[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7-H27]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. CANTOR. 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 Eleventh Congress, including applicable
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted
rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Eleventh
Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Twelfth 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) Citing Authority Under the Constitution.--
(1) In clause 7 of rule XII, add the following new
paragraph:
``(c)(1) A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced
unless the sponsor submits for printing in the Congressional
Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the
power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to
enact the bill or joint resolution. The statement shall
appear in a portion of the Record designated for that purpose
and be made publicly available in electronic form by the
Clerk.
``(2) Before consideration of a Senate bill or joint
resolution, the chair of a committee of jurisdiction may
submit the statement required under subparagraph (1) as
though the chair were the sponsor of the Senate bill or joint
resolution.''.
(2) In clause 3(d) of rule XIII--
(A) strike subparagraph (1) (and redesignate the succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly); and
(B) in subparagraph (2), as redesignated, strike
``subparagraph (2)'' each place it appears and insert (in
each instance) ``subparagraph (1)''.
(b) Three-day Availability for Unreported Measures.--In
rule XXI, add the following new clause:
``11. It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint
resolution which has not been reported by a committee until
the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or
legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a
day) on which such measure has been available to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.''.
(c) Transparency for House and Committee Operations.--
(1) Standards for electronic documents.--In clause 4(d)(1)
of rule X--
(A) in subdivision (C), strike ``and'';
(B) in subdivision (D), strike the period and insert ``;
and''; and
(C) add the following new subdivision:
``(E) establish and maintain standards for making documents
publicly available in electronic form by the House and its
committees.''.
(2) Ensuring that text is publicly available in electronic
form.--In rule XXIX, add the following new clause:
``3. If a measure or matter is publicly available in
electronic form at a location designated by the Committee on
House Administration, it shall be considered as having been
available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident
Commissioner for purposes of these rules.''.
(3) Minimum notice period for committee meetings and
hearings.--In rule XI, amend clause 2(g)(3) to read as
follows:
``(3)(A) The chair of a committee shall announce the date,
place, and subject matter of--
``(i) a committee hearing, which may not commence earlier
than one week after such notice; or
``(ii) a committee meeting, which may not commence earlier
than the third day on which members have notice thereof.
``(B) A hearing or meeting may begin sooner than specified
in subdivision (A) in either of the following circumstances
(in which case the chair shall make the announcement
specified in subdivision (A) at the earliest possible time):
``(i) the chair of the committee, with the concurrence of
the ranking minority member, determines that there is good
cause; or
``(ii) the committee so determines by majority vote in the
presence of the number of members required under the rules of
the committee for the transaction of business.
``(C) An announcement made under this subparagraph shall be
published promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly
available in electronic form.
``(D) This subparagraph and subparagraph (4) shall not
apply to the Committee on Rules.''.
(4) Minimum period for availability of committee markup
text.--In clause 2(g) of rule XI, insert the following new
subparagraph, and redesignate the succeeding subparagraphs
accordingly:
``(4) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an
announcement under subparagraph (3)(B) made within 24 hours
before such meeting, the chair of the committee shall cause
the text of such legislation to be made publicly available in
electronic form.''.
(5) Availability of votes in electronic form.--In clause
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI--
(A) in the first sentence, before the period at the end
thereof insert ``and also made publicly available in
electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote''; and
(B) in the second sentence, strike ``for public
inspection''.
(6) Availability of the text of amendments in electronic
form.--In clause 2(e) of rule XI, add the following new
subparagraph:
``(6) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any
amendment to a measure or matter considered by a committee,
the chair of such committee shall cause the text of each such
amendment to be made publicly available in electronic
form.''.
(7) Availability of ``truth in testimony'' information in
electronic form.--In clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI, as
redesignated, add the following new sentence: ``Such
statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the
privacy of the witness, shall be made publicly available in
electronic form not later than one day after the witness
appears.''.
(8) Availability of committee rules in electronic form.--In
clause 2(a) of rule XI, amend subparagraph (2) to read as
follows:
``(2) Each committee shall make its rules publicly
available in electronic form and submit such rules for
publication in the Congressional Record not later than 30
days after the chair of the committee is elected in each odd-
numbered year.''.
(9) Audio and video coverage of committee hearings and
meetings.--In clause 2(e) of rule XI, add the following new
subparagraph:
``(5) To the maximum extent practicable, each committee
shall--
``(A) provide audio and video coverage of each hearing or
meeting for the transaction of business in a manner that
allows the public to easily listen to and view the
proceedings; and
``(B) maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner
that is easily accessible to the public.''.
(10) Record votes in the committee on rules.--In clause
3(b) of rule XIII, strike ``a report by the Committee on
Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business or
to''.
(11) Elimination of duplicative programs.--In clause
2(d)(1) of rule X--
(A) in subdivision (D), strike ``and'';
(B) in subdivision (E), strike the period and insert ``;
and''; and
[[Page H8]]
(C) add the following new subdivision:
``(F) include proposals to cut or eliminate programs,
including mandatory spending programs, that are inefficient,
duplicative, outdated, or more appropriately administered by
State or local governments.''.
(d) Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve
Accountability.--
(1) Cut-as-you-go.--In rule XXI, amend clause 10 to read as
follows:
``10.(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c),
it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint
resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report
thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net
effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of
either--
``(A) the current year, the budget year, and the four
fiscal years following that budget year; or
``(B) the current year, the budget year, and the nine
fiscal years following that budget year.
``(2) For the purpose of this clause, the terms `budget
year' and `current year' have the meanings specified in
section 250 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, and the term `mandatory spending' has
the meaning of `direct spending' specified in such section
250 except that such term shall also include provisions in
appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to
substantive law as described in section 3(4)(C) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
``(b) If a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment
thereto, is considered pursuant to a special order of the
House directing the Clerk to add as new matter at the end of
such bill or joint resolution the entire text of a separate
measure or measures as passed by the House, the new matter
proposed to be added 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 the Statutory Pay-
As-You-Go Act of 2010, 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.''.
(2) Requiring a vote on raising the debt limit.--Rule
XXVIII is amended to read as follows:
``RULE XXVIII
``(Reserved.)''.
(3) Clarifying the role of the chair of the committee on
the budget.--In rule XXIX, add the following new clause:
``4. Authoritative guidance from the Committee on the
Budget concerning the impact of a legislative proposition on
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending,
new entitlement authority and revenues may be provided by the
chair of the committee.''.
(4) Highway funding.--In rule XXI--
(A) amend clause 3 to read as follows:
``3. It shall not be in order to consider a general
appropriation bill or joint resolution, or conference report
thereon, that--
``(a) provides spending authority derived from receipts
deposited in the Highway Trust Fund (excluding any transfers
from the General Fund of the Treasury); or
``(b) reduces or otherwise limits the accruing balances of
the Highway Trust Fund,
for any purpose other than for those activities authorized
for the highway or mass transit categories.''; and
(B) in clause 3, strike the caption.
(5) Limitation on increases in direct spending in
reconciliation initiatives.--In rule XXI, amend clause 7 to
read as follows:
``7. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent
resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, or a
conference report thereon that contains reconciliation
directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 that specify changes in law such that the
reconciliation legislation reported pursuant to such
directives would cause an increase in net direct spending (as
such term is defined in clause 10) for the period covered by
such concurrent resolution.''.
(e) Other Changes to House Operations.--
(1) Two-minute voting.--In clause 6 of rule XVIII--
(A) in paragraph (f), strike ``five minutes'' and insert
``not less than two minutes''; and
(B) in paragraph (g), strike ``five minutes'' and insert
``not less than two minutes''.
(2) Use of electronic devices on the floor.--In clause 5 of
rule XVII, amend the penultimate sentence to read as follows:
``A person on the floor of the House may not smoke or use a
mobile electronic device that impairs decorum.''.
(3) Updating rules governing the media.--
(A) In clause 2 of rule VI, strike the penultimate
sentence, and amend the last sentence to read as follows:
``The Speaker may admit to the floor, under such regulations
as the Speaker may prescribe, not more than one
representative of each press association.''.
(B) In clause 3 of rule VI, strike the last sentence and
insert ``The Speaker may admit to the floor, under such
regulations as the Speaker may prescribe, not more than one
representative of each media outlet.''.
(C) In clause 4(f)(7) of rule XI, strike the first
sentence.
(4) Voting by delegates and the resident commissioner in
the committee of the whole.--
(A) In clause 3(a) of rule III, strike the first sentence.
(B) In rule XVIII--
(i) in clause 1, strike ``, Delegate, or the Resident
Commissioner''; and
(ii) in clause 6, strike paragraph (h).
(5) Motions to strike in the committee of the whole.--In
rule XVIII, strike clause 11 (and redesignate the succeeding
clause accordingly).
(6) Clarifying jurisdiction over certain cemeteries.--In
clause 1(c) of rule X, add the following subparagraph:
``(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of
Defense.''.
(7) Designating committee on education and the workforce.--
In rule X--
(A) in clause 1(e), strike ``Committee on Education and
Labor'' and insert ``Committee on Education and the
Workforce''; and
(B) in clause 3(d), strike ``Committee on Education and
Labor'' and insert ``Committee on Education and the
Workforce''.
(8) Designating committee on ethics.--
(A) In the standing rules, strike ``Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct'' each place it appears and insert (in
each instance) ``Committee on Ethics''.
(B) In clause 1 of rule X, insert paragraph (q) after
paragraph (f) (and redesignate the succeeding paragraphs
accordingly).
(C) In the standing rules, strike ``clause 1(j)(1) of rule
X'' each place it appears and insert (in each instance)
``clause 1(k)(1) of rule X''.
(9) Designating the committee on science, space, and
technology.--In rule X--
(A) in clause 1(p), as redesignated, strike ``Committee on
Science and Technology'' and insert ``Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology''; and
(B) in clause 3(k), strike ``Committee on Science and
Technology'' and insert ``Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology''.
(10) Eliminating the select intelligence oversight panel.--
In clause 4(a) of rule X, strike subparagraph (5).
(11) Adjusting the size of the permanent select committee
on intelligence.--In clause 11(a)(1) of rule X, strike ``22''
and insert ``20'' and strike ``13'' and insert ``12''.
(12) Restoring the term limit rule for committee chairs.--
In clause 5 of rule X, redesignate paragraph (c) as
subparagraph (c)(1) and add the following new subparagraph:
``(2) Except in the case of the Committee on Rules, a
member of a standing committee may not serve as chair of the
same standing committee, or of the same subcommittee of a
standing committee, during more than three consecutive
Congresses (disregarding for this purpose any service for
less than a full session in a Congress).''.
(13) Committee activity reports.--In clause 1 of rule XI,
amend paragraph (d) to read as follows:
``(d)(1) Not later than the 30th day after June 1 and
December 1, a committee shall submit to the House a
semiannual report on the activities of that committee.
``(2) Such report shall include--
``(A) separate sections summarizing the legislative and
oversight activities of that committee under this rule and
rule X during the applicable period;
``(B) in the case of the first such report, a summary of
the oversight plans submitted by the committee under clause
2(d) of rule X;
``(C) a summary of the actions taken and recommendations
made with respect to the oversight plans specified in
subdivision (B);
``(D) a summary of any additional oversight activities
undertaken by that committee and any recommendations made or
actions taken thereon; and
``(E) a delineation of any hearings held pursuant to
clauses 2(n), (o), or (p) of this rule.
``(3) After an adjournment sine die of a regular session of
a Congress, or after December 15, whichever occurs first, the
chair of a committee may file the second or fourth semiannual
report described in subparagraph (1) with the Clerk at any
time and without approval of the committee, provided that--
``(A) a copy of the report has been available to each
member of the committee for at least seven calendar days; and
``(B) the report includes any supplemental, minority, or
additional views submitted by a member of the committee.''.
(14) Modifying staff deposition authority.--In clause
4(c)(3)(B) of rule X--
(A) in item (i), strike ``and'';
(B) in item (ii), strike the period and insert ``; and'';
and
(C) add at the end the following new item:
``(iii) shall, unless waived by the deponent, require the
attendance of a member of the committee.''.
(f) Technical and Clarifying Changes.--
(1) In clause 3(a) of rule III, strike ``of the House''.
(2) In rule IV--
(A) in clause 1, strike ``The Speaker may not entertain a
motion for the suspension of this clause.''; and
(B) in clause 2(b), after ``clause'' insert ``or clauses 1,
3, 4, or 5''.
(3) In clause 3(o)(2) of rule XI, after ``investigation''
insert ``when''.
[[Page H9]]
(4) In clause 7 of rule XII, strike ``primary sponsor''
each place it appears and insert (in each instance)
``sponsor''.
(5) In clause 6(c) of rule XIII, strike ``Senate bill or
resolution'' and insert ``Senate bill or joint resolution''.
(6) In clause 2(c) of rule XV--
(A) strike ``Clerk shall make signatures'' and insert
``Clerk shall make the signatories''; and
(B) strike ``published with the signatures'' and insert
``published with the signatories''.
(7) In clause 6(c) of rule XXIII, strike ``a campaign
accounts'' and insert ``a campaign account''.
(8) In clause 13 of rule XXIII, strike ``Clerk shall make
signatures'' and insert ``Clerk shall make the signatories''.
SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.
(a) Budget Matters.--
(1) During the One Hundred Twelfth 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 Twelfth 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 Twelfth 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 Twelfth Congress, except as
provided in subparagraph (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 subparagraph (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) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply--
(i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
(ii) after disposition of a question under subparagraph (B)
on a given bill.
(D) If a question under subparagraph (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) Budget Enforcement.--
(1) The chair of the Committee on the Budget (when elected)
shall include in the Congressional Record budget aggregates
and allocations contemplated by section 301 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and allocations contemplated
by section 302(a) of that Act for fiscal year 2011, and the
period of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
(2) The aggregates and allocations specified in subsection
(1) shall be considered as contained in a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011 and the
submission thereof into the Congressional Record shall be
considered as the completion of congressional action on a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011.
(c) Emergencies and Contingencies.--
(1) Emergencies.--Until adoption of a concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2012, if a bill or joint
resolution is reported, or amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is filed, that provides new budget
authority and outlays or reduces revenue, and such provision
is designated as an emergency pursuant to this section, the
chair of the Committee on the Budget shall not count the
budgetary effects of such provision for purposes of titles
III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
(2) Exemption of contingency operations related to the
global war on terrorism.--For any bill or joint resolution,
or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that makes
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for contingency
operations directly related to the global war on terrorism,
then the new budget authority or outlays resulting therefrom
shall not count for purposes of titles III or IV of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(d) Deficit-neutral Revenue Reserve.--Until the adoption of
a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012,
if any bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, decreases
revenue, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust
the allocations, the revenue levels, and other aggregates
referred to in subsection (b)(1), provided that such measure
would not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal
years 2011 through 2021.
(e) Limitation on Advance Appropriations.--
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), any general
appropriation bill or joint resolution continuing
appropriations, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, may not provide advance appropriations.
(2) Advance appropriations may be provided--
(A) for fiscal year 2012 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the Congressional
Record under the heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance
Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority, and for 2013, an
aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 for accounts
separately identified under the same heading; and
(B) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical
Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
(3) In this subsection, the term ``advance appropriation''
means any new discretionary budget authority provided in a
general appropriation bill or any new discretionary budget
authority provided in a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 that first becomes
available for a fiscal year after fiscal 2011.
(f) Compliance With Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement
of Act of 1990.--
(1) In general.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on
any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
(2) Special rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the
level of total new budget authority and total outlays
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget
discretionary amounts.
(g) Limitation on Long-term Spending.--
(1) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint
resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee
on Appropriations), or an amendment thereto or a conference
report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the
net effect of increasing mandatory spending in excess of
$5,000,000,000 for any period described in paragraph (2).
(2)(A) The applicable periods for purposes of this clause
are any of the first four consecutive 10-fiscal-year periods
beginning with the first fiscal year following the last
fiscal year for which the applicable concurrent resolution on
the budget sets forth appropriate budgetary levels.
(B) In this paragraph, the applicable concurrent resolution
on the budget is the one most recently adopted before the
date on which a committee first reported the bill or joint
resolution described in paragraph (a).
(h) Exemptions.--
(1) Until the adoption of the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2012, the chair of the Committee on
the Budget may adjust an estimate under clause 4 of rule XXIX
to--
(A) exempt the budgetary effects of measures extending the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001;
(B) exempt the budgetary effects of measures extending the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
(C) exempt the budgetary effects of measures--
(i) repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care
and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;
(ii) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act of 2010; or
(iii) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act of 2010 and the payment rates and related
parameters in accordance with section 1848 of the Social
Security Act;
(D) exempt the budgetary effects of measures that adjust
the Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amounts to prevent a
larger number of taxpayers as compared with tax year 2008
from being subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax or of
allowing the use of nonrefundable personal credits against
the Alternative Minimum Tax, or both as applicable;
(E) exempt the budgetary effects of extending the estate,
gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of
title III of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010;
(F) exempt the budgetary effects of measures providing a 20
percent deduction in income to small businesses; and
[[Page H10]]
(G) exempt the budgetary effects of measures implementing
trade agreements.
(2) A measure may only qualify for an exemption under
subsection (h)(1)(C)(ii) or (iii) if it does not--
(A) increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years
2011 through 2021; or
(B) increase revenues over the period of fiscal years 2011
through 2021, other than by--
(i) repealing or modifying the individual mandate (codified
as section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
(ii) modifying the subsidies to purchase health insurance
(codified as section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986).
(i) Determinations for PAYGO Acts.--In determining the
budgetary effects of any legislation for the purposes of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010
(including the required designation in PAYGO Acts), the chair
of the Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to take
into account the exemptions and adjustments set forth in
subsection (h).
(j) Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations
Bills.--
(1) During the reading of a general appropriation bill for
amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, it shall be in order to consider en bloc
amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations from an
object or objects in the bill to a spending reduction
account. When considered en bloc under this clause, such
amendments may amend portions of the bill not yet read for
amendment (following disposition of any points of order
against such portions) and are not subject to a demand for
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), it shall not be in
order to consider an amendment to a spending reduction
account in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union.
(3) It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a
general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget
authority in the bill (unless considered en bloc with another
amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater
decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of
rule XXI).
(4) A point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI shall
not apply to a spending reduction account.
(5) A general appropriation bill may not be considered in
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
unless it includes a spending reduction account as the last
section of the bill. An order to report a general
appropriation bill to the House shall constitute authority
for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to add such
a section to the bill or modify the figure contained therein.
(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``spending
reduction account'' means an account in a general
appropriation bill that bears that caption and contains only
a recitation of the amount by which an applicable allocation
of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of new
budget authority proposed by the bill.
(k) Certain Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of
rule X, during the One Hundred Twelfth 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.
(l) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One
Hundred Twelfth 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.
(m) Numbering of Bills.--In the One Hundred Twelfth
Congress, the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R.
10) shall be reserved for assignment by the Speaker and the
second 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 11 through H.R. 20) shall
be reserved for assignment by the Minority Leader.
(n) Transition Rule.--Pending the designation of a location
by the Committee on House Administration pursuant to clause 3
of rule XXIX, documents may be made publicly available in
electronic form at the following locations:
(1) with respect to consideration by the House, the
majority website of the Committee on Rules; and
(2) with respect to consideration by a committee, the
majority website of the committee.
SEC. 4. COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND HOUSE OFFICES.
(a) House Democracy Partnership.--House Resolution 24, One
Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in the One Hundred
Twelfth Congress in the same manner as such resolution
applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress except that the
commission concerned shall be known as the House Democracy
Partnership.
(b) Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.--Sections 1 through
7 of House Resolution 1451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall
apply in the One Hundred Twelfth 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.
(c) Office of Congressional Ethics.--Section 1 of House
Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in
the One Hundred Twelfth 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)) and references to the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct shall be construed as references to the
Committee on Ethics.
(d) Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee
on Ethics.--The text of House Resolution 451, One Hundred
Tenth Congress, shall apply in the One Hundred Twelfth
Congress in the same manner as such provision applied in the
One Hundred Tenth Congress, except that references to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall be construed
as references to the Committee on Ethics.
SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS.
(a) Reading of the Constitution.--The Speaker may recognize
a Member for the reading of the Constitution on the
legislative day of January 6, 2011.
(b) Providing for Consideration of Certain Motions to
Suspend the Rules.--It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of January 6, 2011, for the Speaker to
entertain motions to suspend the rules related to reducing
the costs of operation of the House of Representatives,
except that notwithstanding clause 1(c) of rule XV such
motion shall be debatable for two hours, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Mr. CANTOR (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 Virginia?
There was no objection.
Motion to Refer
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Norton moves to refer the resolution to a select
committee of five members, to be appointed by the Speaker,
not more than three of whom shall be from the same political
party, with instructions not to report back the same until it
has conducted a full and complete study of, and made a
determination on, the constitutionality of the provision that
would be eliminated from the Rules that granted voting rights
in the Committee of the Whole to the Delegates from the
District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin
Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico, including the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
in Michel v. Anderson (14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994)), which
upheld the constitutionality of these voting rights.
Motion to Table
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cantor moves to lay on the table the motion to refer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. 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 223,
nays 188, not voting 20, as follows:
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 5, 2011 on Page H10, the following appeared: device, and
there were--yeas 225, nays [Roll No. 3] YEAS--225
The online version should be corrected to read: device, and
there were--yeas 223, nays [Roll No. 3] YEAS--223
========================= END NOTE =========================
[Roll No. 3]
YEAS--223
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
[[Page H11]]
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Flake
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 5, 2011 on Page H11, the following appeared: Fitzpatrick
Sessions
The online version should be corrected to read: Fitzpatrick and
Sessions were deleted from vote tally
========================= END NOTE =========================
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--188
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Barletta
Berg
Buerkle
Cicilline
Crawford
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellmers
Fincher
Harris
Kelly
Kinzinger (IL)
Langevin
McCotter
Nunes
Walberg
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1511
Messrs. LEVIN, BRADY of Pennsylvania, HINOJOSA, ALTMIRE, CARDOZA, and
Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JONES, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Ms. HAYWORTH changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Virginia
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield the hour to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 1 hour.
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York
(Ms. Slaughter).
Pending that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, it is a great honor to call up the rules package for
the 112th Congress. Two months ago, voters sent a clear message of
repudiation against a government that failed to deliver results.
Government for too long has operated under the flawed assumption that
growing bigger and controlling more is necessarily better.
Consequently, Washington has grown inefficient, unfocused and wasteful.
Spending has gone progressively higher while results for all Americans
have not been realized.
Our new majority stands for a different and better way. We believe in
a government that controls less and spends less but accomplishes more.
We believe in a smarter government, a more efficient government, a more
focused government. The new House majority will be about ``cut and
grow.'' We are going to cut spending and job-killing government
regulations, and grow the economy and private-sector jobs.
Madam Speaker, each day, we will hold ourselves accountable by asking
the following questions:
Are our efforts addressing job creation and the economy? Are they
cutting spending? Are they shrinking the size of the Federal Government
while protecting and expanding individual liberty? If not, why are we
doing it?
This rules package reflects these priorities.
We establish a Constitution-focused House of Representatives, which
starts by reading the Constitution of the United States on the House
floor and requiring that every bill be accompanied by a statement of
constitutional authority.
We make in order our first spending cut--a reduction of at least 5
percent to Congress' own budget, including Members, leadership, and
committees. We replace PAYGO with ``cut as you go'' to ensure that all
spending increases are offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
And on all appropriations bills, Members can now offer spending
reduction amendments, which will help ensure that savings actually go
toward cutting the deficit rather than being spent elsewhere.
In this spirit, over the coming weeks, we will pass a repeal of last
year's health care bill to remove the strain on job creators. We will
cut spending in the current fiscal year back down to 2008 pre-bailout
levels, and we will identify and eliminate job-killing regulations that
are impeding capital formation in America.
Madam Speaker, these actions will send a credible signal to families,
businesses, and financial markets that we are dead serious about
getting spending under control and regaining our competitive footing in
America.
Our majority will return America to prosperity by promoting a culture
of success. Our mission is not to redistribute wealth or tell people
how to live their lives, but instead to lift people up by giving them
opportunity and encouraging them to take responsibility.
[[Page H12]]
By passing this rules package, we will take a significant step in the
right direction. It will put us on the road to weaning America off its
dependence on debt and government programs as an economic lifeline, and
it will help us build a new, more hopeful future rooted in limited
government, long-term investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to say this morning that I am delighted
to be here.
I want to give my congratulations to Mr. Dreier on reclaiming the
Rules seat, and we are very keen on our side to make our case before
you today.
Madam Speaker, actually, my head is somewhat spinning because, not 20
minutes ago, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood
where you are and said he was going to be listening to people, but the
first order of business before the House came from the delegates whom
this rule disenfranchises--not only the delegate of the District of
Columbia but all of the Territories. They didn't get to say a word. So
my head is somewhat spinning at this point, and we hope to try to at
least give them unanimous consent so that they can try to get some
message into the Record.
It is again part of the rhetoric from the last campaign that keeps
spinning in our heads: All we want to do, they said, is to bring down
the deficit. We're going over a cliff, and we've got to bring down the
deficit.
As we stand here today, on the brink of a new session of Congress,
the concern about deficits has disappeared from everything but the
press releases. Under the new majority rules, the other side will
essentially gut PAYGO--the pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democrat
majorities in the House and Senate in 2007 under which tax cuts or
increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or
entitlement cuts. Under President Clinton, it gave us the biggest
surplus we have ever had. It was a hallmark of Democrat leadership, and
we are proud of it. We adhered to responsible spending levels and
affordable tax cuts, and we took sensible steps towards controlling the
deficit.
But not today.
Their talk about belt-tightening and deficit reduction is going to be
thrown out the window so that they can free themselves to hand out even
more tax credits to their friends, the corporations. Under these
proposed rules, notes The Washington Post, tax cuts for the wealthiest
are fully protected, but tax help for those at the other end of the
income spectrum? Forget about it.
Obviously, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other
respected news organizations have cried foul at this sleight of hand.
In recent days, editorials have appeared slamming this hypocrisy and
phony attempt at fiscal austerity.
What seems crystal clear to me is that the other side has doubled
down and adopted the mentality of former Vice President Dick Cheney,
who responded to the 2002 midterm elections by advocating in favor of
more than $1 trillion in tax cuts. ``Reagan proved that deficits don't
matter. We won the midterm elections. This is our due,'' said the Vice
President. The other side now wants to adopt the posture of budget
cutters, but when it gets right down to it, they want to be able to
make sweetheart deals without having to pay for them.
Nor is their sleight of hand or hypocritical actions an isolated
event. It was less than a month ago that Republicans successfully held
unemployment benefits for Americans hostage until they got their wish--
more Bush-era tax cuts for the people making more than $1 million a
year. That package added another $140 billion to the deficit, but that
didn't seem to bother them either, obviously, as they have told the
world it is their number one priority.
{time} 1520
Just this week, Republican new Members ushered in the new Congress
with a $2,500 a plate fundraiser at the W Hotel in downtown Washington.
Lobbyists, political action committee members, and other exclusive
guests were treated to a night of drinks and entertainment by country
singer LeAnn Rimes. Those who donated $50,000 were treated to a VIP
suite at the W, along with the rest of the night's entertainment.
Last month, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services
Committee offered his own assessment of Republican oversight. He told
the Birmingham News in Alabama, ``In Washington, the view is that the
banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the
regulators are there to serve the banks.''
And according to Politico, the incoming chairman of the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking for ways to make
government more responsive to Wall Street and their corporate allies
like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health.
Instead of all this business as usual--and we are headed right back
into where we were before 2006--what I'd like to see is an honest
attempt to create a set of rules that provide for openness,
transparency, and good government. This set of rules is not that
document. And I hope that the other side--and I believe they have good
intentions--will join us in supporting this effort.
Deficit Hypocrisy
[From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2010]
It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding
unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end
Bush-era income tax cuts and--as a little bonus--won deep
estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts
will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term,
while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money
had been spent more wisely.
That should have been evidence enough that the Republican
Party's one real priority is tax cuts--despite all the talk
about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some
more:
On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays,
House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they
intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and
will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.
First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted
by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax
cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by
tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big
health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which
spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for
veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending,
which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress
annually.)
The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because
they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for
tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican
fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.
It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-
spending increases be offset by spending cuts only--and
actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such
spending.
Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child
credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to
help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that
lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax
at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue
reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years,
but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.
Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget
Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget
impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural
course of politics for which no payment is required.
For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts
permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of
repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new
rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working
families--extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal--
unless it is fully paid for.
House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing
going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing
spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all,
and it unfailingly rallies their base.
The challenge for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers
is not to get drawn into that warped mind-set. They need to
present an alternative, including investments--in energy,
technology, infrastructure and education. They also need a
plan for long-term deficit reduction that recognizes what the
Republicans ignore: Never-ending tax cuts make the deficit
worse. Prudent tax increases need to be part of the solution.
New Pay-Go Rules Reveal GOP's Misplaced Priorities
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2011]
Are House Republicans serious about dealing with the
deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric--or you could
read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the
new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The
latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to
continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting.
The ominous signs come in the wording of the new majority's
version of its pay-as-you-go rules, which normally require
that new programs or tax initiatives be covered with cuts to
other programs or new revenue. In
[[Page H13]]
the GOP concept, pay-as-you-go applies only to spending
programs. When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay.
Taxes can be cut, and the national debt increased, without
any offsetting savings.
If you thought the sticker shock of the latest tax deal
served as a useful reminder that tax cuts cost the Treasury
money, think again. Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when
it comes to tax cuts. But that's not all. Under the new
rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go
concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is
with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed--not
even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on
tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes,
no problem. No need to pay for that.
Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the
rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit-
busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume
the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the
new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax
break to let ``small businesses,'' which can be expansively
defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross
income.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax
help for those at the other end of the income spectrum?
Forget it. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and
the Child Tax Credit, programs that help keep low-income
working parents and children out of poverty, are not assumed
to continue and would have to be paid for--with, of course,
spending cuts. This is about as upside-down a set of
priorities as can be imagined.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, congratulations. It's very nice to see you
in the chair.
I would like to insert a section-by-section analysis of the
resolution to appear at this point in the Record.
section 1. resolved clause.
This section provides that the Rules of the l12th Congress
are the Rules of the 112th Congress, except with the
amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution, and
orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.
section 2. changes to the standing rules.
Citing Authority under the Constitution. Paragraph (a)
creates a new clause 7 in rule XII providing that a Member
may not introduce a bill or joint resolution unless the
sponsor also submits a statement citing as specifically as
practicable the power or powers under the Constitution
authorizing the enactment of that bill or joint resolution.
The statement will appear in a separate section in the
Congressional Record and be made available to the public in
electronic form.
While the rule requires that a Member submit the statement
at the same time as the bill is introduced, there is nothing
in the rule to prevent the sponsor of the bill from
submitting an additional statement later in the process if he
or she wants to revise the initial statement. With regard to
electronic availability, appearance in the electronic version
of the Congressional Record will initially satisfy the
electronic availability requirement of this paragraph.
However, ultimate the intention is that the Clerk will make
the statements available in a searchable, sortable, and
downloadable database as soon as practicable.
With respect to Senate bills, the provision authorizes the
chair of a committee of jurisdiction, prior to consideration
of the Senate bill, to submit a statement as if the chair
were the sponsor. Finally, the provision also repeals the
current requirement for a similar statement in committee
reports.
When a Member introduces a bill or joint resolution, the
Clerk must ensure that a statement required under this
paragraph accompanies the measure. However, the Clerk is not
required to evaluate the content of the statement or its
adequacy; those are matters to be considered by Members
during consideration of the legislation.
Three-Day Availability for Unreported Bills. This provision
adds a new clause to rule XXIX establishing a point of order
against consideration of a bill or joint resolution that has
not been available for three calendar days. This provision
mirrors existing layover rules prohibiting consideration of
bills reported by a committee or conference reports.
Transparency for House and Committee Operations.
Subparagraph (i) directs the Committee on House
Administration to establish and maintain standards for
documents made available in electronic form by the House and
its committees. Subparagraph (2) provides that a measure or
matter will have been considered as having been ``available''
within the meaning of the rules if it was publicly available
in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee
on House Administration.
The intention of these provisions is to ensure that Members
and the public have easy access to bills, resolutions, and
amendments considered in committee and by the House. The
standard for electronic documents is intended to evolve over
time. While the standard may initially include more static
formats such as a searchable PDF, the intention is to
eventually transition to more flexible structured data
formats, such as XML, as the tools become available to ease
the creation and ensure the integrity of House documents.
With respect to availability, the provision is intended to
place electronic distribution on par with traditional
printing; rather than entirely replace it. Finally, the rule
contemplates a singular location that will direct Members and
the public to the text of measures to be considered by the
House and its committees.
Subparagraph (3) amends clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI to
provide for a minimum notice period of 3 days for a committee
meeting. This joins the current requirement for 7 days notice
for a committee hearing. The provision maintains the current
ability of the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking
minority member, to waive both notice periods if they find
good cause to start the hearing or meeting sooner. The
provision can also be waived by a majority vote of the
committee.
Subparagraph (4) requires that the chair of the committee
make the text of the measure or matter being marked up
publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior
to commencement of the meeting. This provision is intended to
ensure that members have the text of the measure or matter in
sufficient time to review the measure and draft any
amendments. Accordingly, if the committee is considering a
committee print, or the Chair of a committee intends to use
an amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text
for purposes of further amendment, circulation of that text
will satisfy this requirement. While the rule requires that
the text be circulated at least 24 hours in advance of the
meeting, that text should be circulated as early as possible
to provide members the maximum amount of time to review the
measure or matter and draft any desired amendments.
Subparagraph (5) requires that the chair of a committee
make the results of any record vote publicly available in
electronic form within 48 hours of the vote, while
subparagraph (6) requires that the text of any adopted
amendment be made similarly available, along with the text of
the measure being marked up, within 24 hours of commencement
of the markup or adoption of the amendment.
Subparagraph (7) requires the posting of non-governmental
witness ``truth-in-testimony'' information (with appropriate
redactions, such as a home address or phone number, to
protect the privacy of the witness). Subparagraph (8)
requires public availability in electronic form of the
committee rules.
Subparagraph (9) requires each Committee, to the maximum
extent practicable, to provide audio and video coverage of
each committee hearing or meeting and maintain recordings
that are easily accessible to the public. This subparagraph
is not intended to require audio and video coverage in
situations where it would be technically impracticable, such
as where a hearing or meeting is held in a room without audio
and video broadcast equipment, or create a defect with a
hearing or meeting if a webcast or recording is not available
due to technical issues.
Subparagraph (10) strikes an exception, adopted in the
110th Congress, for the Committee on Rules to accurately
report its votes in committee reports to accompany a rule,
joint rule, or a special order of business.
Subparagraph (11) amends clause 2(d)(1) of rule X to
require committees, during development of their oversight
plan, to include proposals to cut or eliminate mandatory and
discretionary programs that are inefficient, duplicative,
outdated, or more appropriately administered by State or
local governments.
Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.
Subparagraph (d)(i) replaces the current ``pay-as-you-go''
requirements with a ``cut-as-you-go'' requirement. The
provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint
resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net
effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or
ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current
practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to
a special order of business which directs the Clerk to
engross the measures together after passage for purposes of
compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for
addressing ``emergency'' designations.
Subparagraph (2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that
provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the
Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,
upon the adoption by Congress of the budget resolution,
thereby avoiding a separate vote in the House on the public
debt-limit legislation. Subparagraph (3) adds a new clause to
rule XXIX that clarifies that the chair of the Committee on
the Budget, rather than the entire committee, is authorized
to provide guidance to the presiding officer on the budgetary
impact of legislative proposals. This change reflects the
current practice under majorities of both parties.
Subparagraph (4) modifies clause 3 of rule XXI, pertaining
to transportation obligation limitations, to protect the
balances of the Highway Trust Fund by establishing a point of
order against consideration of any general appropriation bill
or joint resolution, or accompanying conference report, that
provides spending authority from balances in the trust fund
(other than those from transfers from the General Fund of the
Treasury) or reduces or limits the accruing balances of that
trust fund for anything other than activities authorized for
the highway or mass transit programs.
Subparagraph (5) modifies clause 7 of rule XXI, which
places restrictions on reconciliation directives contained in
a budget resolution. The new modification would specify
[[Page H14]]
that it would not be in order to consider a budget resolution
or amendments thereto, or a conference thereon which would
have the effect of increasing net direct spending.
Other Changes to House Operations. Paragraph (e)(1)
provides the Chair of the Committee of the Whole with
authority to employ two minute voting during a series of
votes.
Subparagraph (2) changes the current rule regarding
electronic devices, which prohibits the use of mobile phones
and personal computers on the floor, to prohibit the use of
any mobile electronic device that is disruptive of the
decorum. This change will give the Speaker greater latitude
in deciding which mobile electronic devices may or may not be
used by Members on the floor.
For historical purposes, it is important to note that the
use of electronic devices in the chamber of the U.S. House of
Representatives is governed by the rules of the House. In the
111th Congress, the fourth sentence of clause 5 of rule XVII
read as follows: ``A person may not smoke or use a wireless
telephone or personal computer on the floor of the House.''
The House first adopted a rule prohibiting the use of
``personal, electronic office equipment (including cellular
phones and computers)'' on the floor in 1995. The rule was
specifically changed in 2003 to prohibit the use of ``a
wireless telephone or personal computer,'' thereby tacitly
permitting a smartphone (e.g., a BlackBerry) to be used on
the floor.
No formal ruling has been made by the Speaker on whether an
electronic-tablet device (e.g., an iPad) might constitute a
``personal computer'' within the meaning of the version of
the rule in 111th Congress. Members of the House have used
them on the floor, both informally and even while under
recognition, without reprimand. The Parliamentarian has
informally advised that they may be used unobtrusively
pending review of the broader questions their proliferation
might engender. Wi-Fi service has not been enabled in the
chamber of the House. However, like many smartphones, some
electronic-tablet devices have wireless-data capability that
enables internet access in the chamber.
As the popularity of electronic-tablet devices increases,
the House has observed how Members use them and their effect
on decorum and has evaluated whether the use of electronic-
tablet devices poses either audible or visual impairments to
decorum in the chamber. Unlike bulkier notebook and
laptop computers, electronic-tablet devices can be used
without obscuring the Member behind a screen or creating
the visual of a sea of screens across the chamber. In
addition, these devices are implemented with silent
keyboards that limit audible disruptions.
The House has reconsidered the way it regulates the use of
such devices. Rather than continuing to address devices by
category (e.g., ``phones'' or ``computers''), the current
rule will instead will address them by their attributes
(e.g., form-factor or character). The rule speaks generally
of devices that are disruptive of the decorum of the House
and leaves it to the Speaker to enunciate policies to react
to changes in technology. (This approach already has been
employed to extend the prohibition on the use of wireless
telephones also to the wearing of wireless headsets while in
the chamber.)
Subparagraph (3) updates the House rules governing the
media to eliminate references to specific media
organizations.
Subparagraph (4) ends the ability of delegates and the
Resident Commissioner to vote in, and preside over, the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Subparagraph (5) strikes clause 11 of rule XVIII, which
allows a motion to strike a provision from a bill that is
asserted to be an unfunded mandate, even if the amendment
would not otherwise be in order during consideration of the
bill.
Subparagraph (6) clarifies the Armed Services Committee
jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered
cemeteries. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs with respect to cemeteries for veterans remains
unchanged.
Subparagraphs (7) through (9) change, respectively, the
name of the Committee on Education and Labor to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct to the Committee on Ethics, and the
Committee on Science and Technology to the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology. Subparagraph (10) eliminates
the Select Oversight Panel of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Subparagraph (11) reduces the size of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence from a total of 22 members (13 from
the majority party) to 20 members (12 from the majority
party). The next subparagraph restores the term limit rules
for committee chairs to the same state it existed in the
109th Congress.
Subparagraph (13) increases the frequency of committee
activity reports from once per congress to four times per
congress. This provision is intended to provide the House
with more frequent updates regarding the oversight and
legislative activities of the committees.
Subparagraph (14) modifies existing staff deposition
authority for the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform by requiring the committee to adopt a rule requiring
that a member of the committee be present at any deposition
conducted by a staff member. The deponent is permitted to
waive this requirement.
Technical and Clarifying Changes. These provisions correct
a host of typographic and other simple errors. Subparagraph
(1) corrects a typographic error, and subparagraph (2)
corrects an errant reference to simple resolutions. The next
subparagraph corrects an unintentional narrowing of the
circumstances regarding the Speaker's regulation of access to
the floor, and the following provision corrects another word
that was inadvertently removed during the recodification of
the House rules in the 106th Congress. Lastly, the provision
eliminates unnecessary usage of ``Members of the House'' and
makes clear that the Clerk does not have to disclose actual
Member signatures, just their names, when making a disclosure
under clause 13 of rule XXIII.
Section 3. Separate Orders.
Budget Matters. Subparagraphs (a)(i) through (3) clarify
that section 306 of the Budget Act (prohibiting consideration
of legislation with the Budget Committee's jurisdiction,
unless reported by the Budget Committee) only applies to
bills and joint resolutions and not to simple or concurrent
resolutions. It also makes a section 303 point of order
(requiring adoption of budget resolution before consideration
of budget-related legislation) applicable to text made in
order as an original bill by a special rule. Specified or
minimum levels of compensation for Federal office will not be
considered as providing new entitlement authority.
Subparagraph (4) prevents the Committee of the Whole from
rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds an
applicable allocation of new budget authority under section
302 (b) (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) as
estimated by the Budget Committee and creates a point of
order.
Budget Enforcement. Subsections (b)(1) and (2) require the
chair of the Committee on the Budget to submit for printing
in the Congressional Record budget aggregates and allocations
contemplated by section 301 (Content of the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget) for 2011, and 2011 through 2015.
Publication of these aggregates and allocations will be
considered to be the adoption of a concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2011. This provision is intended
to give the Chair of the Committee on the Budget authority to
set aggregates and allocations to complete the unfinished
fiscal year 2011 budget resolution cycle, taking into account
the latest CBO baseline, including its 5-year projections.
Emergencies and Contingencies. Subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2)
provide for exemptions for designated emergencies and the
continuation of contingency operations related to the Global
War on Terror.
Deficit-Neutral Revenue Reserve. Paragraph (d) allows the
Budget Committee to make appropriate budget adjustments prior
to the adoption of a budget resolution to account for the
repeal or modification of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Limitation on Advanced Appropriations. Subparagraphs (e)(1)
through (3) restrict the ability to provide advanced
appropriations by establishing an aggregate spending ceiling.
Compliance with Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990. Paragraph (f) provides temporary budget enforcement
for matters related to certain off budget trust funds.
Limitation on Long-term Spending. Subparagraphs (g)(1) and
(2) prohibit the consideration of measure which increase
mandatory spending above $5,000,000,000 for any 10 year
window within a 40 year period.
Exemptions. Subparagraphs (h)(1) through (7) authorize the
Budget Committee Chair, prior to the adoption of a budget
resolution, to exempt from estimates the budgetary effects of
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003. It also exempts the budgetary effects of the repeal of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010. The budgetary
effects of AMT relief, estate tax, trade agreements and small
business tax relief are also exempted. The exemption is
limited to measures which do not increase the deficit or
revenues over the ten-year budget window, except for
increases in revenue which meet certain specific criteria.
Determinations for PAYGO Acts. Paragraph (i) allows the
Chairman of the Budget Committee to take into account the
exemptions provided under paragraph (h) for the purpose of
complying with Statutory PAYGO.
Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.
Paragraph (j) requires that in each general appropriations
bill there be a ``spending reduction'' account, the contents
of which is a recitation of the amount by which, through the
amendment process, the House has reduced spending in other
portions of the bill and indicated that such savings should
be counted towards spending reduction. It provides that other
amendments that propose to increase spending in accounts in a
general appropriations bill must include an offset of equal
or greater value.
Certain Subcommittees. This section waives clause 5(d) of
Rule X to allow the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign
Affairs up to seven subcommittees each, and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure up to six subcommittees.
This is a standard provision carried in the rules package
during the last several congresses.
[[Page H15]]
Exercise Facilities for Former Members. This section
continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility
which is made available exclusively to Members, former
Members, officers and former officers of the House and their
spouses to any former member, former officer, or spouse who
is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995.
Numbering of Bills. This provision reserves the first 10
numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by
the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R.
20) for assignment by the Minority Leader.
Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) reauthorize the House Democracy
Partnership and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
Subparagraph (c) reauthorizes the Office of Congressional
Ethics for the 112th Congress.
Subparagraph (d) continues House Resolution 451, 110th
Congress, directing the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now Ethics) to empanel investigative subcommittees
within 30 days after the date a Member is indicted or
criminal charges are filed.
Section 5. Additional Orders of Business
Reading of the Constitution. This paragraph allows the
Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the
Constitution on the legislative day of January 6, 2011.
Providing for Consideration of Certain Motions to Suspend
the Rules. This provision provides that on January 6, 2011
the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules
related to reducing the costs of operation of the House and
allow two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. As we've seen here today, Madam Speaker, we are marking
an important turning point in the history of the United States House of
Representatives. We have before us a package of reforms that will bring
greater transparency and accountability to this House, and it will once
again give the American people the opportunity to participate in the
legislative process. They've made clear to us that what their
priorities are--job creation, economic growth, and a smaller, more
accountable Federal Government--must be done. The reforms included in
the rules package are designed to ensure that those priorities are met
and that we are held responsible for our actions to do the people's
work.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank each and every one of my colleagues
who have worked tirelessly on this rules package. Never before in
history has there been the kind of Member involvement--bipartisan
Member involvement--in an opening day rules package. I particularly
want to thank my good friends Greg Walden, who led our transition team,
and Rob Bishop, who led the rules reform effort, as well as the other
members of our transition working group. We had four new Members of
Congress who right after the election got involved in working on this
very, very important transition, and I want to express my appreciation.
As I said, Madam Speaker, this has, for the first time, ever been
bipartisan. I don't want to claim that my Democratic colleagues are
supportive of this rules package, but I will say that when we began the
process, I'm happy that former Speaker Pelosi designated as liaisons to
work with us through the transition process the distinguished former
chair of the Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Brady), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I
want to express my appreciation to them again for their hard work.
As we looked for ways to chart a new course and reduce congressional
waste, we knew that we had to consider good ideas from both political
parties, and that's why I'm happy to say we had input from both
Democrats and Republicans in fashioning this opening day rules package.
Our Democratic liaisons were tremendous partners, and again, I express
my appreciation to my Democratic colleagues for joining with us in this
effort.
Now, having completed our transition work, we are now beginning a new
Congress. Each of us faces the new beginning with the knowledge that
congressional approval ratings are abysmally low. It's rare that the
Congress is held in high esteem by the American people--we all know
that--but it is even rarer to have an approval rating that is as low as
it is right now.
Now, why is it that this body has become so unpopular? The reason is
that the American people felt that they were not being listened to.
They have sent us here to conduct the 112th Congress differently than
any Congress of the past. I'm not going to just talk about the last two
Congresses, Madam Speaker; I'm going to say that they sent us here this
year to perform differently than any Congress of the past. What's more,
they have given us, as Speaker Boehner likes to say, some pretty simple
and clear and direct marching orders when it comes to our work: fulfill
our constitutional duties in an open and transparent way.
Now, Madam Speaker, this rules package that we have before us
provides us the tools to do just what the American people have asked:
to perform our constitutional duties in a transparent and open way.
Because our highest priorities are job creation and economic growth, we
must rein in the government spending that has spiraled out of control
over the past several years. We're taking several steps to meet that
goal.
For starters, we're requiring that any new spending be offset for
five 10-year budget windows. If a bill increases the deficit by more
than $5 billion in any of these 10-year windows, it will be subjected
to a point of order. In other words, we're changing the rules of the
House to ensure that we look at short, medium, as well as long-term
consequences to Federal spending. We should not, and cannot, consider
legislation that pushes the Federal budget deficit and the problems
down the road.
We will also be reforming the spending process by replacing PAYGO
with CutGo. Rather than pairing spending with tax increases, job-
killing tax increases, we will pair it with spending cuts. It's often
been said that we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending
problem. These new rules will make it easier to reduce spending rather
than increase it. In fact, the idea behind this package is to focus on
ways in which we can increase the opportunity to reduce spending rather
than increase it.
Now, Madam Speaker, we're also taking important steps to make us more
accountable to the American people, the people whom we're so honored to
represent. We won't be voting on bills unless they've been available
for at least 3 calendar days. We will be returning much of the
legislative work back to the committees where greater transparency will
be required. The work product, the recorded votes, and the video
archives of all committees are required by these rules to be posted
online. No longer will massive legislation be written behind closed
doors, regardless of political party, and rammed through the House
before anyone has the chance to review or amend the text. Our work will
be done in an open way that affords all Members the opportunity to
participate and scrutinize.
Another key reform by this rules package is the creation of an
electronic format for legislation. This represents a dramatic change in
how legislation is made available, not just to Members but to the
public and the press as well. Now, Madam Speaker, for the last two
centuries, legislation was considered available when a paper copy was
dropped off in the document room across the street. Now it will be
considered available when anyone with access to the Internet can look
it up.
This new format will evolve over time, and there's work ahead that
still has to be done as we implement these rules changes, but no Member
should consider this vote as the end of the reform efforts of this
Congress. Again, what we're doing here today is simply the first step
in what is going to be a one-year, 2-year process of reform.
We will not be wed to the way we used to do things. Rather, we will
be looking for new and different ways to do our jobs and to do them in
the most transparent and accountable way. And let me say again, Madam
Speaker, it is very important for us to ensure that we have the input
of my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) and other Democrats, as
well as Republicans, in this process.
{time} 1530
Madam Speaker, this rules package is a very significant first step.
We have learned the hard way that bad process inevitably results in bad
outcomes. We need look no further than our ailing economy and spiraling
deficit, not to
[[Page H16]]
mention Congress' abysmal approval rating, to see that that is true.
By reforming the rules of the House, we set the stage for reforming
the entire Federal Government. Ultimately, we ensure fidelity to the
original rules document, that being the Constitution. And I am so
pleased that tomorrow on the House floor, led by our friend from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we will be having a bipartisan reading of the
Constitution.
Madam Speaker, our Founders understood better than anyone the
importance of restraining Federal power. I think that Thomas Jefferson
put it best when he said, ``In questions of power, let no more be heard
of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of
the Constitution.''
Now, Madam Speaker, in this Congress, we will refocus our efforts on
fulfilling our constitutional duties in a transparent and responsible
way. We will be reform-minded and accountability-oriented, and we will
be driven by the number one concern of the American people--getting our
economy back on track. Madam Speaker, form dictates function, and these
new rules will set us on the path toward greater economic growth and
confidence for the American people.
With that, I urge support of this very important resolution and
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who, as I said, is
disenfranchised by this rule. Millions of Americans will be
underrepresented.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.
Madam Speaker, for myself and for the Delegates from American Samoa,
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the
resident commissioner of Puerto Rico, I offered a motion earlier that
the House conduct a full and complete study of the constitutionality of
the vote in the Committee of the Whole for the Delegates which is
eliminated by this rule. This is nearly the same motion that the
Republicans offered when we first were granted the right to vote on the
House floor. The delegate vote was challenged by the Republicans in the
courts and found to be constitutional, however.
Madam Speaker, this vote is a mere recognition of our American
citizenship. The Delegates are no different from others in this House.
It is one thing not to have the vote. It is quite another to be
stripped of your vote. The vote is said to be symbolic by some. Well,
to us it is symbolic. It is symbolic of the American citizenship of our
constituents. It meant everything to us. There are differences among
us, of course, but we ask you to think again about this vote and to
restore the vote of the Delegates on the floor in the Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington, Sheriff Reichert, our
distinguished colleague and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am excited to be here today. And I thank my
constituents for the opportunity to once more serve them again as their
Representative here in the United States Capitol.
In the days ahead, Congress will debate and pass proposals that will
affect the health, the livelihood, and the well-being of every American
citizen. Today, as Mr. Dreier said, we are setting the tone now for how
well we will serve them in this Congress. Our service should, first and
foremost, be transparent and be respectful, be inclusive, work
together.
So I am proud that legislation that I authored a couple of years ago
is now included in this rules package that we are about to vote on
today. My bill requires each of the 21 standing committees in this
House to post recorded votes on their Web sites within 48 hours because
Americans deserve to know how bills take shape at every step along the
way. They deserve easy access to votes taken not just on the floor but
also in the committee.
Government transparency is essential to a healthy democracy. By using
existing committee Web sites, we can offer this information in a
fiscally responsible and easily accessible way. And I am pleased that
my work was included in this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
(Mr. PIERLUISI asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican rules
package, because it sends a message of exclusion and indifference to my
constituents and those of my fellow delegates from the other U.S.
territories and the District of Columbia.
As the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, I represent nearly
four million U.S. citizens, far more than any other member of this
Chamber. Together, the delegates from the other U.S. territories and
the District of Columbia represent over one million people. Our
constituents are part of the American family. They pledge allegiance to
the same flag as their fellow Americans in the 50 states. They fight--
and many of them have died--in defense of our nation.
Under a rule in place for the last three Democratic-controlled
Congresses, the Representatives from the territories and the District
were given a single, extremely circumscribed privilege on the House
floor. We were permitted to vote on amendments when the House resolved
into the Committee of the Whole, a parliamentary device designed to
allow greater participation by Members in debate. The rule provided for
an automatic revote to be held in the exceedingly rare instance where
our votes affected the outcome. This rule was upheld by the federal
courts and did not impede the work of this House in any way.
This simple privilege promoted responsible and transparent
government. By obligating us to take public stands on issues of
importance, it enabled our constituents to better evaluate both our
governing philosophy and the quality of our representation. The
privilege also sent a clear moral message--a message of inclusiveness--
conveying to our constituents that their voices counted.
In a move that is as unnecessary as it is unjust, the Republican
package will deprive us of this privilege, which may have been small in
their eyes, but which held significant meaning for us and those we
represent. The Republican package dishonors men and women from the
territories and the District of Columbia. And in so doing, it does
grave damage to the principles of equality and justice that our
constituents, side by side with all of your constituents, fight to
defend here at home and in distant lands. This is a true shame.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the Delegate from Guam, Delegate Bordallo.
(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican rules package makes this body less
transparent and less responsive to the American people. By obligating
the Delegates to take public stands, our limited vote showed our
constituents where we stood on important issues. Our vote also helped
ensure legislation considered by the House took our constituents into
account. When an amendment came forward last Congress regarding the
transfer of detainees from Guantanamo into the U.S., the territories
were initially excluded from the prohibition. Our vote compelled the
House to address our concerns. This is precisely how representative
democracy is meant to work.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Dr.
Christensen.
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules Package which once
again removes the opportunity for Delegates to Congress and the
Resident Commissioner to vote on amendments in the Committee of the
Whole. It was our privilege in the past two Congresses to vote along
with our colleagues on issues of importance to all Americans,
especially the over 4 million of us who live and work in the U.S.
territories.
The people of the U.S. territories are a diverse group, much like
their fellow citizens on the mainland. Some are born in the territories
under the American flag, some have migrated there and embraced our
culture and our values before naturalization, others were born in the
states and have chosen by virtue of their chosen occupation or by love
of our islands to make the territories their home. All are Americans in
every sense of the word, except for full representation in the House of
Representatives and the ability to vote for the President of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the U.S. territories have served their
country in all of its
[[Page H17]]
conflicts from the American Revolution to the recent conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan. They have given their youth, their time and even their
lives for our country. We had hoped through our participation to obtain
the good will of all of our colleagues to ensure full participation in
the democratic process for all citizens of our country. The events of
this week have proved to us once more that we still have a long way to
go to ensure equality and justice for all.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the tens of thousands of
our men and women in military uniform from the U.S. territories, I just
ask my good friend, the Honorable Speaker, restore our symbolic vote.
That's all we are asking for.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed rules by the Republicans for the 112th
Congress give unfair treatment to some 5 million Americans residing in
the U.S. territories. In particular, it eliminates the rule that allows
the Delegates to vote when the House resolves into the Committee of the
Whole, and that provides for an automatic revote in the full House when
such vote is the deciding margin.
The U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the Delegate vote on the basis
that there is automatic reconsideration of votes in the House when the
Delegate vote is decisive. Automatic reconsideration preserves the
House proper as the sole arbiter for changes made in the legislation
that the House considers.
During the three Congresses in which the rule has been in place, the
record shows that the Delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole has
not in any way hindered the work of the House. From 1993 to 2010, the
House had a total of 132 separate votes demanded in the House on first
degree amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. In the same
period, only four such amendments were reconsidered as a result of the
Delegates being the deciding votes. this proves that the Delegates vote
does not impede the work of the House.
While symbolic, the Delegate vote is important for transparency and
political accountability. It compels us, representatives of the U.S.
Territories, to make public our views and positions on issues of
national interest that are important to our constituents. Hence, the
constituents are able to make an informed decision to elect those that
better represent their views.
Above all, the Delegate vote underscores fairness and has moral
implications for the institution and this great nation. As part of the
American family, a disproportionate number of our sons and daughters
are fighting in the U.S. military in defense of the values and
principles upon which this country was founded.
A statistical profile of Americans killed in the war in iraq shows my
district, the U.S. Territory of American Samoa, has the highest rate of
deaths per 1 million population in all of the United States. Just last
month, I attended the funeral of another soldier from my district
killed in Iraq. Staff Sergeant Loleni Gandy, originally from American
Samoa, was 36 years old, and has served in the U.S. Army for 17 years.
He is survived by his wife and four young sons who now have to cope
with the loss of their father. Like Americans in other States, the love
and loyalty my people feel for the United States remains unchanged.
It is disconcerting therefore that under the new rules proposed for
the 112th Congress, the Delegates are stripped of the power to vote in
the Committee of the Whole. This is an affront to the tremendous
sacrifice made by Americans in the Territories and further restricted
what modest representation they have in Congress.
I urge my friends on the other side to reverse course and reinstate
the rule to allow the Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole.
Congressional Research Service,
December 29, 2010.
To: House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and
Wildlife, Attention: Jed Bullock.
From: Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the
Legislative Process.
Subject: Amendments Reported from the Committee of the Whole
Subject to a Demand for a Separate House Vote or
Automatic House Reconsideration: 103rd-111th Congress
This memorandum responds to your request for statistical
information about amendments adopted in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union from 1993 to the
present on which a demand for a separate vote was
subsequently made in the House of Representatives or which
were subject to automatic reconsideration in the House
because the votes of the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner were decisive in the Committee.
Separate Votes and Automatic Re-votes in the House
Under the longstanding practice of the House of
Representatives, first degree amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole House of the State of the Union and
reported to the House are not considered finally adopted
until agreed to by the House. The philosophy underlying this
practice is that the Committee of the Whole is only
recommending amendments to the House; the House proper is the
sole arbiter of changes made in the legislation it considers
and, as such, must act to approve or disapprove the
recommendations made by the Committee.
For this reason, when the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports legislation to the House, the House must vote on any
first degree amendments included in measure as reported. In
the vast majority of cases, the House, by unanimous consent,
acts to approve all of the committee reported amendments en
gros by voice vote, before quickly moving to the final
parliamentary steps of considering a measure. It is the right
of any Member, however, to demand a separate vote in the
House on any first degree amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole, and Members sometimes avail
themselves of this right. There may be various motivations
for a Member demanding what is often essentially a ``re-
vote'' in the House on an amendment which a majority of
Members voted for only a short time earlier in the Committee
of the Whole. These motivations include, but are not limited
to, hoping to defeat an amendment unexpectedly agreed to by
the Committee and to force the House to expend time in taking
recorded votes.
As you know, there also exists in House rules a separate
and unique parliamentary mechanism by which an amendment
receiving a vote in the Committee of the Whole is subject to
immediate and automatic reconsideration in the House when it
has been determined that the votes of the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner have made the difference in the vote's
outcome. Provisions contained in clause 6 of House Rule
XVIII, as adopted in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), state
that when the House is sitting as the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, the Delegates and Resident
Commissioner have the same right to vote as Representatives,
subject to immediate and automatic reconsideration in the
House when their recorded votes ``have been decisive'' in the
committee. Rules related to the votes of the Delegates and
Resident Commissioner which were identical in effect were in
force in the 110th (2007-2008) and 103rd (1993-1994)
Congresses.
Results and Research Method
At your request, CRS conducted a search to identify first-
degree amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole
which were subject to a demand for a separate vote in the
House from the 103rd (1993-1994) through the 111th (2009-
2010) Congress. These amendments were identified by searching
the universe of House amendments in the Legislative
Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) using the term
``separate vote.'' These results were cross-checked with
demands for a separate vote noted in individual issues of the
Congressional Record Daily Digest.
CRS has also previously identified amendments that were
subject to automatic reconsideration in the House pursuant to
the terms of clause 6 of House Rule XVIII, described above.
Table 1 presents the number of amendments falling into these
two categories over the period examined. Material identifying
the specific amendments in question is provided under
separate cover.
TABLE 1--FIRST DEGREE AMENDMENTS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE ON WHICH A DEMAND FOR A SEPARATE VOTE WAS MADE IN THE HOUSE OR
WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF
HOUSE RULE XVIII
[103rd-111th Congress (1993-2010)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments
Separate Votes Demanded Reconsidered in
in the House on First the House
Congress & Years Degree Amendments Pursuant to
Reported from the Clause 6 of House
Committee of the Whole Rule XVIII
------------------------------------------------------------------------
103rd (1993-1994)........... 70 3
104th (1995-1996)........... 5 --
105th (1997-1998)........... 29 --
106th (1999-2000)........... 5 --
107th (2001-2002)........... 1 --
108th (2003-2004)........... 4 --
109th (2005-2006)........... 1 --
110th (2007-2008)........... 13 0
111th (2009-2010)........... 6 1
-------------------------------------------
Total................... 132 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CRS analysis of information from the Legislative Information
System of the U.S. Congress and the Congressional Record Daily Digest.
Notes: Congresses in which Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were
not permitted to vote in Committee of the Whole subject to an
automatic reconsideration in the House are noted with a dash.
I trust this information is responsive to your needs.
[Congressional Research Service, Dec. 23, 2010]
Parliamentary Rights of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner From
Puerto Rico
(By Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative
Process)
summary
As officers who represent territories and properties
possessed or administered by the United States but not
admitted to statehood, the five House Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico are not Members of
Congress, and do not enjoy all the same parliamentary rights
as Members. They may vote and otherwise act similarly to
Members in legislative committee; may
[[Page H18]]
not vote in the House, but may participate in debate and make
most motions there; and, under the rules of the 111th
Congress (2009-2010), may preside over, and vote in,
Committee of the Whole subject to an immediate revote in the
House if their votes are decisive.
A proposed rules change for the 112th Congress (2011-2012)
released by the House Republican leadership in December of
2010 would, if subsequently adopted by the House, eliminate
the right of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner to vote
in, or preside over, the Committee of the Whole.
This report will be updated as circumstances warrant.
introduction
The offices of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
and the Delegates to the House of Representatives from
American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands are created by statute, not by the Constitution.
Because they represent territories and associated
jurisdictions, not states, they are not Members of Congress
and do not possess the same parliamentary rights afforded
Members. This report examines the parliamentary rights of the
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner in legislative
committee, in the House, and in the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.
in legislative committee
Under Clause 3 of Rule III, the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner are elected to serve on standing committees in
the same manner as Representatives and have the same
parliamentary powers and privileges as Representatives
there--the right to question witnesses, to debate, offer
amendments, vote, offer motions, raise points of order,
include additional views in committee reports, accrue
seniority, and chair committees and subcommittees. The same
rule authorizes the Speaker to appoint Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner to conference committees as well as to
service on select and joint committees.
in the house
The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may not vote in
or preside over the House. While they take an oath to uphold
the Constitution, they are not included on the Clerk's roll
of Members-elect, and may not vote for Speaker. They may not
file or sign discharge petitions. They may, however, sponsor
and cosponsor legislation, participate in debate, including
managing time, and offer any motion which a Representative
may make, except the motion to reconsider. A Delegate or
Resident Commissioner may raise points of order and questions
of personal privilege, call a Member to order, appeal rulings
of the chair, file reports for committees, object to the
consideration of a bill, and move impeachment proceedings.
in committee of the whole house on the state of the union
Under Rule III and Rule XVIII, as adopted in the 111th
Congress (2009-2010), when the House is sitting as the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, the
Delegates and Resident Commissioner have the same right to
vote as Representatives, subject to immediate reconsideration
in the House when their recorded votes ``have been decisive''
in the Committee. House rules also authorize the Speaker to
appoint a Delegate or the Resident Commissioner to preside as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
The rules of the 111th Congress are identical in effect to
those in force in the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and before
that, in the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), which permitted the
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in, and to
preside over, the Committee of the Whole. These provisions
were stricken from the rules as adopted in the 104th Congress
(1995-1996) and remained out of effect until readopted in the
110th Congress. At the time of the adoption of the 1993 rule,
then-Minority Leader Robert H. Michel and 12 other
Representatives filed suit against the Clerk of the House and
the territorial delegates, seeking a declaration that the
rule was unconstitutional. The constitutionality of the rule
was ultimately upheld on appeal based on its inclusion of the
mechanism for automatic reconsideration of votes in the
House. A draft of the proposed rules package for the 112th
Congress (2011-2012) released by the House Republican
leadership on December 23, 2010, would amend Rules III and
XVIII to eliminate the ability of the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner to vote in, or preside over, the
Committee of the Whole.
The votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
were decisive, and thus subject to automatic revote by the
House, on three occasions in the 103rd Congress. There were
no instances identified in the 110th Congress in which the
votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were
decisive. In the 111th Congress, the votes of the delegates
were decisive, and subject to an automatic revote, on one
occasion.
The rule governing voting in the Committee of the Whole by
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner has not been
interpreted to mean that any recorded vote with a difference
of six votes or less is subject to automatic reconsideration.
In determining whether the votes of the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner were decisive, the Chair follows a
``but for'' test--namely, would the result of a vote have
been different if the Delegates and the Commissioner had not
voted? If the votes of the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner on a question are determined to be decisive by
this standard, the committee automatically rises and the
Speaker puts the question to a vote. The vote is first put by
voice, and any Representative may, with a sufficient second,
obtain a record vote. Once the final result of the vote is
announced, the Committee of the Whole automatically resumes
its sitting.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request
to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).
(Mr. SABLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands are citizens
of the United States. And the Constitution declares we are ``subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.''
But today the majority's Rules exclude us from even symbolic
representation in our government.
The Pledge to America declared the majority would fight those who
whisper America's standing as the world leader of democracy is ending.
But today the majority breaks its own Pledge with Rules that take
away the vote from 5 million Americans.
What a sad way to begin this new Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule not for
small reasons of this rule or that rule but because it authorizes
trillions of dollars of new debt without paying for it.
There are two ways to create debt: You can buy things and not pay for
it, or you can simply cut revenues and make yourself unable to pay for
things. Statutory PAYGO was designed to accomplish the objective of
having us do what is difficult to do--pay for what we buy. If we are
honest with one another, it doesn't matter whether you want to spend or
simply cut revenues. If you don't do both--cut spending and either
maintain or cut revenues consistent with your cutting of spending--then
you will inevitably create new debt.
Now, all of you have heard about my three children, my three
grandchildren, and my one great-granddaughter. They, frankly, won't
care how the debt was created, whether it was created because we cut
revenues but didn't cut spending, which is what happened, of course, in
the 2000s, or what happened in the eighties, where we incurred
trillions of dollars of additional debt. During the Clinton
administration, we didn't do that, and we restrained spending. Our
Republican colleagues were very helpful in doing that, obviously, and
we continued to pay for what we bought. We created 4 years of surplus.
So I oppose this rule because of the trillions of dollars that it will
authorize, be incurred in new debt.
Secondly, I oppose this rule, as do my friends from the various
territories, from Puerto Rico, from the Virgin Islands, the District of
Columbia, and the Pacific Islands. We talked about, during the course
of the campaign, listening to people. We have almost 5 million people
who are American citizens. How do we listen to them? We listen to them
when their Representatives put their green or red on the board.
I will be introducing a resolution tomorrow, which will be referred
to the Rules Committee, and I hope you will consider it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The time of the gentleman from
Maryland has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady.
I was telling my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee,
congratulations to him for his obtaining the chairmanship. A thoughtful
and hardworking Member of this House will chair the Rules Committee. I
am going to be introducing an amendment to the rules that, my
presumption is, we will adopt today which will return this symbol of
respect, this symbol of inclusion, this symbol of colleagueship, if you
will, to our six representatives of American citizens.
{time} 1540
I hope my friend will hold hearings on that. I would like to testify
on that issue.
And I say to my friends that I hope we reject these rules so that we
can correct both the trillions of dollars of exposure that it creates
and to ensure the inclusion, in a real and meaningful way, but not
constitutionally objectionable way, our friends who represent
[[Page H19]]
the District of Columbia and our territories.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume,
and I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my very
good friend, the minority whip.
On the issue of CutGo versus PAYGO, I think it's important to note
that in the bipartisan agreement that was put together just last month,
supported by President Obama, there was an actual embrace of the John
F. Kennedy vision of recognizing that economic growth and an enhanced
level of revenues to the Federal Treasury come about by keeping
marginal rates low.
Now I will say, Mr. Speaker, that was a bipartisan agreement; and so
what we've said is that as we look at growing the economy, we are very
enthused at the fact that job creators are going to be able to have
revenues focused on job creating, therefore enhancing the opportunity
for more revenues coming to the Federal Treasury.
Second, I think it's also very important for us to realize that the
focus does need to be on spending; and we believe very passionately
that, in the last 4 years since we've seen a 92 percent increase, a 92
percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in nondefense discretionary spending,
that we need to have a laser-like focus on that.
Now, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have come together to
decry both the lack of jobs that exist in our economy, as well as
deficit spending. There's clear bipartisan agreement on that. We all
want to create more private sector jobs, and we all want to see the
deficit reduced.
Now, how is it, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with those two issues?
The single most important thing that we can do to ensure that we
address that is to ensure economic growth. And so the notion behind
PAYGO, which would, in fact, bring about, unfortunately, an increase in
taxes that dramatically would stall this recovery--and even Keynesian
economists, those through the 1930s, 1940s--John Maynard Keynes died in
1950--there are many people who have followed his economic model, that
being stimulating through greater Federal spending.
Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that increasing taxes,
when you're dealing with a difficult economy, in fact, undermines the
potential for economic growth.
Now, let me take the second issue that my friend mentioned, Mr.
Speaker, and that issue has to do with the question of our delegates.
They're all friends of mine and I respect--I've visited most of the
territories, if not all, and I will say that these are very diligent,
hardworking Members.
But we all know what the bottom line comes to here. The bottom line
comes down to that the vote here in the Committee of the Whole counts
until it doesn't count, and it doesn't count if it counts. And that's
why I understand. And my friend, Mr. Faleomavaega, said correctly, this
is a symbol. It is a symbol. And I think that their membership and
participation on committees is important, and there is a great deal of
camaraderie that does go on with our friends.
But the fact is, when you have a structure where the vote counts
until it doesn't count and doesn't count if it counts, it seems to me
that that is not the proper route for us to take; and so that's the
reason that this action has been taken.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my very good friend, the
distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.
I tell my friend, you and I have been here some period of time.
Mr. DREIER. I've actually been here a few months longer than my
friend has.
Mr. HOYER. Well, that's true, so I'll be very respectful.
I've heard that argument that you just made made in 1981, in 1989,
and again in 2001. I tell my friend, my experience has been that it
hasn't worked, and we have incurred substantial trillions of dollars of
debt pursuing the Rules Committee philosophy that is represented in
your rule.
On the other hand, a bill that you opposed, and every member of your
party opposed in 1993, which you say was pursuing a job-killing policy,
in fact created more jobs than any other administration since you and I
have served here, some 22 million jobs and, additionally, balanced the
budget. Did we work together to do that? We did.
But I will tell you my experience and yours has been that we did, in
fact, balance the budget on the philosophy of statutory PAYGO.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I would say that
I began by talking about a great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy,
who used this model. And the notion of simply looking at 1981, 1989,
and 2001 is not the simple basis for the argument that I'm propounding.
I'm beginning, if you look at modern history, with John F. Kennedy as
President of the United States.
And I will also say that, in looking at the 1993 bill, I am
convinced, as I stand here today, that if we had had simply that tax
increase and not put into place the measures that we did in 1994, 1995,
1996 that focused on job creation and economic growth, reducing the top
rate on capital gains and, in fact, bringing about marginal rate
reduction, we would not have enjoyed that tremendous period of growth
that we experienced through the decade of the 1990s which, as we all
know, was the time that the Republicans were, in fact, in control here.
We've had a nice exchange. If I could reserve the balance of my time.
I would love to hear further from my friend if Ms. Slaughter would
yield to him.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, if we defeat
the previous question, Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland will offer an
amendment to restore fiscal discipline in the House.
I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee now,
so that he may explain his amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on this opening day of the new Congress
I know that we all hope to work together to tackle the major problems
that face our country. We heard that sentiment expressed by the
outgoing Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and by the incoming Speaker, John
Boehner. That is why the rules package, the plan put forth by the
Republican majority not less than 2 hours after those comments were
made, is so disappointing, because after months on the campaign trail
telling the American people that they want to reduce deficits and the
debt, this rule opens the door to larger deficits and a bigger national
debt. It is a fiscally reckless blueprint, and the American people
deserve better.
Why do I say that?
Because this plan guts the existing pay-as-you-go rule that limits
mandatory spending and tax breaks that add to our deficits.
It also creates a mechanism to do an end run against the pay-as-you-
go law recently signed by President Obama that will limit increases in
our national debt.
How does this proposal do that?
The rule and the laws we've been operating on say you can't add to
the deficit by adding new spending entitlements. This rule, properly,
keeps that restraint, as it should.
But the rule being proposed, the plan being proposed, also eliminates
provisions that says you can't add to the deficit by creating special
interest tax breaks. The proposal before us eliminates that limitation.
It says that the Congress will ignore the deficit impact of tax breaks
whether they're for hedge funds or for other special interests.
Now, Mr. Speaker, every small business knows that there are two sides
to balancing the books: the costs incurred by the business and the
revenue the business brings in.
{time} 1550
This one-sided rule ignores half of that equation. No small business
could operate and survive that way in the United States and neither can
the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I plan to offer an
amendment to the Republican plan that is very simple. It says that a
measure may only qualify for an exemption under this subsection if it
does not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2011
through 2021 beyond the exemptions permitted under the current law of
the land, under statutory PAYGO. And, at the appropriate moment, we
will offer that.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
[[Page H20]]
Mr. ANDREWS. I think the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, aptly points out,
the majority promised accountability but they are delivering hypocrisy.
They said that their number one goal would be job creation. There is
not a bill, not a word, not an idea about job creation the first 2
weeks of the new Congress.
They said they were running on reducing the debt and the deficit.
Well, as Mr. Van Hollen very accurately points out, this rule says, We
will reduce the deficit, except when we deal with health care or tax
cuts for the wealthy, in which case we'll pretend it doesn't exist.
We'll pretend there is no deficit when it comes to health care, the
largest Federal expenditure, at least one of the largest, and tax cuts
for the wealthy.
Then finally, hours ago, the majority said: We're going to cut $100
billion from this year's budget. And then they said, well, we didn't
really mean $100 billion. We're going to cut something, but we'll tell
you later what it is.
Americans who are concerned about the debt and the deficit should be
very concerned about the lack of accountability they are seeing here
today: A rule that blows open the deficit, a procedure that ignores job
creation, and a $100 billion promise that just vanished like the
champagne bubbles at their fund raiser last night.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to our very distinguished new Republican whip, my good friend and
fellow Californian, the gentleman from Bakersfield, Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the new chairman of
the Rules, Mr. Dreier, for yielding.
We are debating the rules package. Why is it important to have a
rules package? Because structure dictates behavior.
For America, we know that, for far too long, the structure of this
House was dictating a behavior that the American public did not care
for nor did they want. They watched for too long bills written by a few
come to the floor where Members have not even read it, the public has
not even been able to see it, and a debate and a vote, then passed. We
watched where we didn't even have an open rule. Not one freshman in
this building that became a sophomore ever saw a open rule. But today
is a new day. Today is a new opportunity.
Now, what went into the rules package and how did you come about
crafting it and creating it? Well, it wasn't crafted today, and it
wasn't crafted with one side of the aisle. We reached out to both
sides. But we reached beyond this House. We reached where this House
was supposed to go, to the people.
Last fall, our new Speaker Boehner asked us to open up to the
American people and ask them what they needed from here. We created
America Speaking Out. Anybody could come in and give you an idea, and
not once did we ask them what party they were registered or affiliated
with. Just the power of the idea should win at the end of the day.
And do you know what they said? They said a bill shouldn't come to
the floor but it should have 3 days so that not only Members of
Congress could read it but the American public. You know what? It's in
the rules.
They said you have a $1.3 trillion deficit and, for the first time
since the Budget Act of 1974 was passed, you don't even have a budget.
So you should make it harder to spend and easier to cut. Well, that's
what this rule package does.
This rule package gives us an opportunity to do exactly what
President Lincoln wanted, a House of the people, for the people, by the
people. And the structure at the end of the day will make it more open,
more transparent, and more accountable. That's what the people asked
for, and that's what we were sent here to do.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, Mr. Speaker, that didn't take long. Our
Republican friends have been in charge of the House for about 1 hour,
and already they are up to their old discredited tricks.
They promised the American people that they were serious about
deficit reduction. Apparently that promise was for campaign purposes
only, because the Republicans' rule package before us today paves the
way for a huge explosion in our national debt to the tune of $5
trillion. That's trillion with a ``t''.
The new Republican majority is attempting to drag this country back
to their supply-side fantasyland where deficits either don't matter or
could be addressed by giving huge tax breaks to the very, very wealthy.
Back here in the real world their proposals would do real harm to real
middle class families. They want to slash funding for education, for
infrastructure, for investments and new technology, for medical
research, for job training. You name it. If the new program benefits
working families, it's on the chopping block.
But if you are a wealthy hedge fund manager or a huge defense
contractor or a playboy son of a dead multimillionaire, you are in
luck. Your tax breaks are safe. As The Washington Post said in a recent
editorial, When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay.
I would say to my Republican friends, if you care about deficit
reduction, if you meant what you said on the campaign trail, then vote
against this misguided rules package. If you want transparency, then do
away with the smoke and mirrors. If you want accountability, then stop
the hypocrisy. This rules package is shameful.
This new Republican majority appears determined to do what they have
done in the past, and that is dig this country deeper and deeper into
debt. It is the wrong thing to do. Vote ``no.''
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman who led our effort to bring about reform of the rules and
help put this package together, my very good friend, Mr. Bishop, the
gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
California recognizing me.
Every time we talk about rules, I realize for the majority of people,
their eyes kind of glaze over. But every kid who has spent time in an
elementary yard realizes that the rules are important to the game.
We are here, though, on this floor doing the people's business, and
it is not a game, and the rules become significant. And the rules are
significant because they are responsive to what the people have said.
People told us very clearly they are interested in jobs, they are
interested in spending. The rules package before us right now
facilitates the growth of the former and helps in the limitation of the
latter.
True, PAYGO will be replaced in this rule. PAYGO was the process that
was honored in its breach and suspension as often as its application,
and it is replaced with CutGo, a process that zeroes in on the real
problem, which is spending. And if indeed we suspend CutGo as
frequently as PAYGO was suspended, then it would be justified to
criticize us at that particular time.
This rule says committees are important. It's not just a box you
check to say you have done regular order. We have now provided for time
for committees to do their job. We have provided for pre-meeting
requirements and post-meeting requirements and accountability, and
respect for the product of the committees will be here on the floor.
Once again, in this rule the Constitution is now in vogue again, and
the bills coming to the floor will become readable so that you will
never see again a multihundred-page amendment coming before this body
in the wee hours of the morning of its actual debate.
Many of us who worked on these rules have had legislative experience
in our home States. We brought different ideas, realizing that a better
process equals a better policy. We have changed the schedule so that
time management will be seriously considered. We have added to
transparency for what takes place on the committee as well as on the
floor. We, to use cliches, thought outside of the box. But in so doing,
we included more Members than ever before, Republicans and Democrats,
who were invited to give specific input into what we indeed are doing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to give my friend an additional 30 seconds.
[[Page H21]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We reached consensus. We found that making the
right decisions is not necessarily a difficult process. All you need to
do is throw strikes.
Satchel Paige, when he was advising a young pitcher who was having a
problem with his control trying to hit the corners simply looked at him
and said, ``Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.''
This rule is strikes, because home plate don't move. Will it change
Washington and the way we do business? Yes. And appropriately so.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Florida, a former member and missed member of the
Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
{time} 1600
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time.
As a former member of the Rules Committee, I felt compelled to come
to the floor of the House now because the Republican rules package is
asking us to vote on a huge deception of the American people. Over the
last year, we have had a robust debate about deficits and debt in this
country, and yet the first significant vote the Republicans are asking
us to vote on will add to burgeoning deficits and debt.
Here is a good example: No matter how you feel about the health
reform law, the nonpartisan CBO says that that health reform law will
cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next few years. What the
Republican rules package says is, when they bring up repeal of health
reform next week, they are not going to count that money; they are
going to add that again to the debt. So the first significant vote they
are asking us to take on the floor is one that will set us on a course
to adding $143 billion to the deficit and debt.
I urge everyone to oppose the rules package.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 45 seconds to the
distinguished new chair of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. I would like to rise to engage Chairman Dreier in a brief
colloquy regarding the highway funding point of order that is included
in this rules package as clause 3 of rule XXI.
It is my understanding that this point of order makes no change in
the manner in which highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, and
transit programs are currently funded, which is through contract
authority derived from the highway trust fund and provided in
authorization acts. Rather, the new point of order provides that
Members will have the ability under House rules to offer amendments to
reduce funding for such programs, if they choose to do so.
In the interest of clarity and mutual understanding, I want to be
assured that my understanding of this proposed change to clause 3 of
rule XXI is correct.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I would say, Madam Speaker,
the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct. Clause 3 of rule XXI,
as amended, does not change the way in which the underlying programs
are funded, which is through contract authority provided by
authorization acts.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the
Committee on Transportation.
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentlelady for yielding the
time.
While I regret I did not hear all of the previous colloquy, I do want
to express my strong reservation and opposition to these rule changes
because of the effects it would have on transportation-related issues.
The Republican rules package eliminates the current rules' direct tie
between revenues to the highway trust fund, paid by the users through
gas taxes at the pump, and the level of investment for these programs.
Currently, House rules provide that appropriators must fund highway
and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation
authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our
former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds
building up in the highway trust fund to be used to mask the true size
of the Federal deficit. The provision was intended to stop the same old
smoke-and-mirrors game of Federal spending.
As their very first act as the majority, I find it incredible that
Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this, one
that not only threatens jobs, but which could lead to dramatic
reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects
throughout the Nation.
Americans understand and they support paying motor fuel taxes at the
pump, so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on
transportation. The Republican rules package smears that guarantee and
will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal
investment in vital highway and transit programs.
After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The
principle was simple: Gas taxes collected to improve highway and
transit systems must be used for that purpose. The previous rule
restored trust to the trust fund, and it has served the House and our
Nation well for the past 12 years.
Today, the House Republican majority breaks that trust. They are
returning to the ways of old--no hearings, no public debates, no
discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of
the proposed rule on transportation investment.
Regrettably, these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, so,
therefore, many Members, especially new Members, are not aware of what
they are voting on and its consequences.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules change, as do so many
highway contractors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished chairman of our transition committee, my friend from Hood
River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Rules
Committee.
I wanted to talk just briefly about the transition itself, and I want
to thank members of both parties who participated in very meaningful
ways in our transition. I think it was an unprecedented effort in terms
of its size and inclusiveness. Four members of our team were incoming
freshmen. We offered Democrats the opportunity to participate both
formally and informally, an act of bipartisanship that has been
missing, frankly, from prior organizations going back over both
parties' tenure in leadership.
I asked Speaker Pelosi to designate two Democratic participants. We
distributed surveys to every Member, chief of staff, and scheduler on
both sides of the aisle to get as many ideas as possible to reform the
people's House. Let us always remember that this is the people's House.
It is their business. It is the taxpayers' money, and the public has
the right to observe and participate in this process. The outcome is
the rules package before us today. The transition team received more
than 2,000 suggestions from the general public submitted through our
Web site.
And what did we accomplish? Bills will now be posted online in a
searchable format at least 3 days before receiving a vote on the House
floor. No longer will bills be dropped in the middle of the night and
voted on the next day. We require that all bills include a citation of
constitutional authority so Congress respects the limits imposed on it
by the founding document.
To begin to control the explosion in spending, we are clamping down
on budgetary sleights of hand that hide spending beyond the first 10-
year window of a bill; any legislation projected to increase the
deficit by more than $5 billion in any single 10-year window out to 50
years will be subject to a point of order; a new CutGo rule requiring
any suspension bill that increases authorizations or creates new
programs to make equal or greater cuts elsewhere; a legislative
calendar to ensure Members will be back home listening to the people
who sent us here at least a week every month; ending the practice of
passing comprehensive or omnibus bills that package unrelated
legislation together in an effort to avoid public scrutiny; and will
require every committee to Webcast
[[Page H22]]
their hearings and markups and make them available online.
Transparent, open, accountable. This is the rules package to change
the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Member from New York.
Let me start by acknowledging two things: One, the Republican
majority won the election and has the right to bring this rules package
with changes to the floor. Number two, there are some good provisions
in this. Mr. Walden just described several. But, three, there is a time
bomb in this.
The major responsibility that we have in Congress is to debate taxes
and spending--taxes and spending. The provision that basically will
protect privileged tax breaks so that we cannot have a debate about
whether or not a hedge fund billionaire should pay at least the same
rate of income tax as his or her chauffeur or cook; the fact we cannot
have a debate as to whether mature and profitable industries should
continue to get taxpayer subsidies, like the oil industry, instead of
being able to divert them to emerging technologies; the fact that these
are off the table so that the only outcome will be cuts in spending
that affect every single person without any debate, that is the
problem. And when Mr. McCarthy said that the rules dictate behavior, he
left out that the rules dictate outcome as well.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 11\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today was a glorious day,
but as we begin to discuss the rules that are now taking place, I raise
questions.
I would like to understand, if we are going to go forward in a
fiscally responsible way, and I have heard so much about the Tea Party
and I welcome certainly the expressions of those who have been elected
as Republicans of those views, but we stand in this House, Republican
and Democrat and some Independent, to work on issues for the American
people.
{time} 1610
How do you in fact then eliminate, in some sense, the pay-as-you-go
rule, which we have all been committed to, which allows us to pay for
what we want to encourage the American people to have. But now we have
a rule that says that you cannot raise revenue. So if your soldiers on
the battlefield need more resources, you can only get it by cutting
spending of some other vulnerable population. What sense does that
make?
When we speak of open rules, what sense does it make to have a rule
tomorrow that indicates that we're repealing the health care bill under
a closed rule, where we'll be saving some $143 billion over 3 years,
but that rule would not allow that. This is a rules package that needs
fixing, and I hope that we can go back to the drawing board.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
chair of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Janesville,
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles,
California, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, it's a good day because we're bringing some fiscal
sanity back to this institution. What governed this place with the
rules in the last two Congresses was a ruled called PAYGO. Let me walk
you through what PAYGO accomplished. Before we had the Democrats' PAYGO
rule, the deficit was $161 billion. Now it's $1.4 trillion. Its report
card wasn't so good. After the last two Congresses, PAYGO was gimmicked
or waived 32 times, to the net total of $932 billion in extra deficit
spending. But when PAYGO was used, when it was invoked, it was more
often used to raise taxes.
Madam Speaker, we do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending
problem. And that is why this brings CutGo--cut-as-you-go. If you want
new spending, you better cut spending somewhere else to pay for it.
This does a couple of other things. It gets rid of a gimmick which
was used very artfully in the last Congress to use reconciliation
procedures to grow more government and create new spending programs. It
also adds a new rule that says we need to look at the fiscal
consequences in the future of what we're doing--not just in 5 years,
not just in 10 years, but in the out years--because the debt crisis is
coming, mark my words.
It also gets rid of the automatic debt increase. We used to call this
the Gephardt rule. Congress has to vote a clear up-or-down as to
whether or not to vote the debt limit. And what also happened last
session for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act passed is that the
House didn't even propose, let alone pass, a budget. That is why this
gives us an interim authority to actually put a budget in place so that
we can have a mechanism to actually police the budget. We have no
budget; we have no limits; no restraints; no priorities whatsoever
because of the failure of the leadership in the last Congress. And that
is why this interim authority occurs: so that we can actually put some
numbers in from the CBO to police and actually have budget enforcement
until the new budget arrives.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member.
I come to the floor opposing the rule only because there's a
provision in it that indicates that our delegates from all over the
globe will not be allowed to exercise any of their voting privileges
that they had earlier. And when my friend, Mr. Dreier, the
distinguished chairman of this committee, indicated it was all
symbolic, I just would hope that if we do get a chance to pull this out
of the package and perhaps vote on this in a separate way, that you
might see your way clear to understand that these Americans and
citizens who volunteer and fight for this great country and support our
flag, and in many cases have per capita more of their young people
killed in action and wounded in action than those of us on the
mainland, that I think it deserves a better classification than to say
that it's respecting their friends and it's symbolic.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I will simply say I was quoting Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr.
Hoyer when they used that term.
I thank my friend for yielding.
I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlelady and ranking member for the
time.
I rise in opposition to this rule, but in one way I'm thankful for it
because it does help to go right to the heart of the matter, right to
the thing that divides us most. On the one hand, Republicans want to
give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and shrink government
services. On the other hand, Democrats want to have adequate funds to
fund services that are necessary for the American people.
Under this rule, which I ask all Members to oppose, the Republican
rule, tax cuts will no longer have to be paid for. They don't have to
be budget neutral. So tax cuts passed by the House can increase the
deficit. Also, under the Republican rule, increases to mandatory
spending must be paid for by reducing spending somewhere else.
Therefore, if the House wanted to extend the child tax credit to
minimum-wage families, then the Republican new rules would not allow
this to be paid for by closing a corporate loophole. Instead, they
would have to be paid for by taking away from some other group of
people. This is wrong. And it speaks to the heart of what divides us.
And I'm glad we're doing this today.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
[[Page H23]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Today's rules package reveals only one thing--and that
is hypocrisy. Despite all the rhetoric about the deficit, the
Republicans' first act in the majority will be to allow a legislative
process that goes back to exploding our national debt. The Republicans'
new plan will replace a strict pay-as-you-go policy with a much weaker
one-sided policy known as cut-as-you-go, under which mandatory spending
still needs to be paid for, but tax cuts do not. And this means that
Republicans can cut taxes for the rich and increase the deficit while
doing it.
But, Madam Speaker, it only gets worse. The Republicans know that the
new health care reform bill reduces the deficit by a trillion dollars
over the next two decades, and they've put a special exemption in their
rule that says as long as we're repealing health care reform, we can
increase the deficit.
Republicans will be judged on the promises they make to the American
people. And so far they're already failing to live up to the standard
that they've set for themselves.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. The question that will be before the ladies and
gentlemen of the House on this rules package is: Do you want to honor
the commitment to reduce the deficit or abandon it? The rules plan
permits an abandonment of the promise to reduce the deficit because it
ignores the fiscal consequences of the repeal of the health care bill,
which the Congressional Budget Office has said will reduce the deficit
by more than a trillion dollars over the next 20 years, and it ignores
the fiscal consequences of permanently extending the tax cuts of 2001
and 2003 for the wealthiest Americans.
This is not a question of liberal or conservative, Republicans or
Democrat. It's a question of honoring a promise or abandoning it. To
those who wish to honor the promise of deficit reduction, the right
vote on this rules package is ``no.''
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
{time} 1620
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on day one of this new Congress, these
Republicans take a giant step backwards. They profess such great
concern about their ability to cut wasteful spending.
First off, they abandon pay-as-you-go budgeting, returning to the
Bush-Cheney approach of endless borrowing. They claim they could cut so
much, but they reject a rule that requires them to cut spending as one
way to offset revenue losses for each new tax break they approve. Their
misleading CutGo just cuts fiscal discipline and says to go borrow from
the Chinese. These Republicans are like the fellow who bellies up to
the bar and says, Just one more round of tax breaks for my buddies. Put
it on my tab.
Except it's our tab.
All Americans will pay for their endless borrowing for endless tax
breaks. They are indifferent to our national debt except when it comes
to cutting vital initiatives that they wanted to weaken or eliminate in
the first place.
We need pay-as-you-go budgeting just like a family that faces a high
credit card debt and knows it can't balance its budget by cutting off
its income or by simply cutting school lunches or other necessities.
Neither can America afford to distort this budget.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, deficit reduction requires tough
choices, and PAYGO helps us make those tough choices because, if you
increase spending, you have to pay for it--either raise the money or
cut spending somewhere else. If you cut taxes, you have to raise
somebody else's taxes or cut some programs. You have to pay for it.
In 1993, under PAYGO and a tough Democratic budget, we eliminated the
deficit and were on our way to paying off the national debt. We created
millions of jobs. Unfortunately, 50 Democrats lost their seats in a
budget that the Democrats voted for but that not a single Republican
voted for. These are tough choices. Unfortunately, this package fails
to make those tough choices because it exempts trillions of dollars
from PAYGO.
Mr. Speaker, you are simply not having a serious discussion about
deficit reduction when the discussion begins with massive tax cuts
which will add trillions of dollars to the national debt without
beginning to pay for them at all. We need to get serious about deficit
reduction, and this package does not do it.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. As I listen to this debate, I want to say that I and
many of my colleagues agree that we must take the deficit seriously;
but to do so, we have to not only examine spending cuts. We have to
look at tax expenditures.
This new rule that is being presented is literally less than 3 hours
old. Since the Republicans have taken control, they have said simply--
and so most Americans understand this--that they will look at spending
cuts as really being cost-savers for the government, but tax
expenditures--tax cuts--maybe for the wealthiest Americans, maybe for
certain companies--maybe some good, maybe some we would even agree
with--will not be counted as part of a cost to government, as a
reduction in the amount of revenue that we get into the government.
They will simply ignore it, and the expenditures will just get added to
the deficit.
Just last week--and for weeks and weeks before that--they said
deficit reduction was at the top of their agenda. It took them 3 hours
to make that an untrue statement. They have simply already set up a
situation where they can add trillions and trillions of dollars to the
national deficit, and we can do nothing about it.
Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the American people did not bargain for
a plan in the first 24 hours of the new Congress that would blow a hole
in the deficit and expand the debt.
The chairman of the Rules Committee mentioned the recent bipartisan
tax agreement. We also recently had a bipartisan commission on the
deficit and debt reduction. It looked at both sides of the equation--
spending and the fact that we have created lots of tax loopholes that
have lost revenue to special interests. What this plan does, what the
rule does, is say that that doesn't matter, that it doesn't count
against the deficit.
In fact, the existing rules under the House say that you cannot use
the budget reconciliation process to add to the deficit. Your rule
specifically eliminates that restriction. Your rule says go ahead and
use the budget reconciliation process to add to the deficit and debt.
You strike it. You give a green light. This rule also contains, on page
28, a little noticed provision that opens the door to politically
motivated, Enron-style accounting as a means to do an end run around
the pay-as-you-go law signed by President Obama.
The current practice of this Congress has been that we will use the
budget estimates of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to
determine the deficit impact on the laws that we pass here in this body
for the purpose of pay-as-you-go. That is because, while we should have
a vigorous debate over policy, we don't want politicians inventing
self-serving budget numbers.
Now, the Congressional Budget Office serves as our umpire. They call
the balls and the strikes, as you know. Sometimes we don't like the
calls they make. Sometimes we do. Yet what this rule says is we are
going to take the umpire off the field when it comes to statutory
PAYGO. We are going to substitute our accounting for the folks
[[Page H24]]
whose professional job it is to determine the deficit impact of
different legislation that we pass.
I think when the American people find out that this opens the door to
this kind of fun and games, they are going to ask themselves: Is this
something I really bargained for?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say to the commission that I think it is very important
to note that they argued that there should be a reduction to 26 percent
as the top corporate rate and 23 percent as the top tax rate.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Reclaiming my time, I think my friend knows they did
that as part of a whole tax reform package that closed the tax
loopholes that your proposal would open.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no''
on the previous question so that we can take serious action described
by Mr. Van Hollen to decrease the deficit rather than to simply make it
easier to give tax breaks to billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, everyone is very enthused about today. It is a great
day. We have 96 new Members of this institution--87 Republicans and
nine Democrats--nearly 100 new Members. They are here having carried a
very strong and powerful message from the American people, which is we
have got to create jobs, get our economy growing, reduce the size and
scope and reach of government, and do it in a more transparent, open
and accountable way.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what
we are doing with this rules package.
Now, there seems to be a little disagreement on the notion of dealing
with spending and taxes. The fact of the matter is we all know--several
of us have said it through the debate--that we don't have a revenue
problem. We have a spending problem. What we need to do is to focus on
reducing spending, and we are absolutely committed with a laser-like
approach to doing that. It is going to be tough. It is going to be
painful. I hope that, as we reached out and had bipartisan input on
this rules package for the first time ever, that we will be able to do
the exact same thing, Mr. Speaker, when we deal with the question of
getting our economy growing and the other challenges that lie ahead of
us.
{time} 1630
We never before have had the opportunity that we are going to have in
just a few minutes. The Rules Committee is going to meet after we are
seated, and when I came to the Rules Committee two decades ago, I was
told by the dean of the Washington press core, David Broder, that the
Rules Committee hearing room was small by design. Why? To keep us out,
Mr. Broder said to me.
Well, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this quest for transparency,
we are going to have online streaming of our Rules Committee meeting
that will take place after we are seated here.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of our
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5,
the new Republican Majority's proposed rules for the House of
Representatives.
The Republican Rules package eliminates the current Rule's direct tie
between revenues to the Highway Trust Fund--paid by users through gas
taxes at the pump--and the level of investment for surface
transportation programs. This rules change will have a devastating
effect on transportation and infrastructure investment.
Currently, House Rules provide that appropriators must fund highway
and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation
authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our
former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds
building up in the Highway Trust Fund to be used to mask the true size
of the federal deficit.
As their very first act in the Majority, I find it incredible that
Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this. One
that not only threatens jobs but which could lead to dramatic
reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects
throughout the Nation.
Americans understand, and support, paying motor fuel taxes at the
pump so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on
transportation. The Republican Rules package smudges that guarantee and
will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal
investment in vital highway and transit programs.
After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The
principle was simple: gas taxes collected to improve highway and public
transit systems must be used for that purpose. The Rule restored
``trust'' to the Trust Fund, and it has served the House well for the
past 12 years.
Today, the new Republican Majority breaks that trust. We will soon
return to the days where gas taxes are collected and used not to invest
in infrastructure, but to hide the size of the deficit.
The new Republican Majority also institutes a new ``Cut-Go'' rule to
cut spending. However, in the process, the Republicans have obliterated
the basic premise of the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds.
Under the new Republican rule, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure cannot bring a bill to the Floor that increases highway,
public transit, or airport infrastructure investment (contract
authority) financed by revenues from the appropriate trust fund, unless
the bill makes cuts to other mandatory programs. It does not matter if
the Trust Fund has the resources to finance the investment; the
Committee still has to provide offsetting cuts. The basic premise of
the transportation trust funds--user fees are collected to finance
infrastructure improvements--is obliterated.
Regrettably, because these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules,
I fear that Members are voting on this package without understanding
its consequences. I regret that the Republican Leadership, which has
talked so much about transparency and openness, begins this Congress,
on its first day, with the ways of old: no hearings, no public debate,
and no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the
effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment.
You do not have to take my word for it, listen to the transportation
community: State Departments of Transportation, public transit
agencies, highway contractors, equipment manufacturers, the trucking
industry, moving companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, highway
users, and construction workers all vigorously oppose the rules.
And you can listen to what Wall Street thinks of the effect on
Republican Rules package on highway construction companies: although
the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up yesterday, highway contractors
and material suppliers took a significant hit throughout the day:
Martin Marrietta, down 6.5 percent; Vulcan Materials, down 5.2 percent;
Granite Construction, down 4.4 percent; CRH Oldcastle, down 4.4
percent.
As one Wall Street analyst who downgraded two of these firms stated
in a written investment report specifically citing the Republican's
Rules package:
``. . . [T]his is not an encouraging signal from the new
[Republican] congressional leadership in terms of its
commitment to infrastructure spending. . . .''; and
``. . . a move to allow revenues previously set aside for
road spending to be spent elsewhere would not only act to
reduce total [highway] spending levels but also limit
visibility amid an already constrained outlook by the lack of
a multi-year highway bill.''
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for transportation. The Republican Rules
package creates uncertainty in an industry that cannot afford it. The
Republican Rules package will hurt highway, transit, and airport
construction companies and kill jobs.
I urge my colleagues to join me and defeat H. Res. 5. Let us go back
to the drawing table and work together to help the American people.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
concern about the failure of the Republican Majority's Rules
[[Page H25]]
package to fix jurisdiction over homeland security.
In July 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report recommended that there be
not more than one authorizing Committee in the House for the Department
of Homeland Security.
They argued that consolidated jurisdiction would provide the newly-
established Department of Homeland Security with the same kind of
strong Congressional partner that the Department of Defense has in the
Committee on Armed Services.
Upon establishment of the Committee on Homeland Security in 2005,
Republican Leadership rebuffed this critical recommendation when it
failed to designate the Committee on Homeland Security as the
``principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.''
I can tell you--from first-hand experience--that fractured
jurisdiction results in absurd outcomes--with referrals of homeland
security bills often bypassing the Committee on Homeland Security
altogether.
More than a few of you would probably be surprised to hear that the
following three bills were not referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security: a bill authorizing the protection of federal buildings from
terrorist attacks and other threats--a Department of Homeland Security
responsibility; a bill providing resources for DHS to prepare for and
respond to acts of terrorism; and a bill to require airports to
mitigate against the threat of a terrorist attack.
The absurd and damaging effect of fractured jurisdiction has not gone
unnoticed over the past six years.
Every Secretary of Homeland Security--from Tom Ridge to Michael
Chertoff to Janet Napolitano--has expressed concerns about fractured
jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security.
Indeed, in April 2010, Secretary Napolitano wrote that fractured
jurisdiction has negatively impacted the Department's ability to
fulfill its mission.
Then, in May 2010, 9/11 Commission Chair Tom Kean testified that
fractured jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security risks
making the country less safe.
The 111th Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, approved
a Rules package that included new language to underscore that the
Committee on Homeland Security is the lead congressional committee for
homeland security matters within the House.
While this change represented progress, there was still a pressing
need for legislative jurisdiction over homeland security to be
consolidated.
The Rules package under consideration today does nothing to end
fractured jurisdiction over homeland security.
Inexplicably, the package only changes the jurisdictional statement
for the Committee on Armed Services--a committee that already has
sweeping jurisdiction over the Defense Department.
I am disappointed to see that the newly-minted House Leadership,
despite assurances from the incoming Chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security that Republican Leadership would do so, refuses to
tackle what the 9/11 Commission said of all its recommendations was
``the most difficult and important.''
For this reason, I cannot support House Resolution Five (H. Res. 5)
and urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this measure that
knowingly turns a blind eye to a glaring deficiency in the House Rules
that three Secretaries of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission and
scores of homeland security experts have identified.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
amendment to h. res. 5
Page 28, after line 10, insert the following:
(3) A measure may only qualify for an exemption under this
subsection if it does not increase the deficit over the
period of fiscal years 2011 through 2021 beyond the
exemptions permitted in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010.
Mr. DREIER. It is with a great deal of zeal, enthusiasm, and
gratitude that I move the previous question and yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 236,
nays 188, not voting 7, as follows:
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 5, 2011 on Page H25, the following appeared: device, and
there were--yeas 238, nays 188, not voting 7, as follows: [Roll
No. 4] YEAS--238 Fitzpatrick Sessions
The online version should be corrected to read: device, and
there were--yeas 236, nays 188, not voting 7, as follows: [Roll
No. 4] YEAS--236 Fitzpatrick and Sessions were deleted from vote
tally RC 4
========================= END NOTE =========================
[Roll No. 4]
YEAS--236
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 5, 2011 on Page H26, the following appeared: device, and
there were--yeas 191, nays 240, not voting 2, as follows: [Roll
No. 5] YEAS--191 NAYS--240 Fitzpatrick Sessionsdevice, and there
were--yeas 240, nays 191, not voting 2, as follows: [Roll No. 6]
YEAS--240 Fitzpatrick
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--188
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Barletta
Johnson (GA)
Reed
Rogers (AL)
Serrano
Speier
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1657
Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, HOLT, CUELLAR, KILDEE, Ms.
[[Page H26]]
LEE of California, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, CARSON of Indiana, and CONYERS
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion to Commit
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Crowley moves that the resolution (H. Res. 5) be
committed to a select committee composed of the Majority
Leader and the Minority Leader with instructions to report it
forthwith back to the House with the following amendment:
At the end of rule XXVI, add the following new clause:
``4.(a) Not later than 15 days after taking the oath of
office, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall
notify the Clerk of whether that Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner elects to participate in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program.
``(b) The notifications made pursuant to paragraph (a)
shall be made under the same terms as the financial
disclosure statement required under this rule.''.
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.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191,
nays 238, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--191
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--2
Ellison
Walsh (IL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). One minute remains in this
vote.
{time} 1717
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on January 5, 2011, I inadvertently
missed rollcall No. 5. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 191, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
[[Page H27]]
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 5, 2011 on Page H27, the following appeared: Sessions
The online version should be corrected to read: Sessions was
deleted from vote tally RC 6
========================= END NOTE =========================
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--191
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--2
Crawford
Hanabusa
{time} 1734
Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, a stray numeral ``3'' is
stricken on page 26, line 10.
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________