[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6-H20]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of
the One Hundred Tenth Congress, including applicable
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted
rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Tenth
Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, with
amendments to the standing rules as provided in section 2,
and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES.
(a) Inspector General Audits.--Amend clause 6(c)(1) of rule
II to read as follows:
``(1) provide audit, investigative, and advisory services
to the House and joint entities in a manner consistent with
government-wide standards;''.
(b) Homeland Security.--In clause 3(g) of rule X, designate
the existing text as subparagraph (1) and add thereafter the
following new subparagraph:
``(2) In addition, the committee shall review and study on
a primary and continuing basis all Government activities,
programs, and organizations related to homeland security that
fall within its primary legislative jurisdiction.''.
(c) Additional Functions of the Committee on House
Administration.--In clause 4(d)(1) of rule X--
(1) redesignate subdivisions (B) and (C) as subdivisions
(C) and (D) and insert after subdivision (A) the following
new subdivision:
[[Page H7]]
``(B) oversee the management of services provided to the
House by the Architect of the Capitol, except those services
that lie within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure under clause 1(r);''; and
(2) in subdivision (D) (as redesignated) strike ``(B)'' and
insert ``(C)''.
(d) Terms of Committee Chairmen.--In clause 5 of rule X--
(1) amend paragraph (a)(2)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may
exceed the limitation of subdivision (B) if elected to serve
a second consecutive Congress as the chair or a second
consecutive Congress as the ranking minority member.''; and
(2) in paragraph (c)--
(A) strike the designation of subparagraph (1); and
(B) strike subparagraph (2).
(e) Calendar Wednesday.--
(1) In clause 6 of rule XV--
(A) in paragraph (a)--
(i) strike ``the committees'' and insert ``those
committees''; and
(ii) strike ``unless two-thirds'' and all that follows and
insert ``whose chair, or other member authorized by the
committee, has announced to the House a request for such call
on the preceding legislative day.''; and
(B) strike paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) (and redesignate
paragraph (e) as paragraph (c)).
(2) In clause 6(c) of rule XIII, strike subparagraph (1)
and the designation ``(2)''.
(f) Postponement Authority.--In clause 1 of rule XIX, add
the following new paragraph:
``(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), when the previous
question is operating to adoption or passage of a measure
pursuant to a special order of business, the Chair may
postpone further consideration of such measure in the House
to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.''.
(g) Instructions in the Motion to Recommit.--In clause 2(b)
of rule XIX--
(1) designate the existing sentence as subparagraph (1);
(2) in subparagraph (1) (as so designated)--
(A) strike ``if''; and
(B) strike ``includes instructions, it''; and
(3) add the following new subparagraph at the end:
``(2) A motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution may
include instructions only in the form of a direction to
report an amendment or amendments back to the House
forthwith.''.
(h) Conduct of Votes.--In clause 2(a) of rule XX, strike
``A record vote by electronic device shall not be held open
for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such
vote.''.
(i) General Appropriation Conference Reports.--In clause 9
of rule XXI--
(1) insert after paragraph (a) the following new paragraph
(and redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
``(b) It shall not be in order to consider a conference
report to accompany a regular general appropriation bill
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--
``(1) 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) that were neither
committed to the conference committee by either House nor in
a report of a committee of either House on such bill or on a
companion measure; or
``(2) a statement that the proposition contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits.''; and
(2) in paragraph (c) (as redesignated)--
(A) in the first sentence, after ``paragraph (a)'' insert
``or (b)''; and
(B) amend the second sentence to read as follows:
``As disposition of a point of order under this paragraph
or paragraph (b), the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the rule or order or conference
report, as applicable.''.
(j) Paygo.--
(1) Amend clause 10 of rule XXI to read as follows:
``10.(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c),
it shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions
of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have
the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the
surplus for either the period comprising--
``(A) the current fiscal year, the budget year set forth in
the most recently completed concurrent resolution on the
budget, and the four fiscal years following that budget year;
or
``(B) the current fiscal year, the budget year set forth in
the most recently completed concurrent resolution on the
budget, and the nine fiscal years following that budget year.
``(2) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus
shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
Committee on the Budget relative to baseline estimates
supplied by the Congressional Budget Office consistent with
section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
``(b) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is
considered pursuant to a special order of the House directing
the Clerk to add as new matter at the end of such measure the
provisions of a separate measure as passed by the House, the
provisions of such separate measure as passed by the House
shall be included in the evaluation under paragraph (a) of
the bill, joint resolution, or amendment.
``(c)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the
evaluation under paragraph (a) shall exclude a provision
expressly designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-
you-go principles in the case of a point of order under this
clause against consideration of--
``(A) a bill or joint resolution;
``(B) an amendment made in order as original text by a
special order of business;
``(C) a conference report; or
``(D) an amendment between the Houses.
``(2) In the case of an amendment (other than one specified
in subparagraph (1)) to a bill or joint resolution, the
evaluation under paragraph (a) shall give no cognizance to
any designation of emergency.
``(3) If a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment made in
order as original text by a special order of business, a
conference report, or an amendment between the Houses
includes a provision expressly designated as an emergency for
purposes of pay-as-you-go principles, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect thereto.''.
(2) In clause 7 of rule XXI, strike ``the period comprising
the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning
with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year
or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten
fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the
following calendar year'' and insert ``period described in
clause 10(a)''.
(k) Disclosure by Members of Employment Negotiations.--In
clause 1 of rule XXVII, strike ``until after his or her
successor has been elected,''.
(l) Gender Neutrality.--
(1) In the standing rules--
(A) strike ``chairman'' each place it appears and insert
``chair''; and
(B) strike ``Chairman'' each place it appears and insert
``Chair'' (except in clause 4(a)(1)(B) of rule X).
(2) In rule I--
(A) in clause 1 strike ``his'';
(B) in clause 7, strike ``his'' and insert ``such'';
(C) in clause 8--
(i) in paragraph (b)(1) strike ``his''; and
(ii) in paragraph (b)(3)(B), strike ``his election and
whenever he deems'' and insert ``the election of the Speaker
and whenever''; and
(D) in clause 12--
(i) in paragraph (c) strike ``he'' and insert ``the
Speaker''; and
(ii) in paragraph (d) strike ``his opinion'' and insert
``the opinion of the Speaker''.
(3) In rule II--
(A) in clause 1--
(i) strike ``his office'' and insert ``the office'';
(ii) strike ``his knowledge and ability'' and insert ``the
knowledge and ability of the officer''; and
(iii) strike ``his department'' and insert ``the department
concerned'';
(B) in clause 2--
(i) in paragraph (b) strike ``he is required to make'' and
insert ``required to be made by such officer'';
(ii) in paragraph (g) strike ``his temporary absence or
disability'' and insert ``the temporary absence or disability
of the Clerk''; and
(iii) in paragraph (i)(1) strike ``Whenever the Clerk is
acting as a supervisory authority over such staff, he'' and
insert ``When acting as a supervisory authority over such
staff, the Clerk''; and
(C) in clause 3--
(i) in paragraph (a) strike ``him'' and insert ``the
Sergeant-at-Arms'';
(ii) in paragraph (b) strike ``him'' and insert ``the
Sergeant-at-Arms'';
(iii) in paragraph (c) strike ``his employees'' and insert
``employees of the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms''; and
(iv) in paragraph (d)--
(I) strike ``; and'' and insert ``and,''; and
(II) strike ``he''.
(4) In rule III--
(A) in clause 1 strike ``he has'' and insert ``having'';
and
(B) in clause 2(a)--
(i) strike ``his vote'' and insert ``the vote of such
Member''; and
(ii) strike ``his presence'' and insert ``the presence of
such Member''.
(5) In rule IV--
(A) in clause 4(a) strike ``he or she'' and insert ``such
individual''; and
(B) in clause 6(b) strike ``his family'' and insert ``the
family of such individual''.
(6) In rule V--
(A) strike ``administer a system subject to his direction
and control'' each place it appears and insert ``administer,
direct, and control a system'';
(B) strike ``he'' each place it appears and insert ``the
Speaker''; and
(C) in clause 3 strike ``his'' and insert ``the''.
(7) In rule VI, strike ``he'' each place it appears and
insert ``the Speaker''.
(8) In clause 7 of rule VII, strike ``his office'' each
place it appears and insert ``the office of the Clerk''.
(9) In clause 6(b) of rule VIII, strike ``he'' and insert
``the Speaker''.
(10) In clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, strike ``his'' and
insert ``an''.
(11) In rule X--
[[Page H8]]
(A) in clause 4(f)(1), strike ``President submits his
budget'' and insert ``submission of the budget by the
President'';
(B) in clause 5--
(i) in paragraph (a)(4)--
(I) strike ``his designee'' each place it appears and
insert ``a designee''; and
(II) strike ``his respective party'' each place it appears
and insert ``the respective party of such individual'';
(ii) in paragraph (b)(1) strike ``he was''; and
(iii) in paragraph (c) strike ``chairmanship'' and insert
``chair'';
(C) in clause 8--
(i) strike ``his expenses'' each place it appears and
insert ``the expenses of such individual''; and
(ii) strike ``he'' each place it appears;
(D) in clause 10(a) strike ``he is''; and
(E) in clause 11--
(i) in paragraph (a)(3) strike ``member of his leadership
staff to assist him in his capacity'' and insert ``respective
leadership staff member to assist in the capacity of the
Speaker or Minority Leader'';
(ii) in paragraph (e)(1) strike ``his employment or
contractual agreement'' and insert ``the employment or
contractual agreement of such employee or person''; and
(iii) in paragraph (g)(2)--
(I) in subdivision (B)--
(aa) strike ``he'' and insert ``the President''; and
(bb) strike ``his''; and
(II) in subdivision (C) strike ``his''.
(12) In rule XI--
(A) in clause 2--
(i) in paragraph (c)(1) strike ``he'' and insert ``the
chair''; and
(ii) in paragraph (k)(9) strike ``his testimony'' and
insert ``the testimony of such witness'';
(B) in clause 3--
(i) in paragraph (a) strike ``his duties or the discharge
of his responsibilities'' each place it appears and insert
``the duties or the discharge of the responsibilities of such
individual'';
(ii) in paragraph (b)--
(I) in subparagraph (2)(B) strike ``he'' and insert ``such
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner''; and
(II) in subparagraph (5) strike ``disqualify himself'' and
insert ``seek disqualification'';
(iii) in paragraph (g)--
(I) in subparagraph (1)(B) strike ``he is'';
(II) in subparagraph (1)(E) strike ``his or her employment
or duties with the committee'' and insert ``the employment or
duties with the committee of such individual''; and
(III) in subparagraph (4)--
(aa) strike ``his or her personal staff'' and insert ``the
respective personal staff of the chair or ranking minority
member''; and
(bb) strike ``he'' and insert ``the chair or ranking
minority member'';
(iv) in paragraph (p)--
(I) in subparagraph (2) strike ``his counsel'' and insert
``the counsel of the respondent'';
(II) in subparagraph (4)--
(aa) strike ``his or her counsel'' and insert ``the counsel
of the respondent''; and
(bb) strike ``his counsel'' and insert ``the counsel of the
respondent'';
(III) in subparagraph (7) strike ``his counsel'' and insert
``the counsel of a respondent''; and
(IV) in subparagraph (8) strike ``him'' and insert ``the
respondent''; and
(v) in paragraph (q) strike ``his or her'' and insert
``the''.
(13) In rule XII--
(A) in clause 2(c)(1) strike ``he'' and insert ``the
Speaker''; and
(B) in clause 3 strike ``he shall endorse his name'' and
insert ``the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall
sign it''.
(14) In clause 6(d) of rule XIII, strike ``his''.
(15) In clause 4(c)(1) of rule XVI strike ``his
discretion'' and insert ``the discretion of the Speaker''.
(16) In rule XVII--
(A) in clause 1(a) strike ``himself to `Mr. Speaker' '' and
insert ``the Speaker'';
(B) in clause 6 strike ``his discretion'' and insert ``the
discretion of the Chair''; and
(C) in clause 9 strike ``he'' each place it appears and
insert ``such individual''.
(17) In clause 6 of rule XVIII, strike ``he'' each place it
appears and insert ``the Chair''.
(18) In rule XX--
(A) in clause 5--
(i) in paragraph (b) strike ``him'' and insert ``the
Sergeant-at-Arms'';
(ii) in paragraph (c)(3)(B)(I) strike ``his'' and insert
``a''; and
(iii) in paragraph (d) strike ``he'' and insert ``the
Speaker''; and
(B) in clause 6(b)--
(i) strike ``he'' and insert ``the Member''; and
(ii) strike ``his'' and insert ``such''.
(19) In clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII, strike ``his''.
(20) In rule XXIII--
(A) in clause 1 strike ``conduct himself'' and insert
``behave'';
(B) in clause 3--
(i) strike ``his beneficial interest'' and insert ``the
beneficial interest of such individual''; and
(ii) strike ``his position'' and insert ``the position of
such individual''
(C) in clause 6--
(i) in paragraph (a)--
(I) strike ``his campaign funds'' and insert ``the campaign
funds of such individual''; and
(II) strike ``his personal funds'' and insert ``the
personal funds of such individual''; and
(ii) in paragraph (c) strike ``his campaign account'' and
insert ``a campaign accounts of such individual'';
(D) in clause 8--
(i) in paragraph (a) strike ``he'' and insert ``such
employee''; and
(ii) in paragraph (c)--
(I) in subparagraph (1)(A) after ``his spouse'' insert
``the spouse of such individual''; and
(II) in subparagraph (1)(B) strike ``his spouse'' and
insert ``the spouse of such employee'';
(E) in clause 10--
(i) strike ``he is a'' and insert ``such individual is a'';
(ii) strike ``his innocence'' and insert ``the innocence of
such Member''; and
(iii) strike ``he is reelected'' and insert ``the Member is
reelected''; and
(F) in clause 12(b)--
(i) strike ``advises his employing authority'' and insert
``advises the employing authority of such employee''; and
(ii) strike ``from his'' and insert ``from such''; and
(G) in clause 15 strike ``his or her family member'' each
place it appears and insert ``a family member of a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner''.
(21) In rule XXIV--
(A) in clause 1--
(i) in paragraph (a) strike ``his use'' and insert ``the
use of such individual''; and
(ii) in paragraph (b)(1) strike ``his principal campaign
committee'' and insert ``the principal campaign committee of
such individual'';
(B) in clause 7 strike ``he was'';
(C) in clause 8 strike ``he is'' and insert ``such
individual is''; and
(D) in clause 10 strike ``he was'' and insert ``such
individual was''.
(22) In rule XXV--
(A) in clause 2(b) strike ``his name'' and insert ``the
name of such individual'';
(B) in clause 4--
(i) in paragraph (c) strike ``his residence or principal
place of employment'' and insert ``the residence or principal
place of employment of such individual''; and
(ii) in paragraph (d)(1)--
(I) in subdivision (B) strike ``he'' and insert ``such
individual'';
(II) in subdivision (C) strike ``him'' and insert ``such
individual''; and
(III) in subdivision (D)--
(aa) strike ``he or his family'' and insert ``such
individual or the family of such individual''; and
(bb) strike ``him'' and insert ``such individual'';
(C) in clause 5--
(i) strike ``his official position'' each place it appears
and insert ``the official position of such individual'';
(ii) strike ``his actual knowledge'' each place it appears
and insert ``the actual knowledge of such individual'';
(iii) strike ``his duties'' each place it appears and
insert ``the duties of such individual'';
(iv) in paragraph (a)(3)(D)(ii)(I) strike ``his
relationship'' and insert ``the relationship of such
individual''; and
(v) in paragraph (a)(3)(G)(i) strike ``his spouse'' and
insert ``the spouse of such individual'';
(D) in clause 6--
(i) strike ``he acts'' and insert ``acting''; and
(ii) strike ``he is''; and
(E) in clause 8 strike ``his or her'' and insert ``the''.
(23) In clause 1 of rule XXVI, strike ``him'' and insert
``the Clerk''.
(24) In clause 2 of rule XXVII, strike ``he or she'' and
insert ``such individual''.
(25) In clause 2 of rule XXIX, strike ``the masculine
gender include the feminine'' and insert ``one gender include
the other''.
(m) Technical and Codifying Changes.--
(1) In clause 2(h) of rule II, strike ``not in session''
and insert in lieu thereof ``in recess or adjournment''.
(2) In clause 4(b) of rule IV, strike ``regulations that
exempt'' and insert in lieu thereof ``regulations to carry
out this rule including regulations that exempt''.
(3) In clause 5(c) of rule X--
(A) strike ``temporary absence of the chairman'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``absence of the member serving as chair'';
and
(B) strike ``permanent''.
(4) In clause 7(e) of rule X, strike ``signed by'' and all
that follows, and insert in lieu thereof ``signed by the
ranking member of the committee as it was constituted at the
expiration of the preceding Congress who is a member of the
majority party in the present Congress.''.
(5) In clause 8(a) of rule X, strike ``clauses 6 and 8''
and insert in lieu thereof ``clause 6''.
(6) In clause 2(a) of rule XIII ---
(A) in subparagraph (1), strike ``as privileged''; and
(B) in subparagraph (2), insert ``(other than those filed
as privileged)'' after ``reported adversely''.
(7) In clause 5(c)(3) of rule XX, strike ``clause 5(a) of
rule XX'' and insert ``paragraph (a)''.
(8) In clause 6(c) of rule XX, after ``yeas and nays''
insert ``ordered under this clause''.
(9) In clause 7(c)(3) of rule XXII, strike ``motion meets''
and insert in lieu thereof ``proponent meets''.
(10) In clause 1(b)(2) of rule XXIV, strike ``office space,
furniture, or equipment, and'' and insert in lieu thereof
``office space, office furniture, office equipment, or''.
[[Page H9]]
(11) In clause 5(i)(2) of rule XXV, strike ``paragraph
(1)(A)'' and insert ``subparagraph (1)(A)''.
SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.
(a) Budget Matters.--
(1) During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, references in
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to a
resolution shall be construed in the House of Representatives
as references to a joint resolution.
(2) During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, in the case
of a reported bill or joint resolution considered pursuant to
a special order of business, a point of order under section
303 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be
determined on the basis of the text made in order as an
original bill or joint resolution for the purpose of
amendment or to the text on which the previous question is
ordered directly to passage, as the case may be.
(3) During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, a provision
in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or
a conference report thereon, that establishes prospectively
for a Federal office or position a specified or minimum level
of compensation to be funded by annual discretionary
appropriations shall not be considered as providing new
entitlement authority within the meaning of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
(4)(A) During the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, except as
provided in subsection (C), a motion that the Committee of
the Whole rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in
order if the bill, as amended, exceeds an applicable
allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the
Committee on the Budget.
(B) If a point of order under subsection (A) is sustained,
the Chair shall put the question: ``Shall the Committee of
the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding that the
bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority under
section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?''.
Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by a proponent of the question and an
opponent but shall be decided without intervening motion.
(C) Subsection (A) shall not apply--
(i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
(ii) after disposition of a question under subsection (B)
on a given bill.
(D) If a question under subsection (B) is decided in the
negative, no further amendment shall be in order except--
(i) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole; and
(ii) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chair or
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or
their designees, for the purpose of debate.
(b) Certain Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of
rule X, during the One Hundred Eleventh Congress--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services may have not more than
seven subcommittees;
(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more than
seven subcommittees; and
(3) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may
have not more than six subcommittees.
(c) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One
Hundred Eleventh Congress--
(1) The House of Representatives may not provide access to
any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to
Members and former Members, officers and former officers of
the House of Representatives, and their spouses to any former
Member, former officer, or spouse who is a lobbyist
registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any
successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined
in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the
term ``Member'' includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner
to the Congress.
(2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this subsection.
(d) Numbering of Bills.--In the One Hundred Eleventh
Congress, the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R.
10) shall be reserved for assignment by the Speaker.
(e) Medicare Cost Containment.--Section 803 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
shall not apply during the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.
SEC. 4. COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND HOUSE OFFICES.
(a) Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming.--
(1) Establishment; composition.--
(A) Establishment.--There is hereby established a Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``select
committee'').
(B) Composition.--The select committee shall be composed of
15 members appointed by the Speaker, of whom 6 shall be
appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader. The
Speaker shall designate one member of the select committee as
its chair. A vacancy in the membership of the select
committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(2) Jurisdiction; functions.--
(A) Legislative jurisdiction.--The select committee shall
not have legislative jurisdiction and shall have no authority
to take legislative action on any bill or resolution.
(B) Investigative jurisdiction.--The sole authority of the
select committee shall be to investigate, study, make
findings, and develop recommendations on policies,
strategies, technologies and other innovations, intended to
reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign sources
of energy and achieve substantial and permanent reductions in
emissions and other activities that contribute to climate
change and global warming.
(3) Procedure.--(A) Except as specified in paragraph (2),
the select committee shall have the authorities and
responsibilities of, and shall be subject to the same
limitations and restrictions as, a standing committee of the
House, and shall be deemed a committee of the House for all
purposes of law or rule.
(B)(i) Rules X and XI shall apply to the select committee
where not inconsistent with this resolution.
(ii) Service on the select committee shall not count
against the limitations in clause 5(b)(2) of rule X.
(4) Funding.--To enable the select committee to carry out
the purposes of this section--
(A) the select committee may use the services of staff of
the House; and
(B) the select committee shall be eligible for interim
funding pursuant to clause 7 of rule X.
(5) Reporting.--The select committee may report to the
House from time to time the results of its investigations and
studies, together with such detailed findings and
recommendations as it may deem advisable. All such reports
shall be submitted to the House by December 31, 2010.
(b) House Democracy Assistance Commission.--House
Resolution 24, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in the
One Hundred Eleventh Congress in the same manner as such
resolution applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.
(c) Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.--Sections 1 through
7 of House Resolution 1451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall
apply in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress in the same manner
as such provisions applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress,
except that --
(1) the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission may, in addition
to collaborating closely with other professional staff
members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, collaborate
closely with professional staff members of other relevant
committees; and
(2) the resources of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which
the Commission may use shall include all resources which the
Committee is authorized to obtain from other offices of the
House of Representatives.
(d) Office of Congressional Ethics.-- Section 1 of House
Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in
the One Hundred Eleventh Congress in the same manner as such
provision applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress, except
that the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as a
standing committee of the House for purposes of section
202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. 72a(i)).
(e) Empanelling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct.--The text of House
Resolution 451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in
the One Hundred Eleventh Congress in the same manner as such
provision applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.
(f) Continuing Authorities for the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Office of General Counsel.--
(1) The House authorizes--
(A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the 111th Congress to
act as the successor in interest to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the 110th Congress with respect to the civil
action Committee on the Judiciary v. Harriet Meirs et al.,
filed by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 110th Congress
pursuant to House Resolution 980; and
(B) the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary (when
elected), on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, and
the Office of General Counsel to take such steps as may be
appropriate to ensure continuation of such civil action,
including amending the complaint as circumstances may
warrant.
(2)(A) The House authorizes--
(i) the Committee on the Judiciary to take depositions by a
member or counsel of the committee related to the
investigation into the firing of certain United States
Attorneys and related matters; and
(ii) the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary (when
elected), on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, to
issue subpoenas related to the investigation into the firing
of certain United States Attorneys and related matters
including for the purpose of taking depositions by a member
or counsel of the committee.
(B) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in
this paragraph shall be governed by the procedures submitted
for printing in the Congressional Record by the chair of the
Committee on Rules (when elected) or by such other procedures
as the Committee on the Judiciary shall prescribe.
(3) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary (when elected), on behalf of the Committee on the
Judiciary, and the Office of General Counsel to petition to
join as a party to the civil action referenced in paragraph
(1) any individual subpoenaed by the Committee on the
Judiciary
[[Page H10]]
of the 110th Congress as part of its investigation into the
firing of certain United States Attorneys and related matters
who failed to comply with such subpoena or, at the
authorization of the Speaker after consultation with the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, to initiate judicial
proceedings concerning the enforcement of subpoenas issued to
such individuals.
SEC. 5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS.
(a) Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.--Upon the adoption of
this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House
the bill (H.R. 11) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory
compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful
under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid
pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other
practice, and for other purposes. All points of order against
the bill and against its consideration are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
(b)(1) Paycheck Fairness Act.--Upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the
bill (H.R. 12) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
to provide more effective remedies to victims of
discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex,
and for other purposes. All points of order against the bill
and against its consideration are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered
as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
(2) In the engrossment of H.R. 11, the Clerk shall--
(A) add the text of H.R. 12, as passed by the House, as new
matter at the end of H.R. 11;
(B) conform the title of H.R. 11 to reflect the addition to
the engrossment of H.R. 12;
(C) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(D) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
(3) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 12 to the
engrossment of H.R. 11, H.R. 12 shall be laid on the table.
Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), or his
designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Democrats were elected to the majority with
a pledge that under our leadership the House would dedicate itself to
integrity and accountability. We believe we kept that promise.
Today, gifts from lobbyists are banned, the use of corporate jets is
prohibited, the earmark process is transparent, all House employees are
trained in ethics, and an independent Office of Congressional Ethics
has been established.
But we also understand that holding this House to high standards is
not simply the work of one session or one resolution or, indeed, one
Congress. It is a project for all of us to renew year after year. I
would like to touch on some of the most important new standards for the
111th Congress: a new rules package that will ensure that the House
does the people's work ethically and efficiently.
First, we understand that ``revolving door'' between the public and
private sectors can compromise the independence of judgment that voters
want and deserve. That is why these new rules will prevent ``lame
duck'' Members from negotiating employment contracts in secret before
their terms expire.
Secondly, the rules will no longer set term limits for committee
Chairs. I understand that our Republican colleagues once wrote term
limits into the rules in an effort against the entrenched power. But it
is now clear that that effort fell victim to what conservatives like to
call the law of unintended consequences.
With chairmanships up for grabs so frequently, fundraising ability
became one of the most important for job qualification, and legislative
skill was sacrificed to political considerations.
Third, these rules limit the abuse of motions to recommit. We invite
good-faith efforts to improve legislation. And in these hard times, we
need the Republican Party to be constructive partners in policy making.
We welcome it. But we all understand which motions are not offered in
good faith. Those are the motions that attempt to kill bills through
parliamentary tricks and waste our constituents' time on ``gotcha''
politics.
Fourth, we are continuing our work to reform earmarks, removing
loopholes that allow Members to make some earmarks in secret.
Fifth and finally, these rules confirm our commitment to fiscal
responsibility.
A binge of borrowing has weakened our economy, tied our hands in a
financial crisis, and saddled our children and grandchildren with $9
trillion in foreign-owned debt. That recklessness must end, and these
rules will help end it.
Mr. Speaker, these rules embody our vision for the House as an
institution: a place that debates constructively, spends wisely, and
lives in the actions of all its Members and all its staff by a standard
we can be proud of.
That is our vision for this House, and I urge my colleagues to adopt
these rules.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be
controlled by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman Slaughter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Maryland for his
statement and yielding me the time to present the opening day's rules
package for the 111th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, rarely has our great Nation faced such grave challenges.
Millions of Americans are without jobs and consequently also without
health insurance. Our troops are fighting two wars overseas. And as our
economy spirals downward, Americans from coast to coast are struggling
to make ends meet.
But there is reason to hope. In fewer than 14 days, a new President
will be sworn in. And President-elect Barack Obama, the House Democrats
and I, and my Republican friends are committed to rolling up our
sleeves and getting to work immediately to solve the critical
challenges that face our Nation.
On this day I am honored to address the House at the beginning of the
111th Congress to present the rules package that will govern this body
as we work to meet the needs of American families over the next 2
years.
It is the responsibility of the majority to protect and enhance the
integrity of the institution, and that is what this rules package does.
Through building upon the important rules changes that Democrats
implemented during the last Congress, we are keeping our commitment to
the American people to restore accountability and honesty to
government.
In the 110th Congress, Democrats put forth critical measures to
restore transparency to the House. We banned gifts from lobbyists. We
prohibited the use of corporate jets. We mandated ethics training for
all House employees. We ensured transparency for earmarks by requiring
the full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports. We
established an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. And today we
are building on our commitment to the American people to further
strengthen the integrity of this institution in the 111th Congress.
By closing the loophole that allowed ``lame duck'' Members to
negotiate employment contracts in secret, we are opening the doors of
Congress and shedding light upon the process. By codifying the
additional earmark reforms adopted mid-term in the 110th Congress,
coupled with the ongoing rules that required the Members' signatures
and their reasons for their requests, we are permanently strengthening
earlier comprehensive reforms,
[[Page H11]]
resulting in even further transparency and accountability in the
earmark process.
By making commonsense changes to the motion to recommit, we are
helping Congress to function more effectively while preserving the
minority's legitimate right to present their policy alternatives
through offering a motion that amends the bill or a ``straight'' motion
that sends the bill back to committee without amendment.
By removing reference to term limits for committee Chairs from this
package, we take away what was from the first a political consideration
to eliminate that from the official House rules where they don't
belong. And by maintaining strong PAYGO rules, we are demonstrating our
strong commitment to fiscal discipline.
These important measures make good sense to protect the integrity of
this institution and to enable Congress to help America get back on
track. Today, we are not only harnessing the belief that we can
continue to restore integrity and accountability to Congress, we are
also laying down a strong foundation for House action on the grave
challenges that face this great Nation.
Mr. Speaker and my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American
people know exactly what's at stake over the next few years, which is
why they have resoundingly raised their voices for change, and
Democrats are listening. We are ready to help put Americans back to
work by investing in job creation initiatives, strengthening our
economy. We are ready to fix our broken health care system so that
every citizen can get quality, affordable health care that they
desperately need and are entitled to. We are ready to cultivate a clean
energy economy by turning wind into energy, energy investments into
innovation, and innovation into good-paying American jobs.
We are ready to begin responsibly withdrawing troops from Iraq, ready
to ensure quality education for our young people, ready to continue
making the tough choices that the American people elected us to make.
Yet in order for us to begin addressing these pressing challenges, we
must ensure that Congress continues to put integrity and accountability
at the heart of our daily actions. I can think of no better way to do
that than by adopting these amendments to the House rules.
Mr. Speaker, it will be a long and difficult journey to strengthen
our economy, to reform the health care system, and create a clean
energy future worthy of our children and grandchildren. But the rules
package before us today is an important first step, one that will
ensure integrity in Congress as we move forward on this pivotal path.
It is time to reinvigorate America. It's time to make history. And
let us begin.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this commonsense rules package to
allow the House to operate more effectively and productively in solving
the challenges facing our great Nation while strengthening our
integrity in Congress.
Section-by-Section of Rule Changes--111th Congress
The changes in the standing rules of the House made by
House Resolution 5 include the following:
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES.
(a) Inspector General Audits.--
In response to the recommendation of the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration, this provision amends clause 6(c)(1) of rule
II to clarify the non-traditional audit work that the
Inspector General does in the areas of business process
improvements, services to enhance the efficiency of House
support operations, and risk management assessments. The
change also will allow the Inspector General to implement
guidance and standards published in the Government
Accountability Office's Government Auditing Standards.
(b) Homeland Security.--
This provision amends clause 3(g) of rule X to direct the
Committee on Homeland Security to review and study on a
primary and continuing basis all Government activities,
programs, and organizations relating to homeland security
within its primary legislative jurisdiction.
Nothing in this rule shall affect the oversight or
legislative authority of other committees under the Rules of
the House.
The change in clause 3 of rule X clarifies the Committee on
Homeland Security's oversight jurisdiction over government
activities relating to homeland security within its primary
legislative jurisdiction, including the interaction of all
departments and agencies with the Department of Homeland
Security. Consistent with the designation of the Committee on
Homeland Security as the committee of oversight in these
vital areas, the House expects that the President and the
relevant executive agencies will forward copies of all
reports in this area, in addition to those already covered by
clause 2(b) of rule XIV, to the Committee on Homeland
Security to assist it in carrying out this important
responsibility.
This change is meant to clarify that the various agencies
have a reporting relationship with the Homeland Security
Committee on matters within its jurisdiction in addition to
the agencies' reporting relationships with other committees
of jurisdiction.
(c) Additional Functions of the Committee on House
Administration.--
This provision amends clause 4(d) of rule X to give the
Committee on House Administration oversight of the management
of services provided to the House by the Architect of the
Capitol, except those services that lie within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure under clause 1(r).
(d) Terms of Committee Chairmen.--
This provision strikes clause 5(c)(2) of rule X to
eliminate term limits for committee and subcommittee chairs
and includes a conforming amendment to clause 5(a)(2)(C) of
rule X to provide an exception to the Budget Committee tenure
limitations for a chair or ranking minority member serving a
second consecutive term in the respective position.
(e) Calendar Wednesday.--
This provision amends clause 6 of rule XV to require the
Clerk to read only those committees where the committee chair
has given notice to the House on Tuesday that he or she will
seek recognition to call up a bill under the Calendar
Wednesday rule. This will replace the requirement that the
Clerk read the list of all committees, regardless of whether
a committee intends to utilize the rule. The provision makes
conforming changes to clause 6 of rule XV and clause 6 of
rule XIII, including the deletion of the requirement of a
two-thirds vote to dispense with the proceedings under
Calendar Wednesday.
(f) Postponement Authority.--
This provision adds a new paragraph (c) to clause 1 of rule
XIX to give permanent authority to the Chair to postpone
further consideration of legislation prior to final passage
when the previous question is operating to adoption or
passage of a measure pursuant to a special order of business.
This codifies a practice that has become routine during the
110th Congress.
(g) Instructions in the Motion to Recommit.--
This provision amends clause 2(b) of rule XIX to provide
that a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution may
include instructions only in the form of a direction to
report a textual amendment or amendments back to the House
forthwith. The provision makes no change to the straight
motion to recommit.
(h) Conduct of Votes.--
In response to the bipartisan recommendation of the Select
Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
2, 2007, this provision deletes the following sentence in
clause 2(a) of rule XX: ``A record vote by electronic device
shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the
outcome of such vote.''
(i) General Appropriation Conference Reports.--
This provision codifies House Resolution 491, 110th
Congress, which was adopted by unanimous consent. The
provision provides a point of order against any general
appropriations conference report containing earmarks that are
included in conference reports but not committed to
conference by either House and not in a House or Senate
committee report on the legislation. A point of order under
the provision would be disposed of by the question of
consideration, which would be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided.
(j) PAYGO.--This provision amends clause 10 of rule XXI to
make the following changes:
(1) A technical amendment to align the PAYGO rules of the
House with those of the Senate so that both houses use the
same CBO baselines;
(2) The changes would also allow one House-passed measure
to pay for spending in a separate House-passed measure if the
two are linked at the engrossment stage; and
(3) The changes would also allow for emergency exceptions
to PAYGO for provisions designated as emergency spending in a
bill, joint resolution, amendment made in order as original
text, conference report, or amendment between the Houses (but
not other amendments).
The new clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI provides that the Chair
will put the question of consideration on a bill, joint
resolution, an amendment made in order as original text by a
special order of business, a conference report, or an
amendment between the Houses that includes an emergency PAYGO
designation. The Chair will put the question of consideration
on such a measure without regard to a waiver of points of
order under clause 10 of rule XXI or language providing for
immediate consideration of such a measure.
The intent of this exception to pay-as-you-go principles is
to allow for consideration of measures that respond to
emergency situations. Provisions of legislation may receive
an emergency designation if such provisions are necessary to
respond to an act of war, an
[[Page H12]]
act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or a period of
sustained low economic growth. A measure that includes any
provision designated as emergency shall be accompanied by a
report or a joint statement of managers, as the case may be,
or include an applicable ``Findings'' section in the
legislation, stating the reasons why such provision meets the
emergency requirement according to the following criteria.
In general, the criteria to be considered in determining
whether a proposed expenditure or tax change meets an
emergency designation include: (1) necessary, essential, or
vital (not merely useful or beneficial); (2) sudden, quickly
coming into being, and not building up over time; (3) an
urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate
action; (4) unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(5) not permanent, but rather temporary in nature. With
respect to the fourth criterion above, an emergency that is
part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies,
particularly when normally estimated in advance, is not
``unforeseen.''
(k) Disclosure by Members of Employment Negotiations.--
This provisions amends clause 1 of rule XXVII to close the
loophole in the rule that allowed lame-duck Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner to directly
negotiate future employment or compensation without public
disclosure. The rule will now apply to all current Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner requiring them,
within 3 business days after the commencement of such
negotiation or agreement of future employment or
compensation, to file with the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct a statement regarding such negotiations or
agreement.
(l) Gender Neutrality.--
This provision amends the Rules of the House to render them
neutral with respect to gender. These changes are not
intended to effect any substantive changes.
(m) Technical and Codifying Changes.--
Upon the recommendation of the Parliamentarian, this
provision contains the following technical and codifying
changes:
(1) Clarify that the authority of the Clerk to receive
messages on behalf of the House includes both recesses and
adjournments (clause 2(h) of rule II);
(2) Restore the Speaker's regulatory authority for all of
rule IV (regarding access to the House floor), which was
inadvertently narrowed when the House last amended clause 4
of rule IV by the adoption of House Resolution 648, 109th
Congress (clause 4(b) of rule IV);
(3) Clarify that the scheme set forth in the rule for
temporary management of a committee will apply pending the
House filling a permanent vacancy of a chairman (clause 5(c)
of rule X);
(4) Clarify that the majority-party Member in the next
Congress, who was most senior on the committee in the
preceding Congress, has voucher authority pending
establishment and repopulation of the committee (clause 7(e)
of rule X);
(5) Delete an unnecessary cross reference (clause 8(a) of
rule X);
(6) Reinsert the exception, inadvertently dropped in
recodification in the 106th Congress, that privileged matters
are not automatically laid on the table when reported
adversely (unlike nonprivileged matters reported adversely,
which are automatically laid on the table) (clause 2(a) of
rule XIII);
(7) Correct an internal cross reference (clause 5(c)(3) of
rule XX);
(8) Clarify the availability of a motion to adjourn during
merger of a quorum call and the yeas and nays to include only
the clause 6 version of the yeas and nays (clause 6(c) of
rule XX);
(9) Correct a grammatical error in the rule to clarify that
notice to instruct conferees at a stalled conference is given
by a ``proponent'' and not by a ``motion.'' (clause 7(c)(3)
of rule XXII);
(10) Clarify that the rule prohibiting campaign funds for
official expenses applies to ``office space, office
furniture, or office equipment'' (clause 1(b)(2) of rule
XXIV); and
(11) Corrects an internal cross reference (clause 5(i)(2)
of rule XXV).
SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.
(a) Budget Matters.--
(1)-(3) These three provisions retain instructions on the
interpretation of sections 303, 306, and 401 of the
Congressional Budget Act, that have been in place since the
106th, 107th, and 109th Congresses, respectively.
(4) This provision would retain the point of order against
the motion to rise and report an appropriations bill to the
House where the bill, as proposed to be amended, exceeded its
302(b) budget allocation. The point of order was created in
the 109th Congress and continued in the 110th Congress.
(b) Certain Subcommittees.--
This provision would continue to waive the requirements of
clause 5(d)(1) of rule X, which limits the number of
subcommittees for each committee to five, for the following
committees: Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(c) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--
This provision continues the standing order of the House,
first adopted in the 109th Congress, which prohibits former
Members, spouses of former Members, and former officers of
the House from using the Members gym if those individuals are
registered lobbyists.
(d) Numbering of Bills.--
This provision continues the practice of reserving the
first 10 bill numbers for designation by the Speaker
throughout the 111th Congress.
(e) Medicare Cost Containment.--
This provision turns off Section 803 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
during the 111th Congress.
SEC. 4. COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND HOUSE OFFICES.
(a) Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming.--
This provision continues the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming through the 111th Congress.
(b) House Democracy Assistance Commission.--
This provision continues the House Democracy Assistance
Commission.
(c) Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.--
This provision continues the Tom Lantos Human Rights
Commission except that it allows the Commission to
collaborate closely with professional staff members of other
relevant committees and to use resources that the Committee
on Foreign Affairs is authorized to obtain from other offices
of the House.
(d) Office of Congressional Ethics.--
This provision continues the Office of Congressional Ethics
and provides that the Office shall be treated as a standing
committee of the House for purposes of section 202(i) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, concerning
consultants for Congressional committees.
(e) Empanelling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct.--
This provision continues House Resolution 451, 110th
Congress, directing the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to empanel investigative subcommittees within 30 days
after the date a Member is indicted or criminal charges are
filed.
(f) Continuing Authorities for the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Office of General Counsel.--
This provision authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary
and the House General Counsel to continue the lawsuit derived
from the House holding White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten
and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of
Congress for failure to comply with Judiciary Committee
subpoenas, which was initiated in the 110th Congress. With
respect to the continued investigation into the firing of
certain United States Attorneys, this provision authorizes:
(1) the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to issue
subpoenas and (2) the taking of depositions by Members or
counsel, which shall be governed by rules printed in the
Congressional Record by the Rules Committee chair or
otherwise prescribed by the Judiciary Committee; and (3) the
Judiciary Committee and General Counsel to add as a party to
the lawsuit any individual subpoenaed by the Committee in the
110th Congress who failed to comply.
Judiciary Committee Deposition Rules: In accordance with
the Committee receiving special authorization by the House
for the taking of depositions in furtherance of a Committee
investigation, the chair, upon consultation with a designated
minority member, may order the taking of depositions pursuant
to notice or subpoena. The designated minority member shall
be the ranking minority member or, if a ranking minority
member has not been elected, the highest ranking member of
the Committee as it was constituted at the end of the
preceding Congress who is a member of the minority party in
the present Congress.
The chair or majority staff shall consult with the
designated minority member or minority staff, respectively,
at least two days before any notice or subpoena for a
deposition is issued. Upon completion of such consultation,
all members shall receive written notice that a notice or
subpoena for a deposition will be issued.
A notice or subpoena issued for the taking of a deposition
shall specify the date, time, and place of the deposition and
the method or methods by which the deposition will be
recorded. The chair shall designate the number of majority
members and majority counsel to conduct the deposition; the
designated minority member shall be permitted to appoint an
equal number of minority members and an equal number of
minority counsel to conduct the deposition.
A deposition shall be taken under oath or affirmation
administered by a member or a person otherwise authorized to
administer oaths and affirmations.
A deponent shall not be required to testify unless the
deponent has been provided with a copy of such rules of
procedure then in being prescribed by the Committee, this
rule as applicable, section 4 of House Resolution 5, and rule
X and rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
A deponent may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to
advise the deponent of the deponent's rights. Only members
and Committee counsel, however, may examine the deponent. No
one may be present at a deposition other than members,
Committee staff designated by the chair or designated
minority member, such individuals as may be required to
administer the oath or affirmation and transcribe or record
the proceedings, the deponent, and the deponent's counsel
(including personal counsel and counsel for the entity
employing the deponent if the scope of the deposition is
expected to cover actions taken as part of the deponent's
employment). Observers or counsel for other persons or
entities may not attend.
[[Page H13]]
Questions in a deposition shall be propounded in rounds,
alternating between the majority and minority. A single round
shall not exceed 60 minutes per side, unless the members or
counsel conducting the deposition agree to a different length
of questioning. In each round, a member or Committee counsel
designated by the chair shall ask questions first, and the
member or Committee counsel designated by the designated
minority member shall ask questions second.
Any objection made during a deposition must be stated
concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive
manner. The deponent may refuse to answer only when necessary
to preserve a privilege. In instances where the deponent or
counsel has objected to a question to preserve a privilege
and accordingly the deponent has refused to answer the
question to preserve such privilege, the chair may rule on
any such objection after the deposition has adjourned. If the
chair overrules any such objection and thereby orders a
deponent to answer any question to which a privilege
objection was lodged, such order shall be filed with the
clerk of the Committee and shall be provided to members and
the deponent no less than three days before being
implemented.
If a member of the Committee appeals in writing the order
of the chair, the appeal shall be preserved for Committee
consideration. A deponent who refuses to answer a question
after being directed to answer by the chair in writing may be
subject to sanction, except that no sanctions may be imposed
if the ruling of the chair is reversed on appeal. Consistent
with clause 2(k)(8) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the committee shall remain the sole judge of
the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its
hearings.
Deposition testimony shall be transcribed by stenographic
means and may also be video recorded. The Clerk of the
Committee shall receive the transcript and any video
recording and promptly forward such to minority staff at the
same time the Clerk distributes such to other majority staff.
The individual administering the oath, if other than a
member, shall certify on the transcript that the deponent was
duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript
is a true, verbatim record of the testimony, and the
transcript and any exhibits shall be filed, as shall any
video recording, with the clerk of the Committee in
Washington, DC. In no case shall any video recording be
considered the official transcript of a deposition or
otherwise supersede the certified written transcript.
Depositions shall be considered to have been taken in
Washington, DC, as well as the location actually taken, once
filed with the clerk of the Committee for the Committee's
use.
After receiving the transcript, majority staff shall make
available the transcript for review by the deponent or
deponent's counsel. No later than ten business days
thereafter, the deponent may submit suggested changes to the
chair. The majority staff of the Committee may direct the
Clerk of the Committee to note any typographical errors,
including any requested by the deponent or minority staff,
via an errata sheet appended to the transcript. Any proposed
substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or
amendments to the deposition testimony must be submitted by
the deponent as an affidavit that includes the deponent's
reasons therefor. Any substantive changes, modifications,
clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an
appendix to the transcript. Majority and minority staff both
shall be provided with a copy of the final transcript of the
deposition with any appendices at the same time.
SEC. 5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS.
This section consists of a special order of business
providing for consideration of the following two bills (the
text of each of which is identical to the 110th House-passed
versions):
(1) H.R. 11--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to amend title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify
that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice
that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time
compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory
compensation decision or other practice, and for other
purposes, and
(2) H.R. 12--Paycheck Fairness Act, to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to
victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the
basis of sex, and for other purposes.
The special order allows for separate consideration of each
measure under a closed rule. After adoption of the second
bill, the text of H.R. 12 will be added to H.R. 11 and H.R.
12 will be laid on the table.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my good friend from
Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms.
Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I congratulate
her and all of our colleagues on their membership in the 111th
Congress.
As we have heard from the speeches delivered by the Speaker and the
Republican leader, today marks the start of the 111th Congress, a new
beginning for the first branch and for the people's House.
As was stated, 2 weeks from today we are going to be making history
with the inauguration of Barack Obama. President-elect Obama has
already reached out to congressional Republicans, expressing his desire
to work with us in this new Congress.
We all know very well what an honorable campaign Mr. Obama ran. While
I didn't support his candidacy, I, like many of my colleagues and
fellow Americans, was inspired by his message of hope, unity, and
change for the future.
{time} 1445
He laid out a vision that replaces bitterness with bipartisanship,
cynicism with a sincere commitment to a brighter future.
Of course, there is a great divergence of opinion on the details of
exactly how we reach that brighter future. Congressional Republicans
have our agenda. We feel very strongly about it. We are committed more
than ever to the principles for which we stand. But we wholeheartedly
agree with Mr. Obama that the way forward is through open, inclusive
debate, a strong spirit of bipartisanship and the sincere pursuit of
common ground.
Unfortunately, the high-minded rhetoric of the Presidential campaign
only highlights the pure cynicism of this rules package that we are
considering today. The Democratic leadership of this House is poised to
consider, as its very first legislative act of this Congress, a rules
package that literally shreds the Obama vision.
I am going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The package that we are going
to be voting on today literally shreds the Obama vision. Fourteen days
before he is even inaugurated into office, the President-elect's plan
for unity and bipartisanship is being obstructed by his own party.
This rules package takes the abysmal record of the last Congress and
actually makes it more restrictive. You will hear a lot today about
arcane procedural tactics and wonder how it has any relevance to the
problems that we face as a nation. But these changes, Mr. Speaker, have
enormous consequences for the conduct and outcome of our policy
debates.
Mr. Speaker, process is substance. As we tackle enormously important
issues like, as everyone has said, getting our economy back on track,
we cannot achieve a good outcome without a good process. We are very
attuned to the concept of history being made right now and 2 weeks from
today, so perhaps we should look at history.
The motion to recommit, as we know it today, was granted to the
minority 100 years ago following a rebellion against the most
dictatorial Speaker of the last century, Joseph Gurney ``Uncle Joe''
Cannon. This motion ensures that the minority gets at least one
opportunity, one opportunity to offer an amendment or an alternative.
During the Democrats' 40-year reign, they routinely denied Republicans,
often dozens of times in a Congress, the single bite at the apple, one
opportunity to offer an alternative. Mr. Speaker, when we took the
majority in 1995, we guaranteed the right of the motion to recommit,
and we never, we never denied it.
This body has always been governed by majority rule. The majority has
a number of tools at its disposal, not least of which is the Rules
Committee itself, on which I am privileged to serve. That's how they
advance their agenda. An effective majority can abide by the rules and
traditions of the House and still succeed legislatively.
By contrast, in the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership chose,
instead, to resort to procedural gimmickry to advance their agenda.
They had every legislative advantage as the majority party, and yet
they felt compelled to trample the traditions of the House, rather than
build consensus or engage in actual deliberation. They went so far as
to shut down the appropriations process to avoid open debate. Mr.
Speaker, as for the motion to recommit, that one single opportunity,
that one single opportunity for minority input, the Democratic
leadership
[[Page H14]]
frequently resorted to legislative tricks to deny it.
Now, the Democratic leadership is no longer content to shut down
debate on an ad hoc basis. They are making it official with this rules
package. The underlying resolution contains a host of new procedural
gimmicks to stifle debate and to perpetuate partisanship. This
resolution changes the rules of the House to formally limit, to
formally limit, the motion to recommit. This limitation prevents any
bill from being returned to committee for further deliberation. It
restricts Members' ability to strip out tax increases. Apparently, the
Democratic majority believes tax increases are sacred, but open debate
is not sacred.
This rules package also manipulates our budget rules, once again, to
protect tax increases, as well as to protect spending increases. You
see, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership not only spent the last
Congress shutting out Republicans, they also had to find clever ways to
shut out fiscally conservative Democrats. Trying to build consensus
within their own party was very time consuming. They learned their
lesson, though. This rules package guts the budget rules that many
Democrats hold so dear.
The laundry list of rules changes goes on. They cut term limits for
committee chairmen, they scrap Medicare cost-containment measures. And
if all this weren't enough, they include completely closed rules,
completely closed rules for the two bills that will be considered later
this week without ever having the Rules Committee meet. Apparently, the
Democratic leadership scoured the House rules for accountability and
transparency measures and systematically dismantled what they found.
So much, Mr. Speaker, for the Obama vision. While he is calling for
the most transparent administration in our Nation's history, his
congressional Democrats are launching the most closed Congress in
history.
But I believe that President-elect Obama is sincere. Since the day he
was elected, he has been reaching out to Republicans. He has called
many of us individually to express a sincere desire to move beyond the
divisiveness of politics and to work together. I can only imagine the
chagrin at his own party, their attempt to undermine his best efforts.
Today's rules package is a huge step backward. It sets the stage for
even more closed, bitter, rancorous debate.
The next major item on the agenda is more than a $1 trillion stimulus
package. Republican Leader John Boehner has laid out several modest,
but critically important, requests for an open process. There should be
public hearings. The text should be available online for a full week
prior to a vote. There should be no special-interest earmarks.
These are commonsense guidelines that are widely supported by the
American people. They understand that our response to the economic
crisis is too important to allow it to be slapped together in secret
behind closed doors and rammed through the House. Both Democrats and
Republicans have a number of good ideas that should be considered and
debated.
Today I will be pursuing an economic recovery package that focuses on
pro-growth policies. I am introducing a trio of bills aimed at growing
our economy by simplifying and reducing the tax burden on individuals
and job creators, jump-starting our housing market and reviving the
auto industry.
I hope we can move forward on these kinds of policies, but neither I
nor my colleagues ask to prejudge the outcome of those debates. We
simply ask that that debate take place.
Majority Leader Hoyer agrees, and said so on an interview that he had
this past Sunday. We can only hope he is able to convince the Speaker
to keep the process open and transparent. If her leadership's first
legislative act of this Congress is any indication, it won't be a
fruitful endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, today's new beginning is nothing more than a new low for
the Democratic majority. Their cynicism and manipulation is all the
more dismal against the backdrop of President-elect Obama's vision for
hope, unity and change for the better. The Democratic majority's
actions today do not represent change that fulfills hope. This is
change that denies hope.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules package.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
vice chair of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern).
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, the
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the time.
First, let me congratulate Speaker Pelosi as she begins her second
term as Speaker of the House. I also want to congratulate my colleagues
for their elections, and I welcome our new colleagues to the House of
Representatives.
Our Nation is facing very challenging times. Twelve years ago, when I
was first elected to Congress, our economy was still growing, and we
were looking at a significant budget surplus. Our world was relatively
peaceful. Now, after 8 years of reckless and wasteful spending, and
after an ill-advised war, we face a global economic meltdown and
international instability that seem to be spreading all too quickly.
In November, the American people elected a new President and larger
Democratic majorities in the Congress. The voters sent a very clear
message. Things have got to change here in Washington, and Congress has
to accomplish things.
We know that Congress will need to act quickly and responsibly in
order to pass legislation to help our Nation solve our economic and
foreign policy problems. This rules package is designed to help us do
just that. This is a good package, and I am pleased to support it
today.
There are many important parts this package. I am pleased that this
is first rules package that is gender neutral. There are other
technical fixes included in this package that will help the House
operate more smoothly and efficiently.
One of the major changes, as we have heard, in this package deals
with the motion to recommit, which is modernized in this package.
Specifically, the minority will no longer be able to offer a
``promptly'' motion to recommit, which sends bills back to committee
with no timetable for return, essentially killing the bill.
The minority, however, will have the ability to offer a proper
``forthwith'' motion or a ``straight'' motion. But no longer will the
minority be able to abuse the process by offering political amendments
designed to either kill a bill without actually voting against it or to
provide fodder for a 30-second political ad.
During the 12 years while Democrats were in the minority, we offered
only 36 ``promptly'' motions to recommit. Over the past 2 years,
Republicans offered 50 of these motions.
Following the 2006 elections that brought Democrats back into the
majority in the House, the new Republican minority had two options,
either work in a bipartisan way to address the needs of the American
people, or obstruct the business of this House through gotcha-style
politics. Unfortunately, too often they chose the latter.
The motion to recommit was not designed for this purpose. It was
designed to be a tool for legislating, not a political weapon.
Repeatedly, the Democratic majority attempted to work with the
Republican minority on their motions to recommit, but every time we
offered to accept their motion in return for not killing the bill, the
Republican minority refused. They chose talking points over
accomplishments. They chose to be the party of obstructionism, not
offering alternatives, but instead trying to derail the entire process
for political gain. It's a cynical way to do business.
That's not legislating, and it's not what the voters sent us here to
do. I strongly disagree with those who say modernizing the motion to
recommit is undemocratic. Let me be clear, any Member who opposes a
bill still has the ability, indeed, the responsibility, to vote ``no.''
Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein said it best, and I quote, ``A
minority party deserves the right to be heard and to have alternatives
considered, but with those rights comes responsibilities. If the
minority uses the opportunity to offer amendments to exploit cynically
the opening for political
[[Page H15]]
purposes--through `gotcha' amendments designed to offer 30-second
attack ads against vulnerable majority lawmakers, or through poison
pill alternatives designed only to scuttle a bill, not to offer a real
alternative--it soon will lose its moral high ground for objecting to
majority restriction on debate and amendments.''
Mr. Speaker, I finally would like to point out that in this package
is included H. Res. 5, which is the reauthorization of the Tom Lantos
Human Rights Commission. The United States must reclaim its moral
authority on human rights. I am honored to cochair that commission
along with my good friend Frank Wolf of Virginia, and I look forward to
working with him and our other Members to advance the cause of human
rights around the world.
Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, our
distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, for the time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend from Miami, the hardworking member of the Committee on Rules,
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
I will say as I do that, Mr. Speaker, that we would never have
contemplated denying the then-minority what is being denied us under
this measure.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for 100 years, the
motion to recommit has really been sacrosanct in this House, and the
essence of representative democracy is, yes, rule by the majority with
respect to the rights of the minority.
Today, history will record that in this rules package by the
majority, the severe limitation of the right of the minority to offer
an alternative in legislation, this severe limitation of the motion to
recommit, is a sad, unfortunate, and wholly unnecessary step that takes
a very strong, a very significant step toward unaccountability.
So it is really a sad day for this House, that the House, the
leadership, the majority leadership, would commence this Congress by
retrogression, by taking such a significant and unfortunate step
towards unaccountability, severely limiting the option, the ability of
the minority to offer an alternative known for 100 years and respected
in this House as the motion to recommit.
{time} 1500
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the
Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, this rules package also contains the first step in the
march towards economic recovery in that it allows consideration by this
Congress for the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Act. We
are going to reverse a very anachronistic decision by the United States
Supreme Court relating to job discrimination based on sex. You see, in
this country, working women are still earning only 78 cents for every
dollar that a man makes in the same position oftentimes; and despite
the attempts by this Congress during the 110th Congress, we were unable
to beat back the opposition of the White House.
Well, this is a new day and a new direction for America, because now
we will have someone in the White House who will value equal
opportunity in employment and education and housing and other fields.
Indeed, the President-elect has stated that he intends to invite Ms.
Ledbetter to the White House, and he understands that this bill is part
of a broader effort to update the social contract, to value equal pay
for equal work.
This is something that Congressman Rosa DeLauro, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter have fought for year
after year after year, to realize the economic recovery in our
households across America, many headed by single women. This is the
important first step this Congress will take as part of the economic
recovery and reinvestment.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the spirit of the
debate here, refusal to yield, is indicative of exactly what this rules
package consists of.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our very
good friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are here today on the minority side as
perhaps victims of our own success in the last Congress. We clearly
were able to use this as the only tool that we often had available to
us, and we used it with great success. We used it with great success
that didn't destroy the legislative process. In fact, many days the
legislative process had already been destroyed. There was no committee
markup. There was no hearing. Often the bills came from somewhere, the
leader's office, the Speaker's office. We didn't know where they came
from because we didn't see them until the day they were headed to the
floor or the day before they were headed to the floor. We weren't given
amendments, we weren't given substitutes, but we were given 100 years
ago these tools in the motions to recommit.
The majority would probably argue that somehow this makes the process
unworkable. But there are a number of examples in the last Congress
where the process was very workable.
The Public Housing Management Act that was brought to the floor
February 26 by Mr. Sires, Mrs. Bachmann offered a motion to recommit to
block the Federal Government from restricting possession of otherwise
legal firearms for these residents. When she offered the motion, the
bill was pulled. The committee then met, as the motion would have
required them to do, added that provision to the bill, and brought it
back to the floor a few days later.
The AmeriCorps bill to authorize and expand AmeriCorps was considered
in March of 2008. Mr. Kuhl made a motion to recommit that was prompt in
nature to prohibit sex offenders and murderers from receiving these
grants. The bill was pulled. Six days later, the same bill was brought
up including Mr. Kuhl's language.
The idea that this ruins the process or the idea that a bill that you
have never seen before the day it is coming to the floor or the day
before it is coming to the floor, we don't need to have tools to bring
new ideas to the floor, is just wrong. I urge that this rules package
be defeated.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chair of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The former minority whip has just proved
the opposite of his case. In the one instance that he refers to where a
bill came out of the committee which I chair, we were prepared to
accept that amendment on the floor. It was offered promptly. We asked
if it could be done, as we often did, as forthwith, and it could have
been adopted on the floor. In that case it wasn't 6 days, it took
several weeks, because we cannot drop everything and get to a bill.
Now, understand that when a bill is sent back to a committee, all the
rules apply. And, by the way, nothing stops you from making this a
revolving door, Mr. Speaker. People can keep doing this.
The motion to recommit, Members have said on the other side they want
to be able to offer an alternative. Nothing in this proposal in any way
diminishes their ability to offer an alternative. They are fully able
to offer an alternative as an amendment. What they will be losing here
is a legislative Ponzi scheme in which you pretend to be something you
are not.
Here is the way it works: If the minority wants under any bill to
offer a motion to recommit, as the rule will now read if this passes,
they can offer a motion to recommit with a germane amendment that is
binding, and if it is adopted, the bill is amended on the spot. But
they often don't want to do that. Often their amendments are really
disguises for opposition to the bill in general. So they take an
amendment that would pass virtually unanimously because it is so
popular and say it should be done in a way that sends the bill back to
committee rather than to amend the bill.
So let's be very clear. Their ability to offer a motion that is an
amendment
[[Page H16]]
to the bill is in no way diminished by this. It is in no way changed.
It is exactly the same. What they lose is the ability to take something
that would pass overwhelmingly if they would allow a serious vote on it
and use it as a way to get a bill sent back to committee for purposes
of delay.
Now, the gentleman is right. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the
bill survives. Sometimes it doesn't. There is often a traffic jam on
the floor. There are also cases where timeliness is important, where
the administration may be about to do something we want to stop them
from doing and we want to be able to move reasonably quickly.
I will say this with regard to where he said bills came from nowhere.
The bills where this tactic, this Ponzi scheme has been used, on bills
that have come out of the Financial Services Committee, were not those
bills. They were bills where there had been open amendment processes,
where I have often gone to the Rules Committee and asked for amendments
to be in order.
In fact, in my experience, the committee of jurisdiction leadership
has no input into these motions. I have asked. There are amendments
offered on the floor that were never offered in committee when they had
a chance to be offered, and I will guarantee you that is a fact,
because the purpose is not to amend the bill. If you were trying to
amend the bill, you offer the motion to recommit in a way that amends
it on the floor. That is not good enough for them, because they are not
interested in substance. They are interested in this game playing and
this charade--well, it is not a charade, because that is talking. They
are interested in this pretense whereby you try to slow a bill down
because you aren't willing to vote against it.
So if this rules package passes, there will be two options for the
minority: They can move to send the bill back to committee, that can
still be done, the motion to send it back to committee will still be
there; or they can move to amend it on the floor. Their ability to
offer an alternative is in no ways changed.
What they can't do is to pretend to be amending the bill by putting
forward very popular language that would pass overwhelmingly, but doing
it in a way that in effect sends the bill back to committee which
doesn't allow the House to adopt that amendment, and then they want to
be able to say Members weren't in favor of this noncontroversial piece.
So it is a legislative Ponzi scheme. It is a pretense. It is
something that ought to be abolished. It does not add at all to the
legitimacy of debate.
Let's adopt this rules change. The minority will have the two
options, and that is all that democracy requires.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to my good friend from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the
distinguished Republican whip.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, you don't have to look far to see that families across
this country are gripped with a tremendous amount of fear and
uncertainty. They fear for their jobs, if they have one. They fear for
their future as they see their 401(k)s, their college savings accounts
collapse. They fear that their elected leaders don't get it. They fear
that this Congress may very well be incapable of change, incapable of
producing the kind of results that they want and to get it right.
Under existing House rules, when a bill is brought to the floor that
includes a tax increase, the minority has a right to offer a motion to
strike that increase; and the Republican minority had done that on
nearly half a dozen occasions over the past 2 years.
With this rule change now, though, House Democrats are trying to push
through what we Republicans will no longer have, the ability to say
``no'' to higher taxes. We will not be able to simply strike a tax
increase and demand an up or down vote. In fact, the only option we
will have would be to replace one tax increase with another. There will
be no ability for us to cut taxes to lighten the burden on the middle-
class families that are hurting right now.
One can see that this rule change makes it a lot easier for the
Democrat majority to in fact hide tax increases inside other larger
bills. In fact, that is why all of us are sitting here scratching our
heads. If the House Democrats feel a tax increase is necessary, then
why wouldn't they allow for a full and open debate? Why not let the
American people have a say? Why not let the hardworking people of this
country hear why Washington is once again looking to take more of their
hard earned money?
Either way, what is clear, this type of partisan rules change flies
in the face of a new era of openness and transparency that President-
elect Obama has promised. I take the President-elect at his word. I
believe he wants transparency, openness, and debate. I believe he wants
Washington to begin to do business differently. I believe he is serious
in wanting Congress to work together for the good of all of our
constituents. But apparently that word hasn't made its way down to the
leadership of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to our very good friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Speaker, I am beginning my 31st year here, and one of the things
that I have learned both being in the majority and being in the
minority is that procedural fairness is the antithesis to partisanship.
I want to repeat that: Procedural fairness is the antithesis to
partisanship. This rules package, and particularly the changes in the
motion to recommit, will bring about more partisanship, and I would ask
my friends on the majority side to reconsider what they are proposing
here.
The previous speakers on the Republican side have stated instances in
the last 2 years where it has resulted in excessive partisanship
because of changes that have been made to the motions to recommit on an
ad hoc basis allowing the majority to pull the bill, their choice, not
ours, because they set the schedule, not having motions to recommit on
certain bills and not allowing to strike proposed tax increases.
What is wrong with debating these issues? And what is wrong if the
majority of this House of Representatives, which is 21 seats more
Democratic than the one that just expired, agrees with the Republican
minority every once in awhile? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid
of losing a few more motions to recommit? If that is the motivation
behind this, shame on you, because you are shutting down the process
and you are going to result in more partisanship, not less. You are
going to result in having the country even more divided, not less, and
that goes exactly against what our new President has been trying to do
with practically everything he said since he won the election 2 months
ago.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
{time} 1515
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Wisconsin said, why
will the majority not in some instances agree with the minority? That's
the problem. We are talking about cases where we in the majority have
tried to agree with the minority, and they would not be agreed with.
They would not take yes for an answer.
This is the issue: if they offer a motion to recommit and it says
forthwith, and they win the vote, the bill is amended. If they offer an
amendment to a bill, not having offered it in committee, not having
gone to the Rules Committee to ask it to be on the floor, if they take
a noncontroversial popular issue and offer it as the motion to
recommit, but say it should be sent to the committee and reported back
promptly, we have tried to agree with them, and they have refused. This
literally is a way to not take yes for an answer; it's a way to take
something to which the majority would like to agree.
I have been here when I, and when the majority leader has said, in
such a
[[Page H17]]
situation, could we get unanimous consent to simply agree to that now,
and the minority has said no.
Well, people have a right not to be agreed with. People have a right
not to be agreeable. Some indulge that right more than others. But you
don't have a right to refuse to be agreed with, and then complain that
you weren't agreed with. And that's all that's at stake here.
So, yes, there are times when the majority should say yes to the
minority, and that should be determined by the floor. What we're saying
is the minority should not manufacture a situation in which there is no
way to say yes to them because their goal is patently not to amend that
particular bill, because if it was, they would accept the request that
that amendment be accepted. Instead, it is to put a bill back to
committee because they're afraid to vote against it. That's the issue.
This is used as a way to send bills back to committee to avoid votes.
And this leaves, this package, the minority, fully able to offer any
motion to recommit or send it back to committee. It just says they
can't play games.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the Chair of the
Republican Conference.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Members of the 111th Congress
collectively represent more than 100 million constituents in this
Nation. The changes that are being contemplated by the majority today
represent an erosion, not of the interests of elected officials, not
even of the interests of a political party, but, Mr. Speaker, I say
with respect, it represents an erosion of the interests represented in
this place of over 100 million Americans.
As I listen to this debate, I can't help but wonder what our
constituents who might be looking down from the gallery and looking in
from elsewhere are thinking. How does this affect them? Instructions
being promptly or forthwith, motions to recommit.
But really what we are here to object to in this rule package is
really the death of democracy in the Democratic Congress. What we do
not wish to see is a return to the heavy-handed imperial Congress days
that ruled Capitol Hill for some 40 years. And walking away from the
provision of the current rules that allows the minority to offer a
motion to recommit that would be promptly reported back erodes those
minority interests. Repealing term limits on committee chairmen erodes
the fundamental principles of reform that the American people voted
overwhelmingly into this well in 1994.
And so, as we prepare, 2 weeks from today, to receive a new President
of the United States of America, as we are just a few hours past
bipartisan speeches, it is important to know and to remind the American
people that rules matter. The rules on the back of a box of a board
game matter, and the rules of the House matter; and they matter because
they determine whether or not the interest of all Americans will be
represented in this place.
And, sadly, we begin this Congress in an inauspicious way, learning
that change does not equal reform, and I urge that we reconsider this
rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, please let me yield myself 1 or 2
minutes. One minute, I think, would be sufficient. I hadn't planned to
do this, but I think the Record requires it.
I want to quote from three of our Republican Members for whom I have
great affection and an awful lot of respect. The first one,
Representative Tom Davis, who is not with us this year, stated the
minority's intent to use ``promptly'' motions to kill legislation
during debate on a motion to recommit H.R. 1433, the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act. And let me quote him: ``Let me just
say to my colleagues, I think the gun ban in the District is
ridiculous, and would join my colleagues in overturning it. The problem
is this motion doesn't do that. Instead of bringing it back to the
floor forthwith for a vote and send it to the Senate, it simply sends
it back to the committee, essentially killing it.''
Representative Joe Barton of Texas likened motions to recommit
promptly to gimmicks during debate on H.R. 3693, the Children's Health
Insurance Program: ``I will tell my friends on the majority side, it's
not going to be a gimmick. I think it will say forthwith, which means
if we adopt it, we vote on it.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds.
During the debate on Representative Paul Ryan's motion to recommit on
H.R. 5501, the Lantos-Hyde HIV/AIDS Act of 2008, Mr. Ryan acknowledged
that ``promptly'' motions are intended to kill bills. ``This recommit
motion is not intended to kill the bill. This is a forthwith
recommit,'' he said.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman how many
speakers she has remaining on her side, and how much time is remaining
on both sides for this debate?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I don't have any further requests for time, or at
least not from anybody who is presently on the floor, so I will reserve
to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question regarding the time remaining
left for debate, the gentlewoman from New York has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve.
Mr. DREIER. At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend
from San Antonio, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Rules Committee for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats have proposed changing House
rules on motions to recommit. These changes are not about some arcane
rule. They are about a pattern of behavior on the part of the Democrats
that stifles democracy.
This abuse of power has become a habit with the Democrats. The
Democrats brought legislation to the floor under closed rules 64 times
in the last 2 years. This means there was no opportunity to offer
amendments; 61 bills were brought to the floor with less than 24 hours
to review the bill text. This breaks the Democrats' commitment to allow
legislation to be reviewed for 24 hours before a vote.
House Democrats are discarding one of the Republican minority's only
tools to help improve bills and promote better legislation, the motion
to recommit bills promptly. This type of motion to recommit allows a
majority of the House to say that a bill should be sent back to
committee for more work.
For example, last year Republicans used this tool to guarantee second
amendment rights for the people of the District of Columbia. A majority
of Members supported this motion and voted to send the bill back to
committee.
Why would the Democrats in the future want to ignore the views of a
majority of House Members?
Mr. Speaker, changing House rules in a way that silences the voice of
the people's elected representatives strangles democracy. Democrats
should reconsider these undemocratic changes to House rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).
Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rules
package and, instead, to speak in favor of bipartisanship. We are
living in challenging times, and the American people have grown tired
of all the partisan bickering that has plagued our body for far too
long. Our citizens want us to work together to achieve practical and
realistic solutions for all Americans. Unfortunately, we've wasted
energy with excessive partisanship in the legislative process that, in
turn, has led to an inability to achieve fundamental reforms and
legislative successes.
We've just witnessed an historic election where the overarching
message was the message of change. We need to listen to our citizens,
for they have spoken.
But the real change that we need is for Democrats and Republicans to
roll up their sleeves and work together on important legislation such
as creating jobs, stimulating the economy and increasing the supply of
American-made energy.
This week I intend to introduce a resolution that would encourage and
support bipartisanship in the House. Specifically, the resolution would
amend
[[Page H18]]
House rules to allow for any amendment to be considered on the floor
that has at least one Democrat and one Republican sponsor, is submitted
to the House Rules Committee according to the committee's amendment
submission deadline, and does not violate any other House rule. By the
simple fact that it is a joint Democrat and Republican amendment makes
it bipartisan and, therefore, worthy of floor consideration.
I am hopeful that our leadership will not only offer support for this
resolution, but will bring it to the floor of the House, giving all of
our colleagues the opportunity to debate and discuss its merits.
While this resolution will not completely solve our problem of
partisanship, I believe it will be the start of a process to allow us,
regardless of party, to work together for real legislative successes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1994 when the Republicans
gained the majority in the Congress for the first time in 40 years, and
remember the reforms that we put into place, term limits on committee
chairmen where before chairmen who could barely walk into this Chamber
were serving as Chairs of committees simply because of seniority. Well,
we've thrown that out today. I guess that's change, but it's really
change back.
I was here in 1994, January of 1995, when we changed the rules on
motions to recommit to make it easier for the minority to offer motions
to recommit. Well, I guess we've changed that because now you've made
it more difficult to offer real improvements to legislation by rolling
back the motion to recommit.
Yes, we have change in the air, but that change is simply going back.
This is not progress for this Congress, and I very much regret that the
Democratic leadership has chosen to curtail the rights of the minority
and to not bring forward the kind of progress that comes from having
term limits on committee chairmen.
The new criteria for determining emergency situations that allow them
to waive their own PAYGO rules are laughable. The rule appears to be
that spending can be designated as emergency spending if it is
necessary, unforeseen, or temporary in nature. I would suspect that the
majority believes that all of their spending priorities are necessary.
These rule changes are an abomination, and every taxpayer should be
up in arms over these changes and the attitudes they represent. It is
common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they
have, and it is unfortunate that common sense seems to elude Congress.
It is clear that Congress must be forced to address its spending
addiction. The way to accomplish this is through an amendment to the
Constitution to require a balanced budget, which I just introduced a
few minutes ago here today, with more than 115 bipartisan cosponsors.
These rules are not reforms.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, let me just inquire of the
Chair how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our great,
relatively new Member from New Orleans (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, the first vote in this new Congress gives
us a preview of what the leadership is planning to do, repeal reforms
that make government more transparent. Over 10 years the House
established rules that open up the legislative process to make Congress
more accountable. The rules package we see today undermines the
accountability we have put in place and encourages the old way of doing
business with back-room deals and dictator-like authority.
By ending term limits for committee Chairs, the Democratic majority
is severely restricting opportunities for all Members, and is
encouraging dictatorial-like authority. Six-year term limits for
committee Chairs prevents a dictatorial concentration of power.
Since 2006, Congress has seen some of the lowest approval ratings in
history. By giving only a few Members of the House positions of
permanent power, we are only going to perpetuate that lack of trust.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better from us on the first
day of this new Congress. I rise in opposition to these rules changes
that roll back the clock on important reforms.
{time} 1530
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it doesn't
appear that we have any other speakers on our side.
Is the gentlewoman prepared to close debate on hers?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, we've had a fascinating debate here. I've repeatedly
asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to yield to me so
that we could engage in an exchange on this, and no one chose to yield
to me at all, indicating exactly what this rules package is all about.
We've repeatedly had academics quoted here over the past hour about the
use of ``promptly'' and the fact that it kills legislation. Time and
time again from the Chair, the Speaker of the House has ruled that a
measure that is recommitted to a committee promptly is not killing the
bill. Until the Chair says that, it is not killing the bill.
We know that the last Congress was the single-most restrictive,
closed Congress in the history of the Republic, and it is very, very
sad to have this sacrosanct right being obliterated that is granted to
the minority, as Thomas Jefferson outlined in his manual, talking about
the procedures and the rights that the minority should have. It is
outrageous in the wake of Barack Obama's pledge to the American people
that he wanted to have greater transparency and accountability.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate on the package,
I'll be offering a motion to commit, which could be the majority's last
opportunity to freely decide the form of the motion to recommit.
Included in the motion will be an amendment. This amendment is the
minority's attempt to restore some of the Obama vision of openness,
inclusiveness and transparency to the underlying rules package.
First, it would restore the motion to recommit, which I've discussed.
It is an important tool that ensures that the minority gets at least
one chance, one bite at the apple, so that 100 million Americans
represented by Members of the minority here can be heard.
Second, it would restore term limits for committee chairmanships.
Third, it would change committee membership ratios so that all
committees, except the Rules and Ethics Committees, reflect the ratio
of Democrats and Republicans in the House. This would help to ensure
that the 100 million Americans, as I said, who are represented by
Republicans would have some kind of say in this process.
Fourth and finally, it would require that all committee votes be
available online within 48 hours, a proposal from the Republican Study
Committee.
At the end of the last Congress, the Appropriations Committee filed
reports on bills that had been ordered reported months before. The
public should not have to wait to know how their Member voted in
committee while committee chairmen dragged their feet. These four
improvements are about nothing more than exactly what Barack Obama
talked about--transparency, accountability and fairness.
Today's historic rules package rolls back reforms made a century ago
this month by a bipartisan working group of Members rising against the
repressive rule of Speaker Joe Cannon. Two of the reforms that were
codified during that historic revolt on opening day in 1909 were a
motion of recommittal for the minority party and an increased threshold
to set aside Calendar Wednesday. Ironically, we find ourselves here in
the same well 100 years
[[Page H19]]
later, fighting to maintain these simple rights and guarantees which
have for a century, Mr. Speaker, safeguarded this House from the rise
of another tyrannical Speaker.
So it is in that light that I ask Members to join me in supporting
the motion to commit. Let us not undo what has been done. Let us learn
from our past. Let us move forward with the hope and comity inspired by
Barack Obama. Let's show the world that, in this House, the democratic
process is alive and well no matter how large the majority. Vote
``yes'' on the motion to commit.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, without any question, all of us who serve
in this House love it. We understand our responsibilities to our
constituents as well as to this institution. I want to make it
absolutely clear, unequivocally clear, that no intention here today is
to in any way impede the minority rights. We will defend them to the
death.
But we would have to be Alice in Wonderland, saying that she would be
able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, if we gave
serious thought for one moment to the possibility that a motion to
recommit promptly is anything other than a way to kill a bill.
What we are trying to do here is to expedite the process to get the
Obama agenda, which apparently we are in solid agreement on, moved
forward because the American people are crying out for it. It must be
done. We want to do this fairly. We want to do this equitably. I hope
we can do it with minds that meet on all of these subjects, but we must
remove some of the gimmicks which have done nothing but subvert the
will of the House.
So I am really happy to close with this. I hope that everybody in the
House--all of the new Members whom I congratulate, people who have been
here for some time and those of us who have been moderately here for a
long time--will all, please, get together today. There is nothing in
here that hurts anyone. We are simply attempting to move forward the
business of the United States of America for which we swore an oath not
an hour ago.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
Motion to Commit
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dreier moves to commit the resolution to a select
committee comprised of the Majority Leader and the Minority
Leader with instructions to report the same back to the House
forthwith with the following amendments:
Page 3, strike lines 1 through 13 (relating to terms of
committee chairmen) and redesignate subsections (e) and (f)
accordingly.
Page 4, strike lines 13 through 25 (relating to
instructions in the motion to recommit) and redesignate
succeeding subsections accordingly.
At the end of section 2, insert the following new
subsections:
(k) Fairness in Committee Ratios.--Clause 5(a)(1) of rule X
is amended by inserting the following after the first
sentence: ``With respect to all committees other than the
Committee on Rules and the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, the ratio of majority to minority Members serving on
such committees shall reflect the ratio of majority to
minority Members in the House.''
(l) Ensuring Transparency in Committee Votes.--Clause
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Except as provided in subdivision (B)(ii) and subject
to paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such record vote
shall be made available by the committee within two business
days on the committee's website and for inspection by the
public at reasonable times in its offices. Information so
available shall include a description of the amendment,
motion, order, or other proposition, the name of each member
voting for and each member voting against such amendment,
motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members
of the committee present but not voting.''.
Mr. DREIER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as having been read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 174,
nays 249, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 3]
YEAS--174
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--249
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
[[Page H20]]
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Boucher
Capuano
Herseth Sandlin
Pelosi
Posey
Solis (CA)
Towns
{time} 1608
Messrs. BISHOP of New York, MILLER of North Carolina, SPACE, SCHIFF,
DAVIS of Illinois, HONDA, WEINER, MURPHY of Connecticut, GORDON of
Tennessee, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATSON, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of
Florida, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. DeGETTE and Ms. HIRONO changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. COLE, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, GARRETT of New Jersey,
AKIN, TIAHRT, BILIRAKIS, SCHOCK, YOUNG of Alaska, SMITH of New Jersey,
ROHRABACHER, SESSIONS, STEARNS, JONES and Mrs. CAPITO changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 181, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 4]
YEAS--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--181
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Boucher
Capuano
Melancon
Pomeroy
Sanchez, Loretta
Solis (CA)
Towns
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are less than 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1631
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 4, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________