[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 80-102]
[From the U.S. 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--

[[Page 81]]

       (A) in subdivision (D), strike ``and'';
       (B) in subdivision (E), strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''; and
       (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.''.

[[Page 82]]

       (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''.
       (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 
     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

[[Page 83]]

       (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
       (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.

[[Page 84]]

  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:

                              [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
     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
     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

[[Page 85]]

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.
  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

[[Page 86]]

     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 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

[[Page 87]]

     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 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

[[Page 88]]

     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.
       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.
  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

[[Page 89]]

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 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. 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.

[[Page 90]]

  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. 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. 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 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. 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),

[[Page 91]]

     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 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. 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

[[Page 92]]

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 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,

[[Page 93]]

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.
  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

[[Page 94]]

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.
  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

[[Page 95]]

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. RAHALL. Madam 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.''

  Madam 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. 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

[[Page 96]]

to avoid public scrutiny; and will require every committee to Webcast 
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. 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

[[Page 97]]

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.
  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. 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

[[Page 98]]

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 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 corps, 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. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
concern about the failure of the Republican Majority's Rules 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.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rules 
package proposed by the new Republican majority in the House.
  The very first vote in the 112th Congress reveals the extent of the 
Republicans' fiscal hypocrisy. The new House rules create a huge 
loophole that allows Republicans to pass billions in additional tax 
cuts without finding savings elsewhere in the federal budget. These 
rules are a major step backward in our effort to solve the federal 
budget crisis. No Member who votes for this fiscally reckless rules 
package is serious about deficit reduction.
  The public backlash against the new Republican rules started days 
before today's vote. In a December 29, 2010 editorial titled ``Deficit 
Hypocrisy,'' the New York Times said the new

[[Page 99]]

rules proposed by the incoming majority ``will codify the Republican 
fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.''
  The bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Budget expressed 
``serious concerns'' about the Republican rules package saying that 
``because many of these new rules would apply to only the spending side 
of the budget (replacing rules that applied to both the tax and 
spending side), this new rules package could actually weaken, rather 
than strengthen, our ability to deal with the debt.''
  By exempting the cost of tax cuts and the repeal of the health care 
reform law from budget restrictions, the Republican majority makes it 
clear that they embrace--not oppose--deficit spending. H. Res. 5 
enables Republicans to return to their discredited economic policies of 
the past decade that exploded deficits with tax cuts, two wars and a 
huge new prescription drug entitlement program all financed with 
borrowed money.
  What the Republicans do oppose and promise to cut are the investments 
that strengthen American communities and support the most vulnerable 
citizens in our Nation. Under the new rules, the American middle class 
will be forced to live with less while the wealthy and special 
interests have it all. In the weeks ahead, Republicans will target 
America's middle class with unsustainable cuts to education, 
transportation, public safety, clean energy and advanced research and 
technology. The Washington Post editorial board said that the rules 
reflect ``about as upside-down a set of priorities as can be 
imagined.''
  I reject the skewed priorities expressed in this rule package. I 
refuse to abandon America's families and communities when they most 
need the support of their government. And I will continue fighting for 
the federal investments our communities need to compete in the 21st 
century.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 5, 
the House Republican rules proposal for the 112th Congress. As some of 
my Democratic colleagues have argued before me, this rules package is 
fiscally irresponsible, will balloon the national debt, and threatens 
the stability of government services that are critically important to 
millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican proposed rules package sets our country 
down a path of unaffordable tax cuts and threatens to suppress long-
term economic growth and job creation. While many of my new Republican 
colleagues were elected on the platform of reducing the deficit, the 
new rules introduced by the Republican leadership will significantly 
increase the national debt by changing the House pay-as-you-go rules, 
``PAYGO''.
  The Republican proposed House rules package adds to the deficit by 
exempting tax cuts and the deficit increasing effects of selectively 
repealing the health care reform law from the PAYGO rules. On the other 
hand, the Republican rules package prohibits the House from raising 
revenue or closing tax loopholes to help pay for new spending 
entitlements for low and middle income Americans.
  Unlike the deficit neutral PAYGO rules that the 111th Congress 
operated under, the proposed rules package will allow for taxes to be 
cut without having to pay for them. But as the National Commission on 
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has pointed out, ``tax expenditures 
are simply spending by another name and should not be exempt from 
scrutiny.''
  Substituting cut-as-you-go, ``CUTGO'', for PAYGO is bad economics and 
worse policy. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has 
noted, ``Replacing the two-sided PAYGO rules with a one-sided CUTGO 
rule will not only make it harder to offset legislation, but also 
exempt potentially budget-busting tax cuts from any discipline.'' CUTGO 
is unwise, irresponsible, will result in economic stagnation, and 
substantially increase the debt burden on our children and 
grandchildren.
  In addition to its fiscal irresponsibility, the proposed House rules 
package fails to address homeland security jurisdiction despite 
repeated calls for reform from the 9/11 Commission and every Secretary 
of Homeland Security. Failing to consolidate legislative jurisdiction 
over homeland security in the House Committee on Homeland Security will 
continue to complicate oversight and review of critical homeland 
security issues.
  I also oppose the proposed rules package for the 112th Congress 
because it severs the user-financed basis of the Highway Trust Fund, 
and subjects necessary federal highway and transit investments to the 
vagaries of the annual appropriations process. This proposal will 
exacerbate the instability already being experienced by the U.S. 
transportation construction marketplace. Transportation projects are 
long-term in nature and require stable and predictable sources of 
funding. Subjecting them to the appropriations process creates a 
precarious and unaccommodating market for investments in infrastructure 
projects.
  Finally, the Republican rules package disenfranchises residents of 
the District of Columbia and U.S. territories by ending the ability of 
delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote in, and 
preside over, the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union. This would deliver a terrible blow not only to the symbolic vote 
of the delegates, but also to the voices of the five million residents 
of these areas who deserve to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, this ill-considered and fiscally irresponsible rules 
package was crafted by the new Republican majority in secret without 
meaningful involvement or input from members on this side of the aisle. 
Had such an opportunity been afforded to the minority, this rules 
package would be far superior and fiscally sounder.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H. 
Res. 5.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the Rules 
package assembled by my Republican colleagues. In their campaigns, they 
promised to improve transparency and to reduce the deficit. These Rules 
break those promises.
  Under these Rules, the new Republican majority will enact a draconian 
budget without a single hearing, without any input from the Budget 
Committee, without any outreach to Congressional Democrats, and without 
a direct vote by the House of Representatives. Merely by entering a 
statement into the record, the Budget Chairman can subject all spending 
beyond whatever levels he deems appropriate to a point of order. This 
level of concentrated authority runs contrary to the premise of 
transparency that Republicans campaigned on, and, given its disregard 
for scrutiny, runs the risk of greatly damaging our economy and the 
welfare of millions.
  The rules themselves make a mockery of prudent budgeting. While the 
Republican rhetoric has been laudable in some instances, their ``Cut-
as-you-go'' rule is riddled with loopholes. For instance, it allows tax 
cuts for corporations to be deficit financed, while programs like child 
tax credits must find offsets. In fact, these rules forbid eliminating 
even the narrowest special interest tax loophole to find revenue for 
effective government programs.
  The most casual glance at the origin of this country's debts 
illustrates the fallacy of their approach. Without finding a dime to 
offset the cost to our Nation, these rules make it possible to both 
make permanent the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the highest-income 
taxpayers and to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which not only saves 
nearly $150 billion during the next 10 years, but reduces healthcare 
costs by nearly a trillion dollars during the following decades.
  In no way do these rules result in the type of prudent budgeting that 
my Republican colleagues campaigned on, nor does it resemble anything 
like what any hardworking American family must do. At a time when the 
Republican majority is pledging greater openness, the Rules are also 
anti-democratic by depriving 600,000 taxpaying D.C. residents of their 
ability to have their voice heard in the Committee of the Whole.
  The Rules package also undermines opportunities to continue investing 
in America.
  By eliminating the point of order guarding Highway Trust Fund 
balances this Republican majority threatens investments in communities 
large and small across the country. Historically, this point of order 
ensured that Congress delivered on the transportation investments 
promised in the transportation authorization, and that States and 
communities could count on the long-term commitments made in that 
legislation. By removing this point of order, and allowing Highway 
Trust Fund balances to accrue and mask the actual deficit, the 
Republicans are engaging in budget gimmickry that undermines our 
economy and the safety of our communities.
  Organizations from the Chamber of Commerce to the American 
Association of Highway Transportation Officials have expressed their 
strong concern about destabilizing transportation funding, and have 
urged the Republican Conference to make changes. I join with these 
organizations in expressing my concern and disappointment.
  At a time when the need to invest in our communities is higher than 
ever, these rules will make it possible for the Republican Congress to 
decrease our investment in infrastructure, undermining efforts to 
rebuild and renew communities across the country. In addition to the 
new rule regarding the Highway Trust Fund, these Republican rules also 
limit the ability of the House to raise revenue for the Highway Trust 
Fund. At a time when our needs are greater than ever, and individuals 
and organizations across the country are calling on Congress to upgrade 
our Nation's

[[Page 100]]

roads, bridges, and transit systems, limiting our options--as these 
Rules do--is shortsighted and foolhardy.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on clause 
7 of House Rule XII, which requires that Members submit a statement 
citing the constitutional authority for any bill introduced in the 
House of Representatives. Every member of this body takes an oath to 
support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, this new rule adds 
nothing to the responsibilities we have already pledged to undertake. 
It does, however, add to the costs of government. Publishing each 
statement in the Congressional Record will cost the taxpayers an 
estimated $570,000 each year for supplies, labor and delivery.
  Furthermore, this requirement is a solution in search of a problem. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, only about two hundred 
and twenty acts of Congress have been held unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court since 1789. In the past ten years, the Court has struck 
down laws a mere seventeen times. The number of acts courts have upheld 
is surely in the thousands. So I ask, what is the Constitutional crisis 
this requirement addresses?
  The rule itself demonstrates the lack of urgency here. It requires a 
perfunctory statement without explanation. Committees need not consider 
the statement, no Member will ever vote on it, and Senate bills can be 
considered without one. By omitting any teeth, the rule clearly 
indicates that Members are already capable of ensuring that bills 
comply with the Constitution. In the rare instance we go too far, the 
courts are perfectly capable of correcting us.
  Sometimes, the Constitution itself must be corrected. For example, 
the original Constitution expressly allowed for slavery and counted 
slaves as three-fifths of a person. Certainly, I would not be here to 
make this statement if no one had challenged those provisions. Without 
the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution would not guarantee the 
rights to due process and equal protection that are now fundamental 
principles throughout American life. For over one hundred years, until 
1920, it failed to ensure that women had a right to vote. Imagine a 
country in which only white, land-owning men could vote--that is the 
world we would live in if we were bound by the words of the 
Constitution as written.
  Finally, while we respect the Constitution's limits on governmental 
action, we must remember that the framers purposely created a living 
document and intended it to grow and change with the country. The 
Constitution is a work in progress and what we do in Congress can help 
push it forward. Clauses we cite now may not exist or may be understood 
differently in the future. Pretending otherwise through empty (and 
costly) formalities does a disservice to its spirit and the causes of 
freedom and justice.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm about the 
hypocrisy and reckless budget policies the Republicans have rolled out 
this week.
  The Republican leadership has declared that a new day is dawning--a 
day of so-called ``fiscal discipline.'' But even a child could see that 
their new ``cut-go'' budget loopholes just compound irresponsibility 
with more irresponsibility. Republicans want free rein to cut taxes but 
not pay for them and to ignore the fact that health care reform saves 
us $143 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  These GOP accounting gimmicks will not get our fiscal house in order, 
but instead will move us closer to the precipice. Before we know it, 
safety net programs for our most vulnerable populations--like Social 
Security, and Medicare--will be first on the chopping block. We saw 
their opening gambit last month when Republicans held the unemployed 
hostage to win bloated tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, adding 
billions to the budget deficit.
  Now they are saying that when they give more tax cuts to the super 
rich, they don't have to pay for them. The gimmick should be called 
``cut-go, tax cut go-go-go.'' I voted against the tax cut package 
because it was irresponsible, and it was inequitable. These new budget 
loopholes will only accelerate the erosion of our social safety net. I 
thought that the Republicans wanted to balance the Federal budget. But 
this trick takes us in the opposite direction. I urge you to vote 
against these rule changes.
  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:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--236

     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

[[Page 101]]


     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. 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 ``yea.''
  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:

[[Page 102]]



                              [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
     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
     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.

                          ____________________