[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 25-42]
[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 Twelfth Congress, including applicable 
     provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted 
     rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Twelfth 
     Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives of the One Hundred Thirteenth 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) Committee Activity Reports.--In clause 1(d) of rule 
     XI--
       (1) in subparagraph (1), strike ``the 30th day after June 1 
     and December 1'' and insert ``January 2 of each year'' and 
     strike ``semiannual'';
       (2) in subparagraph (2)(B), insert ``in each Congress'' 
     after ``first such report''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (3), strike ``second or fourth 
     semiannual''.
       (b) Voting.--
       (1) In clause 6 of rule XVIII--
       (A) in subparagraph (b)(3), strike ``five minutes'' and 
     insert ``not less than two minutes''; and
       (B) amend paragraph (g) to read as follows:
       ``(g) The Chair may postpone a request for a recorded vote 
     on any amendment. The Chair may resume proceedings on a 
     postponed request at any time. The Chair may reduce to not 
     less than two minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting--
       ``(1) on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes; or
       ``(2) on any postponed question taken without intervening 
     debate or motion after the Committee of the Whole resumes its 
     sitting if in the discretion of the Chair Members would be 
     afforded an adequate opportunity to vote.''.
       (2) In rule XX--
       (A) amend clause 8(c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) The Speaker may reduce to five minutes the minimum 
     time for electronic voting on a question postponed under this 
     clause, or on a question incidental thereto, that--
       ``(1) follows another electronic vote without intervening 
     business, so long as the minimum time for electronic voting 
     on the first in any series of questions is 15 minutes; or
       ``(2) follows a report from the Committee of the Whole 
     without intervening debate or motion if in the discretion of 
     the Speaker Members would be afforded an adequate opportunity 
     to vote.''; and
       (B) amend clause 9 to read as follows:
       ``9. The Speaker may reduce to five minutes the minimum 
     time for electronic voting--
       ``(a) on any question arising without intervening business 
     after an electronic vote on another question if notice of 
     possible five-minute voting for a given series of votes was 
     issued before the preceding electronic vote;
       ``(b) on any question arising after a report from the 
     Committee of the Whole without debate or intervening motion; 
     or
     
     
[[Page 26]]   
     
       ``(c) on the question of adoption of a motion to recommit 
     (or ordering the previous question thereon) arising without 
     intervening motion or debate other than debate on the 
     motion.''.
       (c) Clarifications in Rule X.--In clause 1 of rule X--
       (1) in paragraph (j)(2), strike ``Organization and 
     administration'' and insert ``Organization, administration, 
     and general management''; and
       (2) in paragraph (m)(9), strike ``Insular possessions'' and 
     insert ``Insular areas''.
       (d) Modification of the Ramseyer Rule.--In clause 
     3(e)(1)(B) of rule XIII, insert ``and adjacent provisions if 
     useful to enable the intent and effect of the amendment to be 
     clearly understood,'' before ``showing''.
       (e) Changes to the Code of Conduct and the Committee on 
     Ethics.--
       (1) In clause 3(b)(8) of rule XI--
       (A) amend subdivision (A)(ii) to read as follows:

       ``(ii) upon the day of such decision or vote, make a public 
     statement that the matter, relating to the referral made by 
     the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding the 
     Member, officer, or employee of the House who is the subject 
     of the applicable referral, has been extended.''; and

       (B) in subdivision (B)(ii)--
       (i) strike ``the committee votes to extend the matter'' and 
     insert ``the matter is extended''; and
       (ii) strike ``the committee has voted to extend the 
     matter'' and insert ``the matter has been extended''.
       (2) In clause 8(c) of rule XXIII--
       (A) strike ``spouse'' in each place it appears and insert 
     (in each instance) ``relative'';
       (B) in subparagraph (2), strike ``One Hundred Seventh 
     Congress'' and insert ``One Hundred Thirteenth Congress''; 
     and
       (C) add the following new subparagraph:
       ``(3) As used in this paragraph, the term `relative' means 
     an individual who is related to the Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner as father, mother, son, daughter, 
     brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, 
     husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, 
     daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, 
     stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, 
     half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter.''.
       (3) In clause 13 of rule XXIII, strike ``Copies of the 
     executed oath (or affirmation) shall be retained by the Clerk 
     as part of the records of the House.'' and insert ``Copies of 
     the executed oath (or affirmation) shall be retained as part 
     of the records of the House, in the case of a Member, 
     Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, by the Clerk, and in 
     the case of an officer or employee of the House, by the 
     Sergeant-at-Arms.''.
       (4) In clause 15 of rule XXIII--
       (A) in paragraph (a), strike ``paragraph (b)'' and insert 
     ``paragraphs (b) and (c)'' ;
       (B) in paragraph (b)--
       (i) amend subparagraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) the flight consists of the personal use of an 
     aircraft by a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner 
     that is supplied by--
       ``(A) an individual on the basis of personal friendship; or
       ``(B) another Member, Delegate, or the Resident 
     Commissioner;'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (4), strike the period and insert ``; 
     or''; and
       (iii) add the following:
       ``(5) the owner or operator of the aircraft is paid a pro 
     rata share of the fair market value of the normal and usual 
     charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of 
     comparable size as determined by dividing such cost by the 
     number of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, 
     officers, or employees of Congress on the flight.''; and
       (C) redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and insert 
     after paragraph (b) the following new paragraph:
       ``(c) An advance written request for a waiver of the 
     restriction in paragraph (a) may be granted jointly by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics, 
     subject to such conditions as they may prescribe.''.
       (f) Technical and Clarifying Changes.--
       (1) In clause 12(b)(2) of rule I, strike ``Chair of the 
     Committee of the Whole'' and insert ``chair of the Committee 
     of the Whole''.
       (2) In clause 6(c)(4) of rule II, before ``the Committee on 
     House Administration'' insert ``the Committee on 
     Appropriations and''.
       (3) In rule V--
       (A) in clause 1, strike ``telecommunications'' each place 
     it appears and insert (in each instance) ``communications'';
       (B) in clause 2(a), strike ``recording of the proceedings'' 
     and insert ``recording of the floor proceedings''; and
       (C) in clause 2(c)(1), strike ``political purpose'' and 
     insert ``partisan political campaign purpose''.
       (4) In clause 2(b) of rule XI, strike ``unless otherwise 
     provided by written rule adopted by the committee'' and 
     insert ``if notice is given pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)''.
       (5) In clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI, before the last sentence, 
     insert ``Such notice shall also be made publicly available in 
     electronic form and shall be deemed to satisfy paragraph 
     (g)(3)(A)(ii).''.
       (6) In clause 2(e)(1)(A)(ii) of rule XI, strike ``record 
     vote is demanded'' and insert ``record vote is taken''.
       (7) In clause 2(e)(2)(A) of rule XI, strike ``all committee 
     hearings, records, data, charts, and files'' and insert ``all 
     committee records (including hearings, data, charts, and 
     files)''.
       (8) In clause 2(l) of rule XI--
       (A) strike ``that member shall be entitled'' and insert 
     ``all members shall be entitled''; and
       (B) strike ``to file such views, in writing and signed by 
     that member,'' and insert ``to file such written and signed 
     views''.
       (9) In clause 3(h) of rule XI--
       (A) strike ``(h)(1)'' and insert ``(h)''; and
       (B) redesignate subdivisions (A) and (B) as subparagraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.
       (10) In clause 6(g) of rule XIII, strike ``it shall (to the 
     maximum extent possible) specify in the resolution the object 
     of'' and insert ``it shall to the maximum extent possible 
     specify in the accompanying report''.
       (11) In clause 2 of rule XV, strike ``standing'' each place 
     it appears.
       (12) In clause 6 of rule XV, add the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(d) Precedents, rulings, or procedures in effect before 
     the One Hundred Eleventh Congress regarding the priority of 
     business and the availability of other business on Wednesday 
     shall be applied only to the extent consistent with this 
     clause.''.
       (13) In clause 5(c)(3)(B) of rule XX, after ``Minority 
     Leader'' each place it appears insert (in each instance) 
     ``(or their respective designees)''.
       (14) In clause 8(a)(1) of rule XXII--
       (A) in subdivision (A), after ``in the Congressional 
     Record'' insert ``or pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXIX''; and
       (B) in subdivision (B), before ``copies'' insert ``printed 
     or electronic''.
       (15) In clause 2 of rule XXIV, strike ``Clerk'' and insert 
     ``Chief Administrative Officer''.
       (16) In clause 1 of rule XXVI, strike the second sentence.

     SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.

       (a) Independent Payment Advisory Board.--Section 1899A(d) 
     of the Social Security Act shall not apply in the One Hundred 
     Thirteenth Congress.
       (b) Budget Matters.--
       (1) During the One Hundred Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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 Thirteenth 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.
       (5) During the first session of the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress, pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2014, the provisions of House 
     
     
[[Page 27]]    
     
     Concurrent Resolution 112, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, as 
     adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the 
     House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent 
     resolution, and the allocations of spending authority printed 
     in tables 11 and 12 of House Report 112-421 (One Hundred 
     Twelfth Congress) shall be considered for all purposes in the 
     House to be the allocations under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) 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 
     section 503(b)(1) of House Concurrent Resolution 112, One 
     Hundred Twelfth Congress.
       (d) 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 paragraph, 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.
       (e) Estimates of Direct Spending.--
       (1) It shall not be in order to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, unless it contains a separate heading 
     entitled ``Direct Spending'', which shall include a category 
     for ``Means-Tested Direct Spending'' and a category for 
     ``Nonmeans-Tested Direct Spending'' and sets forth--
       (A) the average rate of growth for each category in the 
     total amount of outlays during the 10-year period preceding 
     the budget year;
       (B) estimates for each such category under current law for 
     the period covered by the concurrent resolution; and
       (C) information on proposed reforms in such categories.
       (2) Before the consideration of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget by the Committee on the Budget for a fiscal year, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget shall submit for 
     printing in the Congressional Record a description of 
     programs which shall be considered means-tested direct 
     spending and nonmeans-tested direct spending for purposes of 
     this subsection.
       (f) Certain Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of 
     rule X, during the One Hundred Thirteenth 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.
       (g) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One 
     Hundred Thirteenth 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.
       (h) Numbering of Bills.--In the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     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.
       (i) Inclusion of United States Code Citations.--To the 
     maximum extent practicable and consistent with established 
     drafting conventions, an instruction in a bill or joint 
     resolution proposing to repeal or amend any law or part 
     thereof not contained in a codified title of the United 
     States Code shall include, if available, the applicable 
     United States Code citation in parenthesis immediately 
     following the designation of the matter proposed to be 
     repealed or amended.
       (j) Duplication of Federal Programs.--
       (1) The chair of a committee may request that the General 
     Accountability Office perform a duplication analysis of any 
     bill or joint resolution referred to that committee. Any such 
     analysis shall assess whether, and the extent to which, the 
     bill or joint resolution creates a new Federal program, 
     office, or initiative that duplicates or overlaps with any 
     existing Federal program, office, or initiative.
       (2) The report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 
     shall include a statement, as though under clause 3(c) of 
     rule XIII, indicating whether any provision of the measure 
     establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal 
     Government known to be duplicative of another Federal 
     program. The statement shall at a minimum explain whether--
       (A) any such program was included in any report from the 
     Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
     section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or
       (B) the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 
     published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act 
     (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 98-169), 
     identified other programs related to the program established 
     or reauthorized by the measure.
       (k) Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.--
       (1) The report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 
     shall include a statement, as though under clause 3(c) of 
     rule XIII, estimating the number of directed rule makings 
     required by the measure.
       (2) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ``directed 
     rule making'' means a specific rule making within the meaning 
     of section 551 of title 5, United States Code, specifically 
     directed to be completed by a provision in the measure, but 
     does not include a grant of discretionary rule making 
     authority.

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND HOUSE OFFICES.

       (a) Litigation Matters.--
       (1) Continuing authority for the bipartisan legal advisory 
     group.--
       (A) The House authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
     Group of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress--
       (i) to act as successor in interest to the Bipartisan Legal 
     Advisory Group of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress with 
     respect to civil actions in which it intervened in the One 
     Hundred Twelfth Congress to defend the constitutionality of 
     section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) or 
     related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States 
     Code, including in the case of Windsor v. United States, 833 
     F. Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012), aff'd, 699 F.3d 169 
     (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), cert. granted, No. 12-307 (Dec. 7, 
     2012), cert. pending No. 12-63 (July 16, 2012) and 12-785 
     (Dec. 28, 2012);
       (ii) to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure 
     continuation of such civil actions; and
       (iii) to intervene in other cases that involve a challenge 
     to the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of 
     Marriage Act or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, 
     United States Code.
       (B) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, the Bipartisan Legal 
     Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the 
     institutional position of, the House in all litigation 
     matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United 
     States.
       (2) Continuing authorities for the committee on oversight 
     and government reform and the office of general counsel.--
       (A) The House authorizes--
       (i) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress to act as the successor in 
     interest to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress with respect to the civil 
     action Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United 
     States House of Representatives v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in 
     his official capacity as Attorney General of the United 
     States, filed by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress pursuant to House 
     Resolution 706; and
       (ii) the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform (when elected), on behalf of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform, and the Office of General 
     Counsel to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure 
     continuation of such civil action, including amending the 
     complaint as circumstances may warrant.
     
     
 [[Page 28]]    
     
       (B) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform (when elected), on behalf of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and until 
     such committee has adopted rules pursuant to clause 2(a) of 
     rule XI, to issue subpoenas related to the investigation into 
     the United States Department of Justice operation known as 
     ``Fast and Furious'' and related matters.
       (C) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform (when elected), on behalf of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 
     Office of General Counsel to petition to join as a party to 
     the civil action referenced in paragraph (1) any individual 
     subpoenaed by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress as part of its 
     investigation into the United States Department of Justice 
     operation known as ``Fast and Furious'' and related matters 
     who failed to comply with such subpoena, or any successor to 
     such individual.
       (D) The House authorizes the chair of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform (when elected), on behalf of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 
     Office of General Counsel, at the authorization of the 
     Speaker after consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
     Group, to initiate judicial proceedings concerning the 
     enforcement of subpoenas issued to such individuals.
       (b) House Democracy Partnership.--House Resolution 24, One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in the One Hundred 
     Thirteenth 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.
       (c) Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.--Sections 1 through 
     7 of House Resolution 1451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall 
     apply in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress in the same 
     manner as such provisions applied in the One Hundred Tenth 
     Congress, except that--
       (1) the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission may, in addition 
     to collaborating closely with other professional staff 
     members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, collaborate 
     closely with professional staff members of other relevant 
     committees; and
       (2) the resources of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which 
     the Commission may use shall include all resources which the 
     Committee is authorized to obtain from other offices of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (d) Office of Congressional Ethics.--Section 1 of House 
     Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in 
     the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress in the same manner as 
     such provision applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     except that--
       (1) 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));
       (2) references to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct shall be construed as references to the Committee on 
     Ethics;
       (3) the second sentence of section 1(b)(6)(A) shall not 
     apply; and
       (4) members subject to section 1(b)(6)(B) may be 
     reappointed for a second additional term.
       (e) Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee 
     on Standards of Official Conduct.--The text of House 
     Resolution 451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in 
     the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress in the same manner as 
     such provision applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS.

       (a) Reading of the Constitution.--The Speaker may recognize 
     a Member for the Reading of the Constitution on any 
     legislative day through January 15, 2013.
       (b) Motions to Suspend the Rules.--It shall be in order at 
     any time on the legislative day of January 4, 2013, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 
     rules, as though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a 
     measure addressing flood insurance.
  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 (Mr. Tiberi). 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, whether there is any reason to deny 
     Delegates voting rights in the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union in light of 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)) 
     upholding the constitutionality of these voting rights, and 
     the inclusion of such voting rights in the Rules for the 
     103rd, 110th and 111th Congresses.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to table at the desk.
  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.

  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 224, 
nays 187, not voting 18, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--187

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     
[[Page 29]]


     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bass
     Brady (TX)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Jeffries
     Jones
     Lucas
     Matsui
     McIntyre
     Meadows
     Meng
     Mulvaney
     Negrete McLeod
     Perry
     Rohrabacher
     Schrader
     Van Hollen

                              {time}  1457

  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JOYCE changed his 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:
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3 I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 3 on January 3, 
2013. I was with my family and unable to make it to the floor. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield the hour to the gentleman from 
Texas, the chair of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, and I ask 
unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York 
(Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, 
the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to sponsor House 
Resolution 5, the rules package for the 113th Congress. This rules 
package is straightforward and builds upon the reforms and transparency 
implemented in the 112th Congress to address job creation and the 
economy, control the growth of government, and limit wasteful spending.
  We have incorporated a number of significant improvements, including 
a proposal from the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, James 
Lankford, the gentleman from Oklahoma, to identify duplicative programs 
and examine the usefulness of existing government programs. This will 
help ensure that hardworking taxpayers' dollars are not wasted and that 
we remain focused on making the Federal Government smarter and more 
efficient.
  Similarly, two proposals from the gentleman from Michigan, 
Congressman Justin Amash, will improve transparency of the legislative 
process by making it easier to see how proposed legislation would 
interact with existing law. Additional proposals from the Republican 
Study Committee chairman, Steve Scalise, the gentleman from Louisiana, 
will help bring more transparency to the regulatory process.
  American families and small businessmen and -women already suffer 
from too much red tape coming out of Washington. This proposal will 
ensure that the regulatory burden of any proposed bill is part of our 
deliberations.
  Under the current administration, Madam Speaker, we have also seen an 
explosion in spending for welfare programs. For the first time, we will 
require our annual budget resolutions include information about the 
growth of means-tested and non-means-tested entitlement programs. This 
important reform will allow us to begin to responsibly control the 
growth of these welfare programs and ensure they can help those who 
need them most.
  I look forward to a productive 113th Congress where we can work 
together to produce results and make life work for more Americans.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague, Mr. 
Sessions, on his new role as chair of the Rules Committee. I've worked 
with Mr. Sessions now for many years, and I look forward to working 
with him even more closely in the months and years to come. And we will 
welcome the new class of legislators, as well, today, and we go through 
the traditions and procedures that have governed our Nation since 
Thomas Jefferson first wrote his manual.
  I'm pleased to welcome our newest colleagues and welcome back old 
friends. It's a great honor to be chosen by our fellow Americans to 
represent them in Congress. Our neighbors have placed their trust in 
us, and we must never take such an honor for granted. With this honor 
comes a solemn responsibility. Starting today, we have the opportunity 
to move our Nation forward, and in the words of our Nation's Founders 
provide for our common defense, promote our general welfare, and secure 
the blessings of liberty for ourselves and for our posterity.
  Our work begins today, and one of the first orders of business is 
considering the rules package for the incoming Congress. During the 
last Congress, we were promised an open and transparent process, but we 
unfortunately fell short. Under the majority's leadership, more than 
one-third of the rules were completely closed, and at times 
brinksmanship endangered our economy.
  Today provides an opportunity for the majority to put these behind 
them and govern in an open, collaborative, and bipartisan way; and we 
are willing to meet them every step of the way. With this goal in mind, 
though, of this Rules Committee, I must say that I look at it with a 
little bit of trepidation. The most troubling for me is the proposal 
to, once again, adopt the Ryan budget. Doing so will keep alive 
dangerous budget proposals, including the repeal of parts of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  In addition, today's resolution makes it easier for Members of 
Congress to use private planes, and I'm puzzled by that. I don't think 
Members should be flying around in corporate jets. And it continues the 
politically motivated campaign over the so-called Fast and Furious 
operation. To begin by loosening the ethics restrictions and advancing 
politically motivated campaigns should not be the priorities of 
Congress.
  Finally, with today's resolution, the majority continues their 
efforts to oppose marriage equality before the courts. In an age where 
marriage equality is recognized by Americans across the country of 
plurality, this Chamber should not be using taxpayer money to be 
standing on the wrong side of history.
  We could start our new beginning by joining all the Democratic 
colleagues and me in finally reforming our broken election laws, and I 
know everyone wants to do that. In the years since the Supreme Court 
handed down its ruling in the Citizens United case, unlimited amounts 
of money from billionaires and hidden special interests have flooded 
our elections. Led by secret political spending that is hidden from 
public view, wealthy special interests have tried to buy our airwaves, 
to fund outrageously expensive campaigns, and to launch dishonest 
political attacks to persuade the outcome of countless elections.


[[Page 30]]


  The Sunlight Foundation reports that during the 2012 election cycle 
alone, super PACs, as they are called, spent more than $620 million to 
affect the Federal elections. Nobody believes that corporations are 
people, and they should not be able to use unlimited amounts of money 
to influence our elections.
  At the end of this debate, my Democratic colleagues and I will 
provide the House with an opportunity to consider a constitutional 
amendment to overturn the flawed Citizens United decision. If approved, 
this amendment would finally remove the unlimited and untracked 
political donations from our electoral system.
  In addition to addressing the uncontrolled money in our political 
process, the Congress should be ensuring that every American citizen 
can easily exercise their right to vote. Voting is fundamental to what 
it means to be an American; but in recent years, we've seen a concerted 
effort to discourage voters from casting a ballot.
  Under the cover of a cynical and untruthful claim that voter fraud is 
a serious threat to our democracy, political operatives in States 
across the country have methodically advanced a number of 
discriminatory and dangerous pieces of legislation. Their methods range 
from enacting voter ID laws to reducing the number of voting machines 
in low-income neighborhoods.
  Unfortunately, these discriminatory practices have indeed made it 
harder for our citizens to vote. This past November, there were 
numerous reports of voters being turned away from the polls. Many of 
those who did manage to vote had to wait in line for hours--and 
sometimes as many as 8 hours--before they could cast a ballot. It is 
clear as day that keeping people waiting in long lines is purely 
intended to make them give up and go home.
  Later today, my Democratic colleagues and I will ask the House to 
bring to the floor the Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling 
Locations and Early Voting Act, or SIMPLE Voting Act. This legislation 
would guarantee that no voter would have to wait more than 1 hour to 
cast their ballot and require that every polling station in the country 
have the resources it needs to run a smooth and fair election.

                              {time}  1510

  When taken together, the overwhelming influence of money in politics 
and the discriminatory attacks on Americans' right to vote, they have 
distorted our electoral system and helped to create a broken 
legislative process that is failing to serve the American public.
  As we open the 113th Congress, my colleagues and I stand ready to 
work with the majority on fixing our broken electoral system and 
getting back to a bipartisan legislative process worthy of the citizens 
who sent us here.
  I couldn't be happier or more honored to serve in the 113th Congress. 
I look forward to serving with all of my colleagues, and it is my 
sincere hope that we'll have an open, transparent, and bipartisan House 
so that we can produce meaningful results for those whom we represent.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Rochester, New 
York. I look forward to our time where we will work together day and 
night, perhaps, with the committee that she will be the ranking member 
for and I will be the chairman of.
  I told the gentlewoman before today that it will be my hope and her 
hope that we will not only work for the betterment of the institution, 
but also the Members, to ensure that they stand a better chance to make 
sure that our committee, the Rules Committee, is one that we can both 
look at each other and know that we have done a job that would be fair 
and appropriate on behalf of the minority leader, the majority leader, 
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and all of our Members.
  The rules package before us today will continue the effort by our 
Republican majority to make the work of the House as open, transparent, 
and streamlined as possible. This work began in the 112th Congress 
under the leadership of former Chairman David Dreier. When a number of 
important reforms were implemented, David Dreier made sure that they 
worked. Today, we will continue the tradition of that transparency 
initiated by Chairman Dreier. The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation 
recently praised our endeavors in that effort by saying:

       It is clear that the House has become a more transparent 
     institution over the last 2 years.

  The accolades there go to the gentleman from California, David 
Dreier. This body is wholeheartedly committed to advancing that reform 
process, and I am as its new chairman.
  Our work must begin and must always be directed to accountability, to 
the people who granted us the privilege of serving in this body. But 
the imperative for accountability is never higher than when we face 
tough economic times, economic times that each of us bring to the floor 
because of the demand upon people that we represent. As our national 
debt skyrockets, our economy limps sluggishly along, and unemployment 
remains predictably high, the need for a fully transparent and 
accountable process in this institution to help in that effort of 
unemployment in this country and to gain more jobs is one of the things 
which this Rules Committee and the work of the floor should be about.
  The rules package that we focus on today for the 113th Congress will 
help us to achieve that goal. It preserves the important reforms that 
we made in the previous Congress, while adding a few perfecting 
amendments and several other ideas.
  One such amendment in section 2 will help to streamline and expedite 
floor voting procedures. It is important to note, however, that these 
procedures are intended to be used to expedite consideration of 
questions of the House while ensuring that no Member is denied an 
adequate opportunity to vote.
  Section 2 also makes several improvements and clarifications in the 
Congressional Code of Conduct in order to more efficiently hold each 
Member of this body accountable. For example, it expands the current 
nepotism rule to conform to current law and to add grandchildren to the 
rule, who are not currently covered under House rules or current law. 
This is a strongly held bipartisan measure that has received praise 
from a number of transparency groups, including the Sunlight 
Foundation, as I mentioned at the outset.
  This rules package also amends the restrictions on the use of private 
aircraft contained in the Code of Conduct so as to harmonize House and 
Senate rules. These changes provide more flexibility to Members whose 
districts, including rural and remote locations, are not easily reached 
by car and do not have scheduled air service. They will also facilitate 
travel during extraordinary circumstances, such as in an emergency or 
in the aftermath of a natural disaster. At the same time, the revised 
rules keep in place safeguards to help ensure that such travel is fully 
consistent with House and ethics guidelines and rules. The new rules 
will simply ensure that Members pay a fair market rate for air travel, 
regardless of the type of aircraft that is used.
  Together, the amendments and the clarifications to the Code of 
Conduct contained in this resolution will better ensure that elective 
representatives, officials, and employees of the House can execute 
their official duties in an efficient, ethical, and transparent way.
  Section 3 of the rules package makes a number of separate orders. The 
most significant among them eliminates provisions contained in the 
Affordable Care Act that limit the ability of the House to respond to 
recommendations from the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
  Now, House Republicans have made it very clear that we oppose 
ObamaCare. We have acted repeatedly to repeal and to replace this 
controversial law. But regardless of where any Member may stand on this 
issue, the question of preserving the prerogative

[[Page 31]]

of the House of 
Representatives to its work and its will without dispute or controversy 
must be achieved.
  Article I, section 5 of the Constitution very clearly states that 
this body has the right and the responsibility to determine the rules 
of its proceedings. This provision will ensure that, as we proceed with 
the issue of health care reform, the ability of the House to respond to 
the Independent Payment Advisory Board is not abridged.
  Sections 3 and 4 go on to make a number of adjustments that enhance 
our budgetary process, preserve our oversight rules, and strengthen our 
ethics procedures.
  Finally, section 5 allows the Speaker to recognize Members for the 
reading of the Constitution on any legislative day through January 15, 
2013. Every Member of this body has sworn an oath today to uphold and 
defend the Constitution of the United States. It is a very worthwhile 
endeavor to spend time in the first few days of this new Congress, and 
perhaps any Congress, to review the inspiring words of our Nation's 
founding document.
  The rules package that I have just outlined for you will better 
enable each of us, as an institution, to perform our constitutional 
duties and obligations with integrity, transparency, and 
accountability, while streamlining its operations. Presenting this 
package to the House is my first official act as chairman of the Rules 
Committee for the 113th Congress, and I think it exemplifies our 
commitment to an open and deliberative process that empowers the 
majority to work its will while preserving the ability of individual 
Members, particularly those in the minority, to present their ideas and 
engage in meaningful debate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rules package, and I will 
insert, for the Record, a section-by-section analysis of the 
resolution.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                               H. Res. 5

                 Adopting Rules for the 113th Congress

                      Section-By-Section Analysis

     Section 1. Resolved Clause.
       This section provides that the Rules of the 112th Congress 
     are the Rules of the 113th 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.
       Committee Activity Reports. Subsection (a) reduces the 
     frequency of committee activity reports from four times per 
     Congress to two times per Congress (once per Session). The 
     process for filing end of session committee reports is also 
     modified to allow filings through January 2nd of each year.
       Voting. Subsection (b) streamlines the voting process for 
     several specific instances in the House and the Committee of 
     the Whole. Paragraph (1) authorizes the Chair to reduce the 
     time from 5 minutes to not less than 2 minutes for a vote 
     after a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole, which is 
     similar to the Speaker's current authority in the House to 
     shorten votes following a quorum call. It also authorizes the 
     Chair to reduce the time for voting on the first question 
     arising without intervening debate or motion after the 
     Committee of the Whole resumes its sitting. Paragraph (2) 
     authorizes the Speaker to reduce the time for voting on the 
     first question arising without intervening debate or motion 
     after the Committee of the Whole rises and to reduce the time 
     for voting on motions to recommit to not less than 5 minutes. 
     The Rules Committee intends that these parallel authorities 
     will be used following a vote stack in the Committee of the 
     Whole or the House, respectively, where the Chamber is still 
     full, and hence it would be likely that the Presiding Officer 
     would determine that an adequate opportunity for Members to 
     vote exists.
       Clarifications in Rule X. Subsection (c) makes two 
     clarifications with respect to clause 1 of rule X. Paragraph 
     (1) clarifies that the Committee on Homeland Security's 
     jurisdiction includes the general management of the 
     Department of Homeland Security. This change is intended to 
     clarify the Committee's existing jurisdiction over the 
     organization and administration of the department, and is not 
     intended to alter the pattern of bill referrals to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security, nor is it intended to alter 
     the existing oversight jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security. Paragraph (2) conforms terminology used in 
     the Committee on Natural Resources jurisdiction to 
     terminology recognized by the Departments of State and 
     Interior.
       Modifications of the Ramseyer Rule. Subsection (d) is 
     intended to improve the readability of the comparative print 
     required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII--commonly known as a 
     ``Ramseyer''--by including other contiguous portions of law 
     if they will be useful in understanding the change made by 
     the amendment. The chair of each committee will determine the 
     portions of the amended law that will be useful to improve 
     readability.
       Changes to the Code of Conduct and the Committee on Ethics. 
     Subsection (e) makes several improvements and clarifications 
     to the Code of Conduct. Paragraph (1) clarifies the 
     circumstances under which the Committee on Ethics or its 
     chair must make a public statement following action whereby 
     time for consideration of a certain recommendation from the 
     Office of Congressional Ethics is extended. Currently, the 
     rule could be read to require a public statement when the 
     time is extended by joint action of the chair and ranking 
     minority member, but not when the time is extended by 
     committee vote. Paragraph (2) amends clause 8(c) of rule 
     XXIII to expand the current nepotism rule to conform to 
     current law and adds grandchildren to the rule, who are not 
     currently covered under House Rules or current law. The 
     provision permits grandchildren who were employed by a 
     relative prior to the 113th Congress to retain their 
     employment subject to the same restrictions applied to 
     spouses employed prior to the 107th Congress. Paragraph (3) 
     transfers the responsibility to maintain copies of the 
     executed classified oath, in the case of an officer or 
     employee of the House, to the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Clerk of 
     the House will continue to maintain the executed oaths for 
     Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners. Paragraph (4) 
     amends the restrictions on the use of private aircraft 
     contained in the Code of Conduct so as to conform the House 
     rule to the existing rule in the Senate. The changes allow 
     Members to pay their pro rata share for a charter flight 
     based upon the fair market value of the flight, divided by 
     the number of Members, officers, or employees of the House on 
     the flight. It also increases the flexibility of Members with 
     regard to which aircraft may be used. Members may pay for a 
     charter flight authorized under this provision with either 
     personal or official funds. The amended rule would allow 
     House Members to use their campaign funds, in addition to 
     official or personal funds. However, a statute still 
     prohibits House candidates (but not Senate candidates) from 
     using campaign funds for that purpose. Therefore, the rule 
     change only affects personal and official funds unless 2 USC 
     439a(c)(2) is amended by future legislation. This paragraph 
     also provides that the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ethics may jointly waive this rule, subject 
     to such conditions as they may prescribe. This provision is 
     intended to facilitate the use of private aircraft in 
     extraordinary circumstances, such as in an emergency or in 
     the aftermath of a natural disaster.
       Technical and Clarifying Changes. Subsection (f) corrects 
     several typographic and other simple errors in the standing 
     rules. Paragraph (1) corrects a typographic error. Paragraph 
     (2) amends rule II (relating to House Officers) to add the 
     Committee on Appropriations to the list of recipients of 
     audit reports prepared by the Inspector General of the House. 
     Paragraph (3) amends rule V (relating to Broadcasting of 
     House proceedings) to address new technology and clarify 
     acceptable uses of coverage of the floor proceedings. 
     Paragraph (4) conforms the process for regular meeting 
     notices to committee practice, which will eliminate the need 
     to cancel the regular meeting if it was never noticed. 
     Paragraph (5) clarifies the process for noticing a special 
     meeting called pursuant to clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI. 
     Paragraphs (6) and (7) are technical changes. Paragraph (8) 
     amends rule XI to clarify that if any Member notifies a 
     committee of the intention to file views, all Members are 
     entitled to file views. Paragraph (9) makes a typographic 
     change and related conforming changes. Paragraph (10) 
     conforms clause 6(g) of rule XIII to the Rules Committee 
     practice of specifying waivers in committee reports rather 
     than resolutions. Paragraph (11) amends rule XV to clarify 
     that motions to discharge a committee apply to all 
     committees, including select committees. Paragraph (12) 
     clarifies that precedents related to Calendar Wednesday 
     business in effect before the 111th Congress will be applied 
     only to the extent consistent with clause 6 of rule XV. 
     Paragraph (13) clarifies that with respect to a call of the 
     House in the event of a catastrophic circumstance, the 
     Speaker may consult with the Majority Leader and Minority 
     Leader or their designees. Paragraph (14) conforms rules 
     related to conference reports to existing electronic 
     availability for bills and other measures. Paragraph (15) is 
     a technical change to conform to current House practices. 
     Paragraph (16) eliminates the requirement for physical 
     printing of Member Financial Disclosures in light of online 
     disclosure under the STOCK Act.
     Section 3. Separate Orders.
       Independent Payment Advisory Board. Subsection (a) 
     eliminates provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act 
     that limit the ability of the House to determine the method 
     of consideration for a recommendation from the Independent 
     Payment Advisory Board or to repeal the provision in its 
     entirety.
     
[[Page 32]]
     
       Budget Matters. Subsection (b)(1) clarifies that section 
     306 of the Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of 
     legislation within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction, 
     unless referred to or reported by the Budget Committee) only 
     applies to bills and joint resolutions and not to simple or 
     concurrent resolutions. Paragraph (2) 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. Paragraph (3) provides that specified or 
     minimum levels of compensation for a Federal office will not 
     be considered as providing new entitlement authority. 
     Paragraph (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. Paragraph (5) 
     provides that the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 
     112 (112th Congress), as adopted by the House, and the 
     allocations of spending authority printed in tables 11 and 12 
     of House Report 112-421 (112th Congress) will be in effect 
     until a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 is adopted.
       Determinations for PAYGO Acts. Subsection (c) allows the 
     chair of the Budget Committee to take into account the 
     exemptions provided under 503(b)(1) of H. Con. Res. 112 
     (112th Congress) for the purpose of complying with Statutory 
     PAYGO.
       Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills. 
     Subsection (d) carries forward the requirement from the 112th 
     Congress that in each general appropriations bill there be a 
     ``spending reduction'' account, the content 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.
       Estimates of Direct Spending. Subsection (e) prohibits the 
     consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     any proposed amendment to or conference report on, unless it 
     includes specified information and estimates related to 
     direct spending, including means-tested direct spending and 
     nonmeans-tested direct spending. The subsection also requires 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget to publish a 
     description in the Congressional Record of covered programs.
       Certain Subcommittees. Subsection (f) 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. Subsection (g) 
     continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility 
     that 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. Subsection (h) 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.
       Inclusion of United States Code Citations. Subsection (i) 
     requires the sponsor of a bill or joint resolution to 
     include, if available and to the maximum extent practicable, 
     the applicable United States Code citation when the 
     legislation proposes to repeal or amend in full or in part 
     any uncodified law.
       Duplication of Federal Programs. Subsection (j) authorizes 
     the chair of a committee to request that the Government 
     Accountability Office perform a duplication analysis of any 
     bill or joint resolution referred to that committee. The 
     subsection also requires committee reports to include a 
     statement indicating whether any provision of the measure 
     establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal 
     Government known to be duplicative of another Federal 
     Program.
       Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings. Subsection (k) 
     requires committee reports on bills or joint resolutions to 
     include a statement estimating the number of directed rule 
     makings required by the measure. The subsection defines 
     ``directed rule making'' to include those rule makings 
     specifically directed to be completed by a provision in the 
     legislation, but does not include a grant of discretionary 
     rule making authority.
     Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices.
       Litigation Matters. Subsection (a) carries forward the 
     authority of the House, and certain constituent entities on 
     its behalf, to litigate ongoing matters. Paragraph (1) 
     particularly relates to the House's litigation through the 
     Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the entity that speaks for, 
     and articulates the litigation position of, the House in all 
     litigation matters in which it appears.
       The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group currently is litigating 
     a number of matters on behalf of the House involving the 
     constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act 
     (``DOMA''). DOMA was enacted in 1996 by overwhelming 
     bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress and then 
     signed into law by President Clinton. Congress and the 
     President relied, in part, on the Department of Justice's 
     advice that DOMA was constitutional. See, e.g., Letter from 
     Andrew Fois, Asst. Att'y Gen., to Rep. Canady (May 29, 1996), 
     reprinted in H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 34 (1996), reprinted 
     in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905 (``House Report''); Letter from 
     Andrew Fois, Asst. Att'y Gen., to Rep. Hyde (May 14, 1996), 
     reprinted in House Rep. at 33-34; Letter from Andrew Fois, 
     Asst. Att'y Gen., to Sen. Hatch (July 9, 1996), reprinted in 
     Defense of Marriage Act: Hearing on S. 1740 Before the S. 
     Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 2 (1996).
       It is the constitutional responsibility of the Executive 
     Branch to defend the constitutionality of duly-enacted 
     statutes such as DOMA. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3 (``[The 
     President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully 
     executed. . . .''). However, on February 23, 2011, the 
     Attorney General notified the Speaker of the House that the 
     Executive Branch no longer would defend the constitutionality 
     of DOMA Section 3. Letter from Att'y Gen. Eric H. Holder, 
     Jr., to the Hon. John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House (Feb. 
     23, 2011). Remarkably, the Executive Branch abdicated its 
     constitutional responsibility, notwithstanding the Attorney 
     General's candid acknowledgement that:
       in light of ``the respect appropriately due to a coequal 
     branch of government,'' the Department ``has a longstanding 
     practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted 
     statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their 
     defense,'' id. at 5;
       binding precedents of eleven of thirteen U.S. Courts of 
     Appeals (the other two being silent on the issue) held that 
     sexual orientation classifications are subject only to 
     rational basis review under the Equal Protection Component of 
     the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. at 3-4 
     nn.4-6; and
       ``a reasonable argument for Section 3's constitutionality 
     may be proffered under [the rational basis] standard,'' id. 
     at 6.
       As a result of the Executive Branch's abdication of its 
     constitutional responsibility, on March 9, 2011, the Speaker 
     of the House, on the recommendation of the Bipartisan Legal 
     Advisory Group of which he is a part, and in accordance with 
     the Rules and precedents of the House, directed the Office of 
     the General Counsel to represent the Bipartisan Legal 
     Advisory Group, on behalf of the House, in defending the 
     constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 in civil actions in which 
     that statute's constitutionality has been challenged in order 
     to protect the interests of the House. The House has 
     articulated its institutional position in litigation matters 
     through a five-member bipartisan leadership group since at 
     least the early 1980s, although the formulation of the 
     group's name has changed somewhat over time. Since 1993, the 
     House rules formally have acknowledged and referred to the 
     Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group as such.
       Prior to its involvement in the DOMA litigation, the 
     Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or its predecessors, had 
     intervened in at least eleven cases. See, e.g., Adolph Coors 
     Co. v. Brady, 944 F.2d 1543, 1545 (10th Cir. 1991); In re 
     Koerner, 800 F.2d 1358, 1360 (5th Cir. 1986); North v. Walsh, 
     656 F. Supp. 414, 415 n.1 (D.D.C. 1987); Am. Fed'n of Gov't 
     Emps. v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 336, 337 (D.D.C. 1986); 
     Synar v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 1374, 1378-79 (D.D.C.), 
     aff'd sub nom. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986); Ameron, 
     Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 607 F. Supp. 962, 963 
     (D.N.J. 1985), aff'd, 809 F.2d 979 (3d Cir. 1986); Barnes v. 
     Carmen, 582 F. Supp. 163, 164 (D.D.C. 1984), rev'd sub nom. 
     Barnes v. Kline, 759 F.2d 21, 22 (D.C. Cir. 1985), rev'd on 
     mootness grounds sub nom. Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 362 
     (1987); In re Prod. Steel, Inc., 48 B.R. 841, 842 (M.D. Tenn. 
     1985); In re Moody, 46 B.R. 231, 233 (M.D.N.C. 1985); In re 
     Tom Carter Enters., Inc., 44 B.R. 605, 606 (C.D. Cal. 1984); 
     In re Benny, 44 B.R. 581, 583 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff'd in part 
     and dismissed in part, 791 F.2d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1986).
       In addition, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or its 
     predecessors, has appeared on behalf of the House as amicus 
     curiae in more than a dozen other cases--generally cases in 
     which the Executive Branch had not abandoned its duty to 
     defend a duly-enacted statute. See, e.g., Br. of Amicus 
     Curiae the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House 
     of Representatives in Supp. of Pet'r, Renzi v. United States, 
     No. 11-557, 2011 WL 6019914 (S. Ct. Dec. 2, 2011); Dickerson 
     v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 430 n.* (2000); Raines v. 
     Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 n.2 (1997); Am. Foreign Serv. Ass'n 
     v. Garfinkel, 490 U.S. 153, 154 (1989); Morrison v. Olson, 
     487 U.S. 654, 659 (1988); Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am. Cetacean 
     Soc'y, 478 U.S. 221, 223 (1986); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 
     U.S. 500, 501 (1979); United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 
     477, 478 (1979); United States v. Renzi, 651 F.3d 1012, 1015 
     (9th Cir. 2011); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 571 F.3d 1200 
     (D.C. Cir. 2009); Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
     459 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (en banc); Beverly Enters., 
     Inc. v. Trump, 182 F.3d 183, 186 (3d Cir. 1999); United 
     States v. McDade, 28 F.3d 283, 286 (3d Cir. 1994); In re 
     Search of The Rayburn House Office Bldg., 432 F. Supp. 2d 
     100, 104-05 (D.D.C. 2006), rev'd sub nom. United States v.
     
[[Page 33]]


     Rayburn House Office Bldg., 497 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 
     Accordingly, the intervention by the Bipartisan Legal 
     Advisory Group in the DOMA Section 3 cases to articulate the 
     House's institutional position, and to protect the House's 
     institutional interests, has been neither unusual nor 
     extraordinary.
       Recently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one of 
     the cases in which the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has 
     intervened to defend the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3, 
     i.e., Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 
     2012), affd, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. granted, No. 
     12-307 (Dec. 7, 2012), cert. pending No. 12-63 (July 16, 
     2012), and No. 12-785 (Dec. 28, 2012). In granting certiorari 
     in Windsor, the Supreme Court asked the parties to brief, in 
     addition to the merits of the DOMA Section 3 issue, this 
     question: ``[W]hether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of 
     the United States House of Representatives has Article III 
     standing in this case.'' Op. Granting Cert., Windsor v. 
     United States, No. 12-307, 2012 WL 4009654 (Dec. 7, 2012).
       Paragraph (1) is intended to clarify the role of the 
     Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group generally, and in the Windsor 
     litigation particularly.
       Paragraph (2) authorizes the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, through the House Office of the General 
     Counsel, to continue litigation to enforce a subpoena against 
     the Attorney General related to the ``Fast and Furious'' 
     investigation. This lawsuit was authorized by H. Res. 706 
     (112th Congress). It also authorizes the chair of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (when elected) 
     to take certain actions necessary to continue the litigation. 
     Parallel authority was contained in H. Res. 5 (111th 
     Congress) on a similar contempt matter.
       House Democracy Partnership. Subsection (b) reauthorizes 
     the House Democracy Partnership.
       Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subsection (c) 
     reauthorizes the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
       Office of Congressional Ethics. Subsection (d) reauthorizes 
     the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for the 113th 
     Congress and clarifies that term limits do not apply to 
     members of the OCE.
       Empanelling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on 
     Standards and Official Conduct. Subsection (e) 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. Subsection (a) allows the 
     Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the 
     Constitution on any legislative day through January 15, 2013.
       Motions to Suspend the Rules. Subsection (b) authorizes the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to a measure addressing flood insurance at any time 
     on the legislative day of January 4, 2013.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, and I thank her 
for the work that she's doing and has been doing over the years as our 
representative and leader on the Rules Committee.
  I also want to congratulate my friend, Mr. Sessions, on attaining the 
chairmanship of the Rules Committee, an extraordinarily important 
committee that sets the parameters for debate and consideration of 
legislation on the floor of this House. I also want to thank him for 
his discussions with me, his willingness to work together, and I'm 
looking forward to a positive relationship as we try to make sure that 
we consider legislation on this floor, giving everybody on both sides 
of the aisle the opportunity to make their case.

                              {time}  1520

  I also want to thank the gentleman. He explained that we are 
effecting the rules, but I want to thank the Rules Committee--I want to 
thank the chairman in particular--and, frankly, the Speaker and the 
leadership for making changes prospectively so that existing 
individuals are not adversely affected, and I thank the chairman.
  Having said that, let me say that I am disappointed, though, that the 
majority is calling up a rules package that again embraces what I 
believe to be a partisan budget, which, obviously, there is significant 
disagreement about, and rejects efforts to compromise toward restoring, 
in my view, fiscal stability in our country. Despite bipartisan 
agreement in the Budget Control Act, the continuing resolution and, 
just this week, on the fiscal cliff, this rules package returns to the 
partisan stance that Republicans brought to the last Congress on fiscal 
issues and particularly on the budget.
  It deems the amounts in the Ryan budget to be the default funding 
levels this year, levels well below this week's compromised agreement. 
We saw that in the last budget process as well. We made an agreement, 
and lo and behold, the budget came out with numbers substantially below 
that agreement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. It also exempts the cost of policies we now know cannot 
become law: massive tax cuts as well as the cost of repealing the 
health reform act. We voted on that over 30 times in this House, and 
the American people had an opportunity to vote on that. We ought to be 
focused on making that act as good as it can be--saving as much money 
as it can and providing access to affordable, quality health care to 
all of our people. After more than 30 votes in the 112th Congress to 
repeal, it did not happen; yet this proposed rule signals the 113th 
will continue along a path that has been rejected.
  Another provision in this package continues the policy of denying a 
voice to 5 million American citizens living in our territories: the 
District of Columbia--Ms. Norton is here and will speak--Puerto Rico, 
as well as Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the 
Northern Mariana Islands. We have extended in Congresses past--and, 
frankly, when I was the majority leader--the ability for those 
Representatives to vote on this floor, not to vote on final passage--
the Constitution would have to do that--but to vote in the committee, 
in the Committee of the Whole. They can vote in our committees in the 
House, and we ought to give them that right here as a show of respect 
in order to honor their service to American citizens in the territories 
and in the District of Columbia.
  As this new Congress begins, we have an opportunity to commit 
ourselves to a spirit of compromise, which our constituents so 
desperately seek from their Representatives. Our Nation continues to 
face a number of challenges that can only be addressed by working 
together and giving every family the opportunity, as our leader said 
when she spoke so eloquently, to make it in America. Let us take 
advantage of this new session to start off on the right foot and show 
Americans that we are ready to come together to tackle our greatest 
challenges.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume as I address 
the minority leader, if I can, the gentleman from Maryland.
  He is a very dear and a fine friend of mine. For a long time, I've 
enjoyed the opportunity during the years that I've been in this House 
to know him, to work with him. In fact, what he said is true in that I 
have offered myself to him in a way that would be fair and good, not 
just for every Member of this body but also for those whom he 
represents. I will try and do my very best within the limits and 
constraints that I have, but my attitude is always to be stellar, and I 
hope that he knows that he can count on that also. I thank the 
gentleman very much. I would also extend that to other Members who are 
here, Madam Speaker, who have come down to express their ideas. Their 
ideas about how to make this a better place are always important.
  The Republican Conference, the majority, had a vigorous time 
yesterday afternoon as we debated the House rules, as we offered our 
ideas, as we debated how we could make this a better place, not just 
transparent but really work to the efficiency of the people who sent us 
here. I must say that I'm fresh from that wonderful and invigorating 
time in which we talked about the ideas, we defended what we did and 
changed the things that needed to be done. Our Members all were 
accorded, not just equal time, but a chance to bring their ideas forth, 
perhaps from back home from a season of election, perhaps from their 
experiences that they had back home. It was really a good time for not 
just me as a Member 


[[Page 34]]

but, I think, for all of us in our body. Today, we 
enjoy that same opportunity as we come together, Democrats and 
Republicans, on the floor to talk about the rules of the House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina, assistant Democratic leader, Mr. 
Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, today is a day of great pride for every Member who has 
just been sworn in, particularly our newly elected Members. It is a 
great honor to be elected to serve in this body. On Election Day, our 
constituents went to their polling places and voted for us. We should 
be thankful for that, particularly so when, for far too many of our 
constituents, regardless of their political leanings, voting on 
Election Day was an unnecessarily burdensome, time-consuming, and 
unpleasant experience.
  In my home county in South Carolina, voters reported waiting in line 
for over 4 hours. One young voter thought ahead of time. He brought an 
iPad, and watched the entire ``Hunger Games'' movie while in line. 
Others, understandably, didn't have 3 hours to spare on a workday. In 
Detroit, Michigan, Gina Porter waited in line for more than 3 hours 
before giving up. Danielle Wilkins voted after waiting for 4 hours.
  In Lee County, Florida, Angela DeFranciesco went to her polling place 
in the morning with her infant son. Seeing a 3-hour line, she decided 
to come back later. After finding a babysitter, she returned in the 
afternoon, at which point the line had grown to 5\1/2\ hours. Unable to 
be away from her infant son that long, she left without voting.
  As President Obama said on election night, ``We have to fix that.'' 
As we take our places in this Congress that we earned on Election Day, 
now is the time to fix it. This motion to commit would ensure that no 
voter has to wait longer than an hour to cast a ballot.
  We have a long history of struggle over the right to vote in this 
country. Yet, time and again, we have reaffirmed the principle that 
every eligible American has an equal right to cast a ballot without 
facing discrimination. A 3-hour wait is discrimination against those 
who have to work, those who have to take care of their kids and those 
whose health prevents them from waiting in line for such a long time. 
Long lines are the 21st century version of poll taxes and literacy 
tests, disenfranchising the least advantaged and the most vulnerable 
citizens. We have an obligation to ensure that every American has an 
equal opportunity to exercise his constitutional right to vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CLYBURN. My good friend and lifelong colleague, John Lewis, has 
called the right to vote ``precious, almost sacred,'' and ``the most 
powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect Union.''
  John could not be here to speak on this motion today, but I am proud 
to stand in his stead with Mr. Miller. It is a small but important step 
to fulfilling our obligation to protect the right to vote, and I urge 
the passage of this motion to commit.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming down 
with his words today. By the way, the gentleman mentioned a motion to 
commit and we have yet to see that. So if there is one, I would 
appreciate it if the gentlewoman from New York or the Clerk could 
provide that to me.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield to me to address that?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. At the proper 
time, we will submit the motion. We are not yet offering it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, when that is available, we 
appreciate that opportunity to review the motion that has been spoken 
about on the floor.
  Today what we're talking about, Madam Speaker, is how we are going to 
make sure that this Rules Committee and the rules of the House work 
very effectively. Later we will be calling a Rules Committee meeting. I 
will be announcing that the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Virginia 
Foxx, will become the vice chairman of the Rules Committee. The 
gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, will have a chance to bring her 
team up, and we'll begin that process of working together.
  Many of the ideas that have been brought forth here are very good 
ideas. The rules of the House are how we're going to proceed, and I 
think a lot of what's been talked about is legislation that we really 
need to work on and look at and analyze. I think every single election 
we learn things from around the country. Not one election have I not 
learned something we need to make better.
  I would say that John Boehner, our great young Speaker, is energized 
to look at all of the ideas that might come from legislation, would be 
pleased, as I would, to make sure that we look at these, because the 
integrity of who serves in this House and the ability that people have 
back home to go vote is important.
  I'm reminded on a regular basis by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the committee, who will be 
appointed the vice chairman, of how important people are back home that 
we serve. That when we serve, we serve at the pleasure of others, and 
that our election to this Republic and the votes that we make are very, 
very important. And so it's always good to come down to the floor and 
be reminded of that as we remember our duty as we move forward. So I've 
enjoyed the opportunity to debate these issues and talk about them.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for 
the time and for her extraordinary leadership. I also want to 
congratulate the incoming chairman, Mr. Sessions. I am hopeful that the 
113th Congress will be more productive, collaborative, and civil than 
the 112th. I'm not particularly optimistic, but I'm always hopeful--
hopeful that we can return to some semblance of regular order with 
committees doing their work, bills coming to the floor under an open 
amendment process, and Members having the opportunity to reflect the 
will of their constituents.
  At the very least, I hope that the outrageous, partisan and closed 
process we saw during the fiscal cliff crisis is not repeated. That is 
no way to legislate, and it's no wonder after that bit of theater that 
the American people have so little regard for Congress.
  One of the best ways that we can help the country is to improve the 
way we conduct our elections because bad elections lead to bad 
lawmaking. If 2012 taught us anything, it's that we desperately need 
campaign finance reform.
  If the previous question is defeated on this rule, Democrats will 
amend the resolution to give the House a vote on a constitutional 
amendment to control the corrupting influence of money in politics. The 
Supreme Court's terrible decision in the Citizens United case opened 
the flood gates, and our election system is now awash in a sea of 
millions of dollars of unregulated money, drowning out the voices of 
individual citizens. Politicians are increasingly beholden to wealthy 
special interests. A multinational oil company that doesn't like a 
particular Member of Congress can now simply write a big check--
undisclosed check--to Americans for Apple Pie and Puppies and watch the 
negative advertising work their magic.
  There are a variety of ways to tackle this problem. In the last 
Congress, I introduced the people's rights amendment which would 
overturn Citizens United and put a stop to the corporate personhood 
nonsense that it represents. Despite what Governor Romney said on the 
campaign trail, corporations are not people and they do 


[[Page 35]]

not deserve the 
same constitutional rights as American citizens. Other Members will 
have other ideas. But at the very least, we need to have this debate, 
and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, once again we have a lot of 
political dogma that's taking place here. I was a worker in a 
corporation for a number of years, and I felt like I was a vital part 
of the success of not only that company and the things that I did, but 
I felt like in my 16 years, never missing a day of work, that I 
contributed to the success of customers and other people.
  And just like here in this body, there may be some organization or 
something that somebody doesn't like that serves this House of 
Representatives, but everybody is here. They show up at work and they 
get their work done.
  I would say that corporations, employers, are very important to this 
country. The ability that all people have, just as they're going to 
vote, to have a say in the processes that happen. There's a lot of 
attacking that gets done in this House of Representatives against 
employers, against people who go to work and provide honest services, 
and there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time demeaning others, 
and I'd like to see that stopped. But it's not going to.
  So people like myself will stand up and hopefully talk about the 
rights and responsibilities that we all have in an open society to make 
our country even stronger and better--once again, part of what the 
rules package is about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm please to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, House Republicans in this rule are seeking 
to authorize lawyer fees for a costly Federal takeover of marriage that 
would single out legally married couples for discriminatory treatment 
under Federal law. I'm so disappointed that in the midst of our 
economic crisis and debt and deficit, House Republicans want to 
continue to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money defending a law 
that the Obama administration has already said they won't spend a penny 
on. Typical tax and spend Republican policies.
  Last Congress finished with the majority of Republicans voting for 
the biggest tax increase in the history of our country by opposing the 
fiscal cliff tax relief bill. And now here we are in this Congress, 
sticking taxpayers with millions of dollars of unnecessary costs right 
on day one in the rule of the House itself. At least when Democrats 
spend money, we build roads and bridge, educate kids, provide health 
care. This Republican spending goes right into the pockets of lawyers. 
Big-spending Republicans on day one spending millions of dollars of 
taxpayer money on a Federal takeover of marriage and a lawyer stimulus. 
Wrong foot to start off on. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for this 
recognition, and I rise in favor of the motion to commit that I will be 
offering with Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Lewis before the House later today so 
that we can take a small, but very important, step to protect the right 
of every American to vote.
  I was appalled on this past election day by widespread reports across 
the country of voters forced to wait in hours-long lines simply to 
exercise one of our most fundamental rights--the right to vote. Even in 
some States with early voting, voters were forced to choose between 
waiting for hours or missing work or taking care of their children in 
order to cast their vote, or giving up their right to vote altogether.
  At some precincts in Miami, hundreds of voters stood in line for over 
4 hours, past the 7 o'clock closing time of the polls, even after 
President Obama had been declared the winner of the election. It 
offends our basic values that Americans would be denied the right to 
vote because of a last-minute illness or change in the work schedule, 
the need to pick up a child from school, or some other unavoidable 
emergency, meaning that they could not afford to wait in line for 
several hours simply to exercise that right.
  The motion to commit in the House will make two important changes. 
First, it will require in Federal elections that every State provide 
for at least 15 days' early voting; and, two, it would require the 
State to provide adequate resources, staff, and machines at polling 
places in Federal elections to ensure that voters are not forced to 
wait in line for more than an hour.
  There are numerous changes that need to be made to adequately protect 
the rights of all Americans to their right to vote, and I support the 
comprehensive approach to voter protections that has been developed by 
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Clyburn. However, today we have a chance to take a 
very simple step to make sure that voting is simple for Americans so 
they can exercise their right, a right that we broadcast to the rest of 
the world about how we choose our leaders and how we exercise our 
democracy. But that right and that democracy is now being thwarted by 
efforts at the local and State levels to make voting more difficult, to 
prohibit people from voting. We can change all of that in the motion to 
commit today in this rules package, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support that.
  I want to thank Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Lewis for their leadership. I'm 
very sorry that Mr. Lewis is unable to be here today with the untimely 
death of his wife, Lillian.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I'm very disappointed that the minority, even upon me asking just a 
few minutes ago, has chosen not to share the text of the motion to 
commit with us.
  There's a lot of discussion about wanting people to come and vote 
back home and see things, and there's a lot of debate here about, boy, 
we're hoping a lot of Republicans vote with us, but we're not providing 
the text of that as to where our Members would have an opportunity to 
understand that.
  Now, I think it's clearly of great importance to the gentleman, at 
least, from South Carolina and the gentleman from California, and as a 
member of the minority leadership, he should know that, while he 
discusses it with great passion and perhaps wants us to vote for it, we 
still have not seen a copy of that.
  The first edition of the rules package today has been online for 
nearly a week. The Republican package that we would want people to vote 
on has been online, available. At our Conference last night, we put 
out--as soon as we knew what those final revisions were, we put that 
out. In contrast, we still have not seen that.
  I would ask the gentlewoman for a copy of that motion.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The proper time, Madam Speaker, to offer a motion to 
recommit is after the previous question has been approved. When the 
motion is offered, we'll be happy to provide a copy to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I think it's pretty obvious that 
what the gentlewoman is saying is that they want to stand up and make a 
point, and they want to have a vote here, and they probably want to end 
up complaining if they didn't pass something, but they're not willing 
to share their ideas.
  I think it's amazing that we're talking about transparency, 
accountability, trying to share information where we can work closer 
together, glean ideas from each other, come together with an 
opportunity, and yet, at the appropriate time, we'll get a copy of 
that. So I'm sure that will happen about a minute before we're asked to 
vote on it.

[[Page 36]]

  That's not a way to be transparent, that's not a way that I think we 
should move forward, but it is consistent, and we'll have a consistent 
outcome.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me just take a second to say, Madam Speaker, that 
I would be happy to share anything we can at the proper time, and we 
will do that. We will follow the rules.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, 
Ms. Eleanor Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the very first vote of the 113th Congress was a vote 
on whether or not I was entitled to vote for the 600,000 taxpaying 
residents of the District of Columbia I represent. The motion to table 
my motion prevailed 224-187.
  My motion simply would have required a study of whether there was any 
reason that Delegate voting should be denied. This would not have been 
a difficult study because the Federal courts have already done our work 
for us. Two Federal courts have found that Delegate voting in the 
Committee of the Whole is constitutional.
  What is more painful and arbitrary than not having the final vote, 
what is more painful and arbitrary than not having even the vote in the 
Committee of the Whole is having a vote that you have exercised 
withdrawn, as this vote was today.
  In three Congresses we exercised our vote in the Committee of the 
Whole. No vote should be dependent on which party is in power. The vote 
in the Committee of the Whole was not a vote on final legislation. It 
was a symbol of our American citizenship.
  You cannot take away our citizenship. In this country, you should 
never be able to take away a vote once it has been granted.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I think it's well understood that the 
offices of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the Delegates 
of the House of Representatives from American Samoa, the District of 
Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and now the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, are created by statute and not by the 
Constitution.
  They represent territories and associated jurisdictions, not States. 
They are not Members of Congress, and they do not possess the same 
potentiary rights afforded to Members under the Constitution.
  They are here in this body. We represent them to each other as 
important, and we listen to them and they do things, but as it refers 
to voting on the floor, in the Committee of the Whole, that is an issue 
that I believe is well understood.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I grant the gentleman that the Delegates are here by 
statute, but the gentleman should also recognize that the vote we had 
in three Congresses was a vote that the Federal courts have said is 
constitutional.
  Once we are here by statute, once we get a constitutional vote, it 
seems to me completely arbitrary to withdraw that vote, particularly 
for the District of Columbia. As long as you take our taxes, the very 
least I think the people I represent are entitled to is the vote in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rules package 
and, in particular, to one specific provision that places the House on 
the wrong side of history and misrepresents the position of this House 
and its Members.
  Section 4 of the resolution continues to authorize the expenditure of 
taxpayers' money to defend, in court, the unconstitutional and 
discriminatory so-called ``Defense of Marriage Act.'' It goes further 
to state that this partisan effort ``speaks for and articulates the 
institutional positions of the House.''
  That is simply not true. The original decision to defend DOMA was 
taken by a party-line vote of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, and 
all further decisions have been taken by the Republican leadership 
alone, some in secret.
  So far, the Republican leadership has authorized the expenditure of 
$2 million of taxpayers' money to defend this discriminatory law. This 
defense is not supported by the entire House. 145 Members of the House 
have signed a brief arguing that DOMA should be declared 
unconstitutional and struck down. So far, every court that decided this 
question has agreed that DOMA is unconstitutional.
  We have repeatedly asked the Speaker for a briefing from the lawyers 
retained by the Republican majority. The Speaker hasn't even seen fit 
to give us the courtesy of a response. If these high-priced lawyers 
really represent the House, they should at least have the courtesy to 
meet with their alleged clients to answer questions about that 
representation.
  The time has come to call a halt to this farce. At the very least, 
the rules should reflect the reality that the House is deeply divided 
on the question and that the outside lawyers acting at Speaker 
Boehner's direction do not speak for the institution as a whole.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rules package.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise for two purposes:
  First, to oppose the rule, which institutes, again, the folly of 
spending taxpayer dollars to defend the unconstitutional, and that is 
DOMA. This was a poor waste of our resources in the last Congress. It 
will be an even worse utilization of scarce taxpayer dollars in this 
new session.

                              {time}  1550

  Second, I rise to raise another issue debated fiercely, and that is 
campaign finance reform. Clearly, our democracy is broken, with 
billions of dollars of campaign spending by special interests, much of 
it anonymous, flooding the airwaves this fall. In the last Congress, I 
introduced an amendment drafted by constitutional scholar Larry Tribe 
that would address the central flaw in reasoning underlying many of the 
Supreme Court's decisions, and that is the artificial distinction 
between contributions, which may be regulated, and supposedly 
independent expenditures, which may not.
  I don't support a constitutional amendment lightly and have found few 
that I would even entertain in my 12 years in Congress. Yes, 
unrestrained spending and the unmistakable tinge of corruption it 
creates demand action. Disclosure should come first. But the power to 
reasonably regulate both contributions and expenditures should follow. 
And that will require a constitutional amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the House to defeat the previous question and, 
in doing so, set the stage for a debate of a constitutional amendment 
to restore transparency and accountability to our campaign finance 
system.
  Madam Speaker, we have just concluded another long, hard fought 
election year. Issues were debated, often fiercely, but that is as it 
should be in a democracy. Yet in one respect our democracy is clearly 
broken, Billions of dollars of campaign spending by special interests--
much of it anonymous--flooded the airwaves this fall. And because of a 
series of decisions by the Supreme Court, stretching from Buckley v. 
Valeo in 1976 up to Citizens United in 2010, regulating and limiting 
the influence of special interests on our elections is now largely 
beyond the power of the federal government or the states. We have seen 
the result all across our television screens as billions in spending by 
secretive Super PACs that smear candidates of all parties anonymously 
and unaccountably.
  Last Congress, I introduced an amendment drafted by leading 
Constitutional Scholar Lawrence Tribe that would address the central 
flaw in reasoning underlying the Court's decisions--the artificial 
distinction between direct contributions, which may be regulated, and 
supposedly independent expenditures, which 


[[Page 37]]


may not. I do not support a 
constitutional amendment lightly and have found few I would even 
entertain in my 12 years in Congress. Yet unrestrained spending and the 
unmistakable tinge of corruption it creates demand action. Disclosure 
should come first. But the power to reasonably regulate both 
contribution and expenditure should follow; and that will require an 
Amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the House to defeat the previous question and 
in doing so, set the stage for debate of a constitutional amendment to 
restore transparency and accountability to our campaign finance system. 
That's what the American people want, and our democracy requires.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Once again, I appreciate and respect the opportunity 
that's afforded in this time for Members of Congress like the gentleman 
from California and others to come forth and to give their ideas.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. The 113th Congress convenes as we embark on a new year and, 
we hope, for new politics. Yet anyone with a New Year's resolution 
knows that self-improvement requires self-reflection. As full of 
goodwill and common purpose as we are today, we must acknowledge why so 
many Americans are fed up with our politics. Whether it's the attack 
ads, the rampant misinformation, or the bitter partisanship, so much of 
the frustration rises from the big money in our democracy.
  Why the frustration? Elderly Americans don't have super PACS, Madam 
Speaker. Children in poverty don't have corporate lobbyists. The 
American people count on us to ensure that their voices are heard. 
That's what they expect from us. Americans' outrage over our inability 
to govern in the public interest is quickly becoming an accepted 
frustration, but it shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be that way, 
Madam Speaker. In America, we don't have to accept the status quo. We 
the people make the rules.
  It's time for the 28th amendment to the Constitution. Throughout 
American history, Republicans and Democrats alike have defended our 
right to decide our destiny as a people. We must restore our democracy 
to the people. This is the way to do it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Although I do support the changes to our ethics rules 
contained in the package, I cannot support the overall package, and I 
rise in opposition to the previous question for the purposes of 
allowing the House to consider a constitutional amendment to address 
the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.
  The 2012 election was the most expensive in our Nation's history. 
Outside groups, including over 1,200 super PACs spent $970 million, and 
$123 million of anonymous cash was spent in our campaigns. All told, 
the price tag for last year's election was $6 billion.
  This is only the beginning. In the years to come, spending will 
expand at the Federal, State, and local levels--megaphones of monied 
interests drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. It's time for 
us to do something about it. And I don't take amending our 
Constitution, our founding document, lightly. And here on this day, 
when we're celebrating and commemorating this year's 150th anniversary 
of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, it's time for all 
Americans to be free in our elections, to free our elections from 
monied interests, and to amend the Constitution so that Congress can 
protect the integrity of our elections.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, in closing, it's become glaringly 
obvious that our democratic process is broken. Due in large part to the 
overwhelming influence of money in our elections, together with 
widespread discriminatory laws that seek to suppress the vote, our 
electoral process is on the brink of dysfunction. My Democratic 
colleagues and I are committed to fixing our election system and have a 
chance today to return democracy to the hands of voters.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the resolution to make sure the House votes on a 
constitutional amendment to overturn Court decisions, including 
Citizens United, that prohibit Congress and the States from limiting 
the corrupting influence of money in politics, unlimited political 
spending in elections, and the proliferation of super PACs.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. After our vote on the previous question, we will offer 
a motion to commit and ask this Chamber to consider the SIMPLE Voting 
Act. Passing this would ensure that no American would have to wait more 
than an hour to vote. Nothing is more important than expediting the 
vote and making sure of that right and that it is attended to.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to commit and a 
``no'' vote on the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, today, we've had a really good time, 
where we've had a number of Members who have come down to the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  As I suggested in the beginning, this was done yesterday in the 
Republican Conference. I'm sure it was done within the Democrat Caucus. 
We brought those ideas to the floor of the House of Representatives. 
We've been able to ascertain more about not only what we stand for but 
perhaps what people are asking for.
  I also want to thank our staff. Not just the Rules staff that is here 
on the majority side, but also on the minority side. Obviously, every 
one of these people has spent a lot of time trying to prepare us as we 
go into this new Congress, and I really do appreciate the hard work by 
our staffs, the Speaker's staff, the leader's staff; and I'm very 
pleased that we've been able to begin this process today.
  The American people are watching us. They are interested in what we 
do. They're interested in how open and prepared we are, how we present 
ourselves, our ideas, and that we talk about the things they talk about 
around the table, that they talk about at work, and they talk about in 
educational institutions and, likewise, that they talk about in the 
field of play that is fair, that is good, and makes this country even 
stronger.
  So I'm delighted that we've done that today. I appreciate the 
gentlewoman from Rochester for her vigorous analysis today of what we 
need to do looking forward. I'll continue to listen to that. I know the 
gentlewoman, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, will be on the Rules Committee, and I 
look forward to that service that she will be making. And with great 
enthusiasm we will move forward in this new Congress.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am inserting the following memorandum 
of understanding:

 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
                 and the Committee on Natural Resources

                                                  January 3, 2013.
       House Resolution 5 of the 113th Congress amended clause 
     1(m)(9) of rule X to change the jurisdictional statement of 
     the Committee on Natural Resources from ``Insular possessions 
     of the United States generally (except those affecting the 
     revenue and appropriations)'' to ``Insular areas of the 
     United States generally (except those affecting the revenue 
     and appropriations)''. The Committees on Foreign Affairs and 
     Natural Resources understand that this amendment was intended 
     to ensure that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources includes areas also under the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, namely the Freely Associated 
     States (a group currently comprised of the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the 
     Republic of Palau). These 
     
[[Page 38]]     
     
     Freely Associated States are 
     sovereign nations, but each also maintains a special 
     relationship with the United States pursuant to its 
     respective Compact of Free Association, and is considered an 
     insular area by certain Federal agencies. The committees 
     understand that the Committee on Foreign Affairs will 
     continue to exercise jurisdiction over insular areas that are 
     sovereign nations and that the jurisdiction of other 
     committees is not affected.
                                                   Edward R. Royce
                           Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs.
                                                     Doc Hastings,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

  Mr. SABLAN. Madam Speaker, we have just sworn to uphold the 
Constitution. We have taken an oath to pursue the ideal of a more 
perfect Union.
  We take that oath proudly, believing that the United States of 
America is the world's great democracy.
  Yet our pride should never blind us to the imperfections that remain.
  Because, as this 113th U.S. House of Representatives begins its 
business, some 5 million Americans are not really represented here.
  Yes, we have Delegates and a Resident Commissioner.
  We have offices and staff. We have membership--and votes--in House 
committees.
  But we do not have a vote when legislation comes before this body.
  The 5 million Americans we represent live under laws not fully of 
their making.
  That is not the ideal of representational democracy our founders 
envisioned in the Constitution.
  My colleagues and I ask today to have our vote in the Committee of 
the Whole restored.
  Yet, ultimately, we must all set our eyes beyond that limited goal 
and decide that every United States citizen--no matter where in America 
they may live--must be fully represented here in the people's House.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, for the second straight Congress, I 
oppose the rules package, because it sends a message of exclusion to 
residents of the territories and the District of Columbia.
  Under a rule in place for the last three Democratic-controlled 
Congresses, the delegates were permitted to vote on amendments when the 
House met in the Committee of the Whole. The rule, which provided for a 
revote if our votes were decisive, was upheld by the federal courts and 
did not impede the work of the House.
  The rule promoted responsible government by requiring the delegates 
to take public stands on issues. It also sent a message of inclusion to 
our constituents. Yet, once again, in a move that is as unnecessary as 
it is unjust, the new rules will deprive us of this privilege.
  As Resident Commissioner, I represent 3.7 million U.S. citizens, more 
than any House member and 44 senators. My fellow delegates represent 
about one million people. Our constituents are part of the American 
family. They fight--and many have died--in defense of our nation. The 
rules package demeans their sacrifice.
  In November, a referendum in Puerto Rico showed a clear majority 
wants to end the Island's undemocratic status, and that more voters 
support statehood than any other status option. Today's rules 
demonstrate why the status quo must--and will--end. I look forward to 
the day when Puerto Rico will have equal representation in the 
government that makes its national laws, rather than having to plead 
for the reinstatement of a limited and largely symbolic vote.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules 
Package which once again denies the opportunity for Delegates to 
Congress and the Resident Commissioner to vote on amendments in the 
Committee of the Whole. We were privileged to have this right first in 
the 103rd Congress and then again in the 110th and 111th.
  Madam Speaker, the over 4 million citizens in the U.S. territories 
are among the most patriotic Americans you will find anywhere in our 
country. They have served and died for their country in every war and 
conflict since the First World War including the recent wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Much like their fellow citizens on the mainland 
they are a diverse group of individuals. Some were born in the 
territories under the American flag, some have migrated there and 
embraced our culture and our values before naturalization, and 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.
  We had hoped and expected that our colleagues in the House would 
recognize the contributions of their fellow American insular residents 
and afford their representatives the opportunity to participate more 
fully in the decisions of the ``people's House'', unfortunately however 
the rules package being voted on has once again proven to us that we 
still have a long way to go to ensure equality and justice for all. It 
is ironic and sad, that the United States is the leading voice calling 
for people around the world to have more, not less say in the 
governance of their countries, while the rules of the House of 
Representatives disenfranchise the representatives of American citizens 
living in U.S. Insular Areas and the District of Columbia.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 5 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. At any time before January 31, 2013, it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House a joint resolution proposing 
     an amendment to the United States Constitution that would 
     overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United and 
     other court cases that prohibit Congress and the states from 
     limiting the corrupting influence of money in politics, 
     unlimited political spending in elections, and the 
     proliferation of Super PACs by secret donors that erode 
     democracy and result in voter apathy, whenever called up by 
     the Minority Leader or her designee. All points of order 
     against the joint resolution and its consideration are 
     waived. The joint resolution shall be debatable for three 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the joint resolution specified in section 6 
     of this resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a resolution, is not merely a procedural vote. A 
     vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against 
     the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the 
     opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative 
     plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question as ``a motion to direct or control the 
     consideration of the subject before the House being made by 
     the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to 
     give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the 
     House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, 
     to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the 
     demand for the previous question passes the control of the 
     resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an 
     amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party 
     offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous 
     question and a member of the opposition rose to a 
     parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
     
[[Page 39]]


       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a resolution 
     does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the 
     only available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 227, 
nays 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Blackburn
     Cartwright
     Clarke
     Doggett
     Fitzpatrick
     Larson (CT)
     McIntyre
     Mulvaney
     Peters (CA)
     Veasey

                              {time}  1621

  Messrs. HOLT, JONES, WAXMAN, and Ms. TITUS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 4, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on January 3, 2013--I was 
not present for rollcall vote 4. If I had been present for this vote, I 
would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 4.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
commit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. George Miller of California 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 the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       SEC. 6. TO SHORTEN VOTING LINES AND PROTECT EARLY VOTING 
     OPPORTUNITIES.
       Not later than January 31, 2013, the Speaker shall, 
     pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House 
     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the 
     text specified in section 8 of this resolution, to amend the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 to promote early voting in 
     elections for Federal office and to prevent unreasonable 
     waiting times for voters at polling places used in such 
     elections, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on House Administration. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 8 of this 
     resolution.
       Sec. 8. The text referred to in section 6 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Streamlined and Improved 
     Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 
     2013''.


[[Page 40]]


     SEC. 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EARLY VOTING AND FOR 
                   REDUCING WAITING TIMES FOR VOTERS IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       (a) Requirements for States.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle A of title III of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as sections 306 
     and 307; and
       (B) by inserting after section 303 the following new 
     sections:

     ``SEC. 304. EARLY VOTING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State shall allow individuals to 
     vote in an election for Federal office on each day occurring 
     during the 15-day period which ends on the second day 
     immediately preceding the date of the election, in the same 
     manner as voting is allowed on such date.
       ``(b) Minimum Early Voting Requirements.--Each polling 
     place which allows voting prior to the date of a Federal 
     election pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) allow such voting for not less than 10 hours on each 
     day; and
       ``(2) have uniform hours each day for which such voting 
     occurs.
       ``(c) Location of Polling Places Near Public 
     Transportation.--To the greatest extent practicable, a State 
     shall ensure that each polling place which allows voting 
     prior to the date of a Federal election pursuant to 
     subsection (a) is located within reasonable walking distance 
     of a stop on a public transportation route.
       ``(d) Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall issue standards for 
     the administration of voting prior to the date scheduled for 
     a Federal election. Such standards shall include the 
     nondiscriminatory geographic placement of polling places at 
     which such voting occurs.
       ``(2) Deviation.--The standards described in paragraph (1) 
     shall permit States, upon providing adequate public notice, 
     to deviate from any requirement in the case of unforeseen 
     circumstances such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack, 
     or a change in voter turnout.
       ``(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with 
     respect to elections held on or after January 1, 2014.

     ``SEC. 305. PREVENTING UNREASONABLE WAITING TIMES FOR VOTERS.

       ``(a) Preventing Unreasonable Waiting Times.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall provide a sufficient 
     number of voting systems, poll workers, and other election 
     resources (including physical resources) at a polling place 
     used in any election for Federal office, including a polling 
     place at which individuals may cast ballots prior to the date 
     of the election, to ensure--
       ``(A) a fair and equitable waiting time for all voters in 
     the State; and
       ``(B) that no individual will be required to wait longer 
     than one hour to cast a ballot at the polling place.
       ``(2) Criteria.--In determining the number of voting 
     systems, poll workers, and other election resources provided 
     at a polling place for purposes of paragraph (1), the State 
     shall take into account the following factors:
       ``(A) The voting age population.
       ``(B) Voter turnout in past elections.
       ``(C) The number of voters registered.
       ``(D) The number of voters who have registered since the 
     most recent Federal election.
       ``(E) Census data for the population served by the polling 
     place, such as the proportion of the voting-age population 
     who are under 25 years of age or who are naturalized 
     citizens.
       ``(F) The needs and numbers of voters with disabilities and 
     voters with limited English proficiency.
       ``(G) The type of voting systems used.
       ``(H) The length and complexity of initiatives, referenda, 
     and other questions on the ballot.
       ``(I) Such other factors, including relevant demographic 
     factors relating to the population served by the polling 
     place, as the State considers appropriate.
       ``(3) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Commission shall 
     establish and publish guidelines to assist States in meeting 
     the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to authorize a State to meet the requirements of 
     this subsection by closing any polling place, prohibiting an 
     individual from entering a line at a polling place, or 
     refusing to permit an individual who has arrived at a polling 
     place prior to closing time from voting at the polling place.
       ``(b) Development and Implementation of Contingency 
     Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall develop, and implement 
     to the greatest extent practicable, a contingency plan under 
     which the State shall provide additional poll workers, 
     machines, ballots, and other equipment and supplies (as the 
     case may be) on the date of the election to any polling place 
     used in an election for Federal office, including a polling 
     place at which individuals may cast ballots prior to the date 
     of the election, at which waiting times exceed one hour.
       ``(2) Approval of plan by commission.--The State shall 
     ensure that the contingency plan developed under paragraph 
     (1) is approved by the Commission prior to the date of the 
     election involved, in accordance with such procedures as the 
     Commission may establish.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with 
     respect to elections held on or after January 1, 2014.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended--
       (A) by redesignating the items relating to sections 304 and 
     305 as relating to sections 306 and 307; and
       (B) by inserting after the item relating to section 303 the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 304. Early voting.
``Sec. 305. Preventing unreasonable waiting times for voters.''.

       (b) Report by Election Assistance Commission.--Not later 
     than June 30 of each odd-numbered year, the Election 
     Assistance Commission shall submit to Congress a report 
     assessing the impact of sections 304 and 305 of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (as added by subsection (a)) on the 
     administration of elections for Federal office during the 
     preceding 2-year period, and shall include in the report such 
     recommendations as the Commission considers appropriate.
       (c) No Effect on Authority of State to Provide for Longer 
     Periods of Early Voting or Greater Amount of Resources at 
     Polling Places.--Nothing in this section or in any amendment 
     made by this section may be construed to prohibit a State, 
     with respect to any election for Federal office--
       (1) from providing (in an equitable and nondiscriminatory 
     manner) a longer period for early voting than the minimum 
     period required under section 304 of the Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002 (as added by subsection (a)); or
       (2) from providing (in an equitable and nondiscriminatory 
     manner) a greater number of systems, poll workers, and other 
     election resources at any polling place than the minimum 
     number required under section 305 of such Act (as added by 
     subsection (a)).

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS; 
                   ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY 
                   STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act 
     of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(d) Statewide Counting of Provisional Ballots.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(4), 
     notwithstanding the precinct or polling place at which a 
     provisional ballot is cast within the State, the appropriate 
     election official shall count each vote on such ballot for 
     each election in which the individual who cast such ballot is 
     eligible to vote.
       ``(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with 
     respect to elections held on or after January 1, 2014.
       ``(e) Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Consistent with the requirements of this 
     section, each State shall establish uniform and 
     nondiscriminatory standards for the issuance, handling, and 
     counting of provisional ballots.
       ``(2) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with 
     respect to elections held on or after January 1, 2014.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 302(f) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 15482(f)), as redesignated by subsection (a), is 
     amended by striking ``Each State'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsections (d)(2) and (e)(2), each State''.

     SEC. 4. AVAILABILITY OF CIVIL PENALTIES AND PRIVATE RIGHTS OF 
                   ACTION TO ENFORCE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 
                   2002.

       (a) Availability of Civil Penalties and Private Rights of 
     Action.--Section 401 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 15511) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 401. ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Action by Attorney General.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may bring a civil 
     action against any State or jurisdiction in an appropriate 
     United States District Court for such declaratory and 
     injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a 
     permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be 
     necessary to carry out the requirements of subtitle A of 
     title III.
       ``(2) Assessment of civil money penalty.--In a civil action 
     brought under paragraph (1), if the court finds that the 
     State or jurisdiction violated any provision of subtitle A of 
     title III, it may, to vindicate the public interest, assess a 
     civil penalty against the State or jurisdiction--
       ``(A) in an amount not to exceed $110,000 for each such 
     violation, in the case of a first violation; or
       ``(B) in an amount not to exceed $220,000 for each such 
     violation, for any subsequent violation.
       ``(3) Intervention.--Upon timely application, a person 
     aggrieved by a violation of subtitle A of title III with 
     respect to which a civil action is commenced under paragraph 
     (1) may intervene in such action, and may obtain such 
     appropriate relief as the person 
     
     
[[Page 41]]     
     
     could obtain in a civil 
     action under subsection (b) with respect to that violation, 
     along with costs and a reasonable attorney fee.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than December 31 of 
     each year, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress an 
     annual report on any civil action brought under paragraph (1) 
     during the preceding year.
       ``(b) Private Right of Action.--
       ``(1) Availability.--A person who is aggrieved by a State's 
     or jurisdiction's violation of subtitle A of title III may 
     bring a civil action in an appropriate United States District 
     Court for such declaratory or injunctive relief as may be 
     necessary to carry out the requirements of such subtitle.
       ``(2) Costs and attorney fees.--The court may award to a 
     person aggrieved by a violation of subtitle A of title III 
     who prevails in an action brought under paragraph (1) the 
     costs of the action, including a reasonable attorney fee.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by amending the item relating to section 401 to 
     read as follows:

``Sec. 401. Enforcement.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations alleged to have 
     occurred on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (during the reading). Madam Speaker, 
I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 229, not voting 6, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--229

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     
 [[Page 42]]    
     
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Eshoo
     McIntyre
     Mulvaney
     Pittenger
     Speier
     Takano

                              {time}  1639

  Messrs. McHENRY and JOYCE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 5, on the Motion to 
commit, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is 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 228, 
nays 196, not voting 5, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--196

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     McIntyre
     Mulvaney
     Ribble
     Sinema
     Yoho

                              {time}  1656

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the word ``General'' in 
section 3(j)(1) is changed to ``Government.'' There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 6 on H. Res. 5, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on House Resolution 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________