.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour and noon 
for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under 
suspension of the rules. A complete list of those suspension bills, as 
is the practice, will be available by the end of today.
  On Tuesday, obviously we will receive the President for the delivery 
of the State of the Union message. So we will vacate the Chamber about 
5 o'clock to give the opportunity for the security forces to make sure 
the Chamber is secure.
  On Wednesday, we will meet at 10. We will consider a resolution to 
restore to the Delegates and Resident Commissioner their ability to 
cast votes in the Committee of the Whole. This rule was in place prior 
to January 1995, and we believe it is a good rule and will try to adopt 
that amendment to the rules. We will finish business in time--I have 
discussed with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt--we are trying to accommodate 
our schedule so that the minority is able to leave in a timely fashion 
to go to their meeting in Cambridge.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend. I have several questions. On the last 
issue that you just raised, that is the first notice that I have had, 
maybe our staff has had notice, right before coming to the floor on 
changing the rules for the Committee of the Whole to where Delegates 
could vote. I would ask my friend, is that only in the Committee of the 
Whole? Is that what that rule change would be?
  Mr. HOYER. This is exactly the same rule that was put in place by the 
Democrats when we were in the majority to give to our five Delegates 
the opportunity to come to the floor to express their opinion in the 
Committee of the Whole. That rule, however, provides that in the event 
that the votes of the Delegates make a difference in the outcome, that 
immediately the Committee would rise, go into the House, and it would 
be revoted in the full House without the ability of the Delegates to 
vote.
  The reason I articulate that, Mr. Whip, is to point out that, as you 
know, that was taken to court to see whether or not that was 
appropriate under the Constitution. The Court ruled that it was 
appropriate under the Constitution, with that caveat that I have just 
referenced. I have discussed this with all five Delegates. They are all 
supportive of this rule.
  We believed, as you know, when you adopted your rules in January of 
1995 and dropped the Delegates, we believed that that was unfortunate, 
because we have five people here sent by their constituents to the 
House but do not have an opportunity to express their view in a public 
way, their position in a public way on behalf of their constituents. 
This will do that, although under the Constitution we are constrained 
to write it as we did, which has been confirmed by the court. And I 
thank the gentleman for that question.
  Mr. BLUNT. Now, I believe there are seven Delegates, and we might get 
our numbers straight on that. Also, I think I am right in that this has 
only happened in one Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. Yes, I would.
  Mr. HOYER. There are five, believe me. There are obviously the 
representative of the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
  Mr. BLUNT. Okay.
  This only happened in one Congress, which was the Congress in 1993 
and 1994. I wasn't in Congress at the time, but I recall it was very 
controversial, I believe the gentleman suggested so controversial that 
there was a court case that determined that these votes, if they had 
impact on the outcome, immediately would have to be decided by the full 
House. And I am wondering, is that to give a deceptively large margin 
in the Committee of the Whole? The majority is in the majority. Four of 
these five Delegates are on the majority side. Every time it doesn't 
matter in terms of passage, I guess that means it appears that there 
are four more votes or maybe five more votes than there would otherwise 
be.

  What is the purpose of this? If it made a difference, it would 
immediately have to go to a vote that they could not participate in.
  I yield for an answer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The purpose is to honor democracy. We are fighting in Iraq to honor 
democracy and allowing people to vote. I thought it was unfortunate, 
personally, that we did not continue the rule in place that we adopted 
in 1993 in the rules package. And this rule will of course extend to 
the Republican delegate, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, as 
well as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I personally 
believe very strongly she ought to have a full vote in this House. She 
represents 680,000, thereabouts, Americans who, if they moved across 
the river to Virginia or across the line to Maryland, would have a full 
vote. I think it is inappropriate, wrong, and frankly inconsistent with 
our commitment to democracy that she does not have a full vote on the 
floor of the House.
  But I say to the gentleman the purpose is to give to these elected 
representatives of constituent parts of this country, not States, but 
constituent parts of this country the ability to express their views on 
this floor. Under the Constitution, obviously, if they make a 
difference, there would be a constitutional question; make a difference 
in the sense that the margin is so close that they would make the 
difference between winning and losing a proposition. So we provided 
then and are providing now what the Court has sanctioned as the way to 
give to the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, a Republican, as 
well as the four Democrats who represent those four areas of our 
country that I indicated, the District of Columbia, clearly a part of 
our country, and the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, the 
ability to come to this floor and express their opinion. We believe 
that is consistent with the democratic principles of this country, and 
that is why we are doing it.
  Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, it seems to me that the courts must 
not think it is consistent, or they wouldn't have ruled and determined 
that if these votes made a difference you have to vote again with a 
body that doesn't include the votes from those five individuals.

[[Page H770]]

  I would also suggest that while the gentleman makes the point that 
the Delegate from the District of Columbia represents essentially the 
same number of people that everybody else on this floor does, that the 
Delegate from Guam, for instance, represents about a fourth of that 
number, about 160,000, 165,000 people. So their vote will be tallied in 
the Committee in a way that appears that the Committee vote has a 
substantially different margin than the same issue taken to the floor 
would have, and I am sure this will be a matter of some concern. It was 
controversial when it was done. It only lasted for one Congress. And as 
the gentleman would make the point, appropriately, that when my side 
became the majority side in 1995, that 2-year period where this 
existed, that rule was changed back.
  A little more notice on that would have been helpful, but we have 
been given notice. We now know that this issue will come up on 
Wednesday. And in my own mind, I am still unclear why it is so 
significant for the work of the Committee to be disproportionate in its 
appearance to the work of the full House. They have maybe four or five 
extra votes that if they made a difference in essence don't count. But 
if they don't make a difference, it looks like the margin that the 
majority has created is bigger than in reality it would be if that was 
the margin that made the difference in whether an issue passed or not.
  I would be glad to hear a response to that.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Of course, we 
are not very worried about that, we have been getting so many 
Republicans to vote with our propositions, 124 on one of our bills, 82 
on another one of our bills, our margins are so big that is not a big 
concern to us at this point in time, I tell my friend.
  Frankly, Guam is in no different position than some of our States. 
Some of our States have one Member, and they are guaranteed a Member no 
matter what their size is. So Wyoming, Montana and other States who 
have either more or less, Montana now represents more than most of us, 
Wyoming less than most of us. I am not sure what the population of 
Alaska is. But to that extent, Guam, American Samoa are not in any 
different position than a State that is guaranteed a vote.
  Now under the Constitution, and I will say again to my friend that it 
wasn't the courts that imposed this, in our efforts in 1992 and 1993 
when we adopted the rule to extend to our colleagues who vote in every 
committee in this House, they vote in the Ways and Means Committee if 
they are there, I don't know that there is a Delegate member, but they 
vote in the Natural Resources Committee, the Science Committee, other 
committees on which they are members they vote. They are in line to 
chair or not chair subcommittees, depending upon their seniority. It is 
only in the Committee of the Whole that they cannot vote. So they 
cannot express their views for their constituents on an issue.
  The Constitution is such, which is why we drafted the rule, you are 
correct, to have them make a difference would be, we believed, 
inconsistent with the Constitution. We need a constitutional amendment 
to do that. We are not offering a constitutional amendment. We don't 
think that is necessary.
  But I want to tell my friend honestly, I have been the chief 
proponent of this and feel strongly about it, I believe passionately 
that Ms. Norton ought to have a full vote, number one.
  Number two, I believe the four Delegates, whether they be from Puerto 
Rico, whether from Guam, American Samoa or the Virgin Islands, ought to 
have the opportunity to come to this floor and express their views. So 
we are offering that rule. We thought it was a good rule.
  You are right, in the final analysis it is not going to skew the 
difference between the minority and the majority parties because 
ultimately if they make a difference, it is not that their vote will 
not count, their vote will count. Their constituents will see their 
vote up and other Americans will see their vote up, and they are going 
to say the gentlelady from Guam or the gentleman from American Samoa or 
the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands or the gentleman from Puerto 
Rico believed X, Y or Z on a vote. We think that is consistent with our 
view that we ought to be extending opportunities for democracy, not 
limiting them.
  Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time on that, in the committees my 
understanding is if the Delegates in the committees, if their vote is 
the vote that makes the difference in committee work, that vote does 
not have to be taken again. There is a fundamental difference clearly, 
the Constitution and the courts believe, in what happens on the House 
floor and what both majorities have decided happens in committee.
  I also think there is no analogous situation in terms of the number 
of people represented.
  Generally, the single district States now are close to or bigger 
than. The individual from Montana represents more people than anybody 
else on the House floor. There is no 160,000-vote in any State.
  My good friend from American Samoa, we have been friends for over two 
decades now. We have found many times to work together, and this 
certainly in no way reflects on my true fondness or long friendship 
with him. I would be glad for you to make a comment, and if you want to 
make a comment about the fact that American Samoa was excluded from the 
minimum wage increase, another issue that we are concerned about, we 
would like to be consistent in at least that regard in how we treat 
these Delegate representatives and the people they represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from American Samoa.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding 
to me for a few seconds to respond to some of the concerns that he has 
expressed on the floor concerning whether or not we ought to be giving 
the privilege of the congressional Delegates to vote in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The gentleman makes a good point. The fact of the matter was that 
this matter was taken to court by the other side of the aisle, and on 
appeal the Court said it is constitutional if this procedure takes 
place where if, as a result of the vote a congressional Delegate's vote 
makes a difference, any Member of the House can also then appeal to the 
Chair for a revote. That is what makes it constitutional.
  But to the point where the gentleman says because Guam is only 
160,000 residents, I think once we get into the population 
consideration we are getting into another area. My good friend, the 
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, who is a Republican, represents 
4 million Americans. I can also make the argument to my good friend 
that we also bleed and die in the wars that we were currently fighting.
  If there is any sense of equity and fairness in the process, at least 
give us a chance to participate in that regard.
  I can say the same thing for our good friends from the State of 
Wyoming or other States. But when you consider the fact that we have a 
$20 billion presence of our military, the strategic importance of Guam, 
we should appreciate the fact that people representing the territory of 
Guam should be given an opportunity. Guam, despite its small 
population, does and is a very important territory as far as our 
military strategic interests are concerned.
  To the question of the minimum wage issue, I would say to my good 
friend from Missouri that I would prefer that we take this issue up at 
another point in time because I have my own ideas. I would simply say 
the fact of the matter is that the Federal Labor Standards Act does 
apply to my little district since 1938. The Congress amended the 
Federal Labor Standards Act in 1956 to allow the Territories, because 
in those days our economic situations were just not able to bear the 
Federal minimum wage standards. For that reason, we have established 
these industrial committees through the supervision and administration 
of the U.S. Department of Labor to help us, being under the Federal 
umbrella. So we do this so that eventually the economies of these 
territories will come up to par with the national standards.
  The problem is that my good friends on the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands are not under the minimum wage provisions of 
the Federal

[[Page H771]]

Labor Standards Act. This is the issue we are trying to correct.
  I must say that I think the good Speaker from San Francisco has been 
unfairly characterized to suggest that she is doing this as a double 
standard, being hypocritical. I think it was unfair for our good 
friends on the other side of the aisle to depict the Speaker in doing 
something like this. It is not right.
  I thank my good friend from Missouri for yielding, and I just wanted 
to explain those things.
  Mr. BLUNT. I have great affection for my friend, and have had for a 
long time. This is not meant to reflect on him or the people he 
represents in any way. By the way, there are about 60,000 people on 
American Samoa that my friend represents, as opposed to 600,000 that 
others represent. I will let you respond to the number if you want to.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will be happy to check on that with my good 
friend. I represent probably the smallest constituency in the House. 
But is it any different from our friends from Wyoming, if we are 
talking about population as a factor, to give representation? The fact 
is it is not because of the population but because of our status as a 
U.S. territory.
  Now I can't say, because many of the Members don't realize we have 
had a 106-year unique political relationship with this great Nation. I 
bet to say that not many of the Members know about that relationship. 
If you want to talk about the contributions we have made, my little 
territory has the highest per capita casualty rate in the whole United 
States. If you want to count the numbers, I have had to go eight times 
to my district to take the remains of our soldiers who were killed in 
that terrible war in Iraq. If you want to make comparisons to the 
70,000 people, yes; but we also say in a very proud way, we are very, 
very proud to make that contribution to our great Nation. So if you 
want to talk numbers, I think we can get into other situations as well.
  Mr. BLUNT. I am sure we will, and I thank my good friend for that 
point.
  I would just point out for the purpose of this discussion, Alaska, 
which the majority leader wondered about the population there, has 
626,000 people. Wyoming has about 420,000-some people.
  In terms of the decision to have the relationship with the 
Territories, that was not made anticipating that the Territories would 
be represented as States are represented. That is the plain and simple 
truth of it.
  If it had been, there probably would have been a different thought 
about how you treat both Puerto Rico and American Samoa. This is a 
debate that I am sure a dozen years ago was widely discussed as a 
debate that should be had as a constitutional debate.
  If your vote in the Committee of the Whole is going to matter, it 
shouldn't be reversible by a vote by the body that doesn't include 
those five representatives. We have Wednesday to discuss this, and I am 
sure that we will.
  I am glad to get the notification, although I think on an issue like 
this that clearly was a huge issue a dozen years ago, that notification 
on the floor is a little later than I would have hoped for.
  The other issue on the schedule, I appreciate the leader trying his 
best to accommodate the retreat that our Members will have next week. 
And of course there will be a reciprocal accommodation for the retreat 
you have the next week.
  Having scheduled the floor for some period of time, as the majority 
leader for a while and as the majority whip working with the leader, I 
sympathize with the leader's challenge of the floor.
  I would say that on this entire issue of the voting 5 days a week, 
whether in truth there is anything to vote for or not, I think has been 
widely taken advantage of, not by the leader but particularly by people 
who don't prefer to understand how hard our Members work.
  The late night comedians love the idea that Congress was suddenly 
going to work 5 days a week. I think that was an unfair view of what 
our Members do. In fact, I would advance the theory that our problem is 
not that our Members don't work 5 days a week, our problem is that too 
many of our Members work 7 days a week. Too many of our Members get so 
focused on this that they don't focus on the things that the people 
they work for hope they would, and this makes it even more difficult to 
get your work done.
  Here we are today, it was about 11 when we started this discussion. 
We had a 30-minute debate that when we finished at 6 p.m. last night, I 
would advance, could have happened then and then Members would have had 
a day in their district to meet with people who want to meet with 
Members on occasion during their regular workweek, not on Saturday or 
Sunday, and under this current schedule the only option is to come to 
Washington.
  I know my good friend appreciates how hard the Members work. I know 
his suggestion that we would start working 5 days a week in Washington 
was not intended to be an indication that Members somehow don't work as 
hard as other Americans do because he and I both know that is not the 
case.
  I wish our Members would have been able to go home last night or this 
morning and spend some of this workday at home instead of on an 
airplane. All of our Members as far as I know have a desk in their 
district office. If they are not going to be there Monday through 
Friday, they are not going to need that desk very often, and the only 
way to see them is right here. I think it is unfortunate that we had to 
come back today for 30 minutes of debate on a measure that was already 
agreed to on a vote that not a single person voted the other way. I say 
that more in sympathy than I do in criticism. I understand the pledge 
you made.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield on that issue.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, let me say he and I agree. I was at dinner 
last night and Secretary Paulson was there. Secretary Paulson, as 
everybody knows, was the managing partner of Goldman Sachs. Obviously 
he worked very hard and is a very successful individual. He has been in 
his job now for a few months.
  He said to me he was surprised how hard Members of Congress worked, 
how complex were the challenges confronting them, and how much of an 
education, frankly, over the last months he has had in dealing with 
Members of Congress, working on both sides of the aisle, how hard they 
had to work to come to grips with solving our Nation's problems.
  I want to make it very clear that Members of Congress do in fact work 
6, 7 days a week, and that is the rule, not the exception. And when 
they are at home in their districts, they are doing what the Founding 
Fathers expected them to do, particularly in this House, the people's 
House. They are going home and listening to their public and having 
town meetings, they are visiting business enterprises that are creating 
jobs and visiting schools. They are talking to their constituents. They 
are meeting people with problems with the Federal Government in their 
district offices where, as the minority whip has pointed out, they have 
offices, district offices, to serve their public. That is our job.
  I tell my public that this job really is a two-fold job. Fifty 
percent of it is coming to the House and voting yea or nay on policy. 
Fifty percent of it is making sure that our districts are represented 
well in their interface with the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1145

  The Federal Government has an impact on our States, on our 
municipalities, on our jurisdictions and on our people, on our veterans 
and on our seniors in particular, but many, almost everybody. It is our 
job to be in close communication with them. As a matter of fact, the 
reason we are elected every 2 years, by the Founding Fathers' device, 
was to specifically keep us in close touch.
  So I agree 100 percent with the minority whip when he indicates that 
our Members are working, whether they are here on this floor or they 
are at home. Period. Having said that, we are going to be considering a 
CR pretty soon because nine of the 11 appropriation bills that we were 
supposed to pass into law are still not passed. They weren't passed by 
the end of the fiscal year, September 30 of 2006. They have not been 
passed as of January 19, and we are going to try to get at least a CR 
passed so that we can fund last year's responsibility.

[[Page H772]]

  And I want Members to know that the committees have had essentially 2 
days to work in this place, Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and the committees 
have been complaining that they aren't able to get their work done. I 
want everybody to know, Mr. Blunt and I are close friends. We are not 
close Democratic friends and Republican friends; we are close friends. 
We see one another a lot, we talk to one another a lot, but what I have 
said, and the whip knows I have said this, we are going to come in 
Monday nights. Now, why are we going to come in on Monday nights? 
Because if we do not come in Monday nights and we come in Tuesday night 
at 6:30, the committees cannot meet because they can't get quorums.
  Woodrow Wilson said that the work of Congress is done in its 
committees. If committees can't work, the Congress can't work. America 
sent us here to work, to get its work done, to make a difference, to 
take us in a new direction, and that is on our side.
  I am prepared, as the leader, to take some of the flack when 
sometimes, as we wanted to do today, as the whip knows, we wanted to do 
the pension bill today. Mr. Dreier objected, it wasn't in the regular 
order, we understand that, we are going to accommodate that, so we are 
going to do it Monday. We think it is going to be an overwhelming vote 
on that. That could have been done today. We could have done that and 
moved it on, but we will be here on Monday. And committees will have 
Tuesday and Wednesday. Next week is a short week, the week after is a 
short week, so we won't be meeting on Fridays. So we are not on an 
onerous schedule.
  But I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this 
leader wants to accommodate the interest of Members. Why? Because I 
know you work hard, because I have been here for 26 years and I work 
very hard, and my colleagues work hard. I want you to also know that I 
think it is our responsibility and duty to the American people to be 
here in sufficient time to allow us to do the people's business.
  And I want the people to know that when we are not on the floor on a 
Friday and only doing a half an hour or an hour's work, as the 
gentleman indicated, that our committees have 4 hours, from 9 to 1, to 
try to do their work.
  Now, we are early in the session, so they may not have needed today. 
And, yes, I could, as practice has been, when we get to Thursday 
conclude, well, we can get this out of the way and go home. I know 
Members like to do that.
  I want Members to be informed on a regular basis it is my intention, 
as the leader, as the person responsible for scheduling, to talk to our 
committee chairmen and committee ranking members that they will have 
the opportunity to get their work done, and I am hopeful that they will 
report that work to the floor.
  My friend and I have discussed getting work for the floor is 
sometimes difficult; but I say to my friend, I think it is more 
difficult if the committees don't have the opportunity to work. We are 
trying to provide that, while at the same time, I say to my friend, 
provide for Members' schedules, not only at home to work, but Members 
to be at home to see their children and their families and their wives 
and their husbands. We think that is important as well.
  So scheduling, as my friend, Mr. Blunt, has observed, is tough; but 
we are going to try to provide a schedule which provides the 
opportunity to do our business here and at home and to make sure that 
we stay in close touch with our families.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BLUNT. I am reminded of a friend of mine, when I was the 
Secretary of State in Missouri, who was the leader, the Democratic 
leader in the State Senate, was fond of saying: If you can't change 
your mind, you can't change anything. I am absolutely confident that no 
committees met today. And I understand the work the committees do in 
the Congress. When the committees aren't working when we could have 
added 30 minutes onto the schedule last night and been done, not in the 
middle of the night, by 7 o'clock, I think that would have been a good 
decision to make. I would hope my friend will remain flexible about 
that in the future.
  This has gone on some time today. I appreciate the chance to talk 
about the work next week. I am also hopeful, and I would ask, will the 
change in the rules on allowing delegates to vote in the Committee of 
the Whole, will that go to the Rules Committees, and will there be a 
chance for Republicans to at least offer amendments?
  Mr. HOYER. The answer to your question is it will go to the Rules 
Committee; the Rules Committee will consider it. I have not talked to 
the Rules Committee, nor have I talked to you or to Mr. Boehner about 
what you might want to do on that, but we will do that.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, the gentleman is right, we certainly haven't had any 
discussion on this until the floor today.
  I would also make the point that last week we did take two bills to 
the Rules Committee; but before any opportunity was given to even offer 
an amendment, it was announced that no amendments would be allowed. I 
think that is unprecedented in the last 12 years, where at least the 
Rules Committee always heard the amendments and tried to offer 
amendments and always offered a substitute in every instance that I am 
aware of.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield briefly, as the gentleman can usually out-talk me.
  Mr. HOYER. I would like to yield to Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I am a member of the full Transportation Committee; and 
Water Resources, a subcommittee of Transportation, did meet today. 
Perhaps there were other committees meeting.
  Mr. BLUNT. I would ask my friend how long you met and what was the 
topic.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I don't serve on that subcommittee any longer. I met 
some people on the way to the committee who told me they were meeting.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the information.
  Mr. HOYER. I just knew that you would be delighted to have that 
information.
  Mr. BLUNT. I would be glad to find out the substance of that meeting 
this morning. I doubt it was very substantive or could not have been 
done yesterday. I think all the Members understand this discussion.
  I think the general coverage of Congress meeting for 5 days a week 
was a disservice to the institution. It is like assuming that a surgeon 
only does the surgeon's work when they are in the operating room.
  Another point that I believe I am helping my friend, the majority 
leader, make is, when we are in committee and not on the floor, that 
doesn't mean we are not working. When we are at home holding town hall 
meetings or meeting with constituents, or in my case, seeing how we are 
doing restoring power to 200,000 people that didn't have power in my 
district this week in weather that was between 6 and 26 degrees all 
week, it was impossible for me to be there today because I had to be 
here to cast a vote that could have been cast last night.
  I hope we all work hard. Certainly the majority has had the better of 
this argument so far because it is a lot of fun to talk about Members 
of Congress that don't work, or suddenly Members are working. Another 
thing I am going to tell my friend we are going to do, frankly, is keep 
track of how many hours we worked in essentially a 3- and 4-day week 
versus a 4- and 5-day week. So far, we are winning in hours of working 
on the floor.
  We worked hard; you worked hard. On the appropriations process, I 
would have liked to have finished that last year. It is clear to me 
that the unwillingness of the other body to move forward, a thing 
neither you nor I have a lot of control over, was the real reason we 
didn't get more of that work done. We had 11 of our 12 bills done by 
the 4th of July, without tremendous effort to keep Members here on 
Friday. The year before we had all of our bills done by the 4th of 
July. I think that is a reasonable target for us, and I hope that we 
help achieve that target this year.
  We do want to get our work done. This is a bicameral legislative 
system. We don't control what happens on the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________