Reserved for Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to speak on a subject that I have spoken on many, many times over the course of my career in this Congress. This will be the last time I will be able to address this body in a Special Order on this particular issue.

I am reminded of nearly a decade ago when I arrived in the House of Representatives in 1999 and there was really no organized effort to facilitate a discussion on the critical issue of immigration and immigration reform. The task I felt at that time was to bring it to the Nation's attention any way I could, being one Member of the House and as a freshman, there are relatively few ways to accomplish that goal. One way was to address the House through the Special Order process, and I did that night after night after night.

I would sometimes walk away from here thinking it may have been a futile gesture. I would leave here and it would be quite late walking across to my office in Longworth, and I would look back at the Capitol dome and I would see the light shining on it and I would think about the importance of what I was trying to accomplish here. And at my office, there were always lights on the phones, I could see people calling and hear the fax machine going, and I knew there were people out there who were listening to this discussion and who were responding to it and that always gave me the energy to continue the discussion, to come back the next night and do whatever I could to get people to focus on what I considered to be and what I still consider to be one of the most serious problems facing the Nation. Certainly it is one of the most serious domestic problems facing the Nation.

Now we are talking about a financial crisis and it has sucked up all of the energy in the room and all of the energy on Capitol Hill. All of the oxygen has been sucked up by this discussion, and I understand why. It is a crucial issue, crucial to our constituents and enormously important throughout the world, as a matter of fact.

It is important I think also to recognize there is an aspect of this discussion which does go back to the original issue of illegal immigration into the country, and it is no small part of the problem that we now face.

Several months ago in my own county, Jefferson County, Colorado, the district attorney indicted several realtors and mortgage brokers for fraudulently developing documents for people who were here illegally so they could buy homes. By the way, it is not necessarily illegal in the United States, as peculiar as this may sound, it is not illegal for someone who is here illegally to purchase a home, but it is certainly illegal to doctor the documents, to falsify the Social Security and tax records. Now this is a tiny story. How does it relate to this issue.

One county in Colorado, three or four realtors, three or four mortgage brokers, accounted for 250 homes being sold in just that county in Colorado. Across the Nation, this phenomenon accounts for hundreds of thousands of homes that have been sold to people who are here illegally. There have been major industries, certainly major banks in this country that were devoted to trying to identify illegal aliens as a niche market to both make them loans, to identify them as potential bank customers so they can get the mortgage.

We saw hundreds of millions, in fact hundreds of billions of dollars flow into these mortgages. Now what has happened? The economy has gone sour. Immigration reform efforts have gotten to the point where we actually are now conducting raids at some of the major factories and meat packing plants across the country. And also States have taken on this responsibility themselves and have passed laws. Because the Federal Government has been so lax, we have States taking up the burden and passing laws to do something about illegal immigration in their State, and local communities doing the same thing.

The result is lots of people are leaving, going home. To the extent so much so that in Mexico, the president of Mexico issued an urgent plea for us to do something to stop the flow of illegal aliens back to Mexico because they couldn't handle it. They wanted us to secure our border, maybe to build a fence. There were so many returning that they could not handle the influx.

What does that mean for us and the issue of this mortgage problem that we are having? It means that all of those people simply walked away from those mortgages, those hundreds of thousands of homes that were on the market. They walked away because of course they had nothing at stake. They were given 100 percent loans, sometimes even more than that. Their names were oftentimes falsified. They had nothing at stake, were illegally in the country, so it was easy to walk away. They walked away from the homes and we are stuck with the mortgages, and they are now part of this huge bailout we are trying to focus on and deal with as the Congress of the United States.

We haven't talked about that as an issue, but I suggest to you it is an enormous issue. No one wants to talk about it, just like no one wanted to talk about this issue for the last 10 years.

Only recently have we seen a bit of a change. In 1999, I founded the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and six people agreed to join initially. The task I felt again was something that I had to undertake. It was one of those things that I decided to add to the repertoire, if you will, of talking about it here at night, forming an immigration reform caucus and trying to get people to pay attention.

Well, there have been--I don't know--hundreds of speeches, literally thousands of radio spots that I have done and interviews that I have done on this particular issue, thousands of speeches that I have given around the country.

Things have begun to change, and I am extremely happy about that. We certainly have more members of the caucus now headed by Brian Bilbray, over 100 members, both Republicans and Democrats, and a number of things have happened around the country that are worthy of note.

The Minuteman Project showed the Nation how a few hundred concerned citizens could shut down border traffic with lawn chairs and cell phones, just doing what they could do in their spare time as American citizens looking for a lawful way to address the issue of illegal immigration. Thousands of people did it. It was a wonderful thing to observe even though, by our own President, they were called vigilantes, and of course, they were the people who were actually enforcing the law as opposed to the President, who was ignoring it.

We've had governors of southern border States, Democrats and Republicans alike, declare states of emergency in their individual States because of the massive number of illegal immigrants who have come across the borders. We've had small towns, communities all over this country do what Mayor Barletta did in the small town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania when he passed ordinances against hiring or renting to illegal aliens. He earned national attention and a crucial battle with the ACLU for that.

Of course, I mentioned earlier there are other States, States like Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, that have taken up this issue themselves because, again, they looked for help from the Federal Government and could not find it, but they have passed wonderful bills to deal with this, saying that employers in their respective States have to use the E-Verify system to make sure that the people they have hired are here legally.

Legislatively, we've seen other things that seemed impossible a while back. In October of 2004, Speaker Hastert's H.R. 10, which came out of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, was passed in the House, and it substantially targeted immigration-related weaknesses related to terrorist travel.

The following month, I used a rarely employed conference rule to force a Republican Conference meeting and postpone a vote on the Intelligence reform bills because immigration-related provisions had been stripped from the conference report. The shutdown resulted in the promise that became the Real ID Act, which became the law the following year. It mandates standards for the issuance of driver's licenses that would preclude the eligibility of illegal aliens.

In 2006, the Secure Fence Act became law, mandating the construction of approximately 800 miles of fencing and infrastructure on the U.S.- Mexico border. Three hundred miles of that fence have been completed.

The most important tool in forcing Congress to deal with immigration is the amendment process that we have here. In 2003, I began offering amendments to spending bills, seeking to enforce Federal laws that prohibit sanctuary cities. This was a new strategy, and I began to build a record for all of my colleagues. No longer could Members just speak in platitudes about immigration. They had to put their money where their mouths were and cast a vote up or down on these real issues.

I brought amendments on the sanctuary policy's temporary protected status by removing reimbursements for illegal alien health care, by repealing food stamps for immigrants, by suspending the Visa Waiver Program, by revoking visas for countries that refuse reparations.

As the votes began to pile up, the voting habits of my colleagues began to change. The first sanctuary amendment I offered in 2003 got 102 votes. Now we regularly pass these amendments. The real catalyst was President Bush's speech in 2004, which caused widespread outrage with the amnesty proposal. Our constituents showing the vast disconnect between themselves and the beltway elite started making their views known with the benefits of high-paid lobbyists.

Like most Americans, I was delighted to watch the immigration proposal go down to defeat in the U.S. Senate. First and foremost, it demonstrated how widely unpopular the notion of granting amnesty to illegal aliens is with the American people. More importantly, however, Congress' rejection of the bill may have signified the high watermark for advocates of ever increasing levels of immigration, both legal and illegal, into the United States.

Supporters of the President's immigration plan were forced to even change the rhetoric of the debate as they tried desperately to invent a nonoffensive euphemism for amnesty. We heard it referred to as ``earned legalization,'' as ``comprehensive reform'' and

as ``regularization.'' Despite their efforts, however, Americans made it quite clear that they opposed amnesty.

It's not surprising, but the amnesty proposal contained within the bill isn't the only fuel that fueled the grassroots brush fire that killed that bill. Dramatic increases in legal immigration levels proved to be nearly as unpopular as amnesty, and it also contributed to the demise of the legislation.

Public concerns about dramatically increased levels of legal immigration helped to derail a similar Senate proposal in 2006 after Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation analyzed how many foreigners the bill would allow into the United States over the next 20 years, some 60 million people. Sheer numbers began to transcend anecdotal stories about friendly immigrant neighbors on the minds of the American public.

Indeed, the protracted debate over immigration has voters increasingly focused on what is a very reasonable question: What kind of immigration policy serves our national interest? Not surprisingly, few have stepped forward to defend the status quo or the massive increases proposed by the Senate leadership or the President. Mr. Rector penned a report applicable to that year's Senate concoction. Despite all the talk about how critical low-skilled immigrants are to economic growth, his study confirmed what many already knew, that low- skilled legal and illegal immigrants are a net cost to taxpayers, not a net gain, just as their native-born counterparts are.

The Senate bill would have cost our children and grandchildren $2.5 trillion due to amnesty provisions and increased levels of legal immigration authorized by the legislation. Again, it was Mr. Rector's analysis that deeply shook the public's confidence in the Senate's credibility in handling the issue. Once more, the question about legal immigration became relevant in light of that information.

Now, I'm not saying that America is ready to install a ``no vacancy'' sign on the Statue of Liberty. At the same time, we cannot discount the increasingly disconcerting public feeling that honoring our tradition of immigration while decreasing the yearly total of immigrants to more sustainable levels are not mutually exclusive goals. A significant decrease similar to that one in the Commission on Immigration Reform advocated in the mid-1990s would be a good first step toward creating a more orderly and sustainable immigration policy in America, such as, by the way, eliminating chain migration and the visa lottery. I continue to believe that a return to traditional immigration levels as well as stepped up enforcement can be won in a matter of months and years, not decades.

For one reason I believe that this is what will happen in this seminal legislative moment in my House tenure is that Mr. Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began the process in late 2005 of crafting a comprehensive immigration reform bill--the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. It passed 239 to 182. Not only did the enforcement bill first receive broad bipartisan support on the final passage but so did stand-alone amendments to build border fencing and to reduce legal immigration by eliminating the Visa Diversity program.

Our immigration caucus played a vital role in making sure that not so much as a sense of Congress was allowed to suggest that we needed guest workers.

There is still, of course, much to do. I am proud of the accomplishments of the caucus. I am proud of the accomplishments that my colleagues and I, who have fought for immigration reform, have made to this point in time.

Certainly, it is the reason, by the way, that I ran for the Presidency of the United States, for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. With little idea, in fact no idea, that I would actually become the President of the United States in that process, I was nonetheless inspired to do what I did and run for the nomination for President in order to force the people who were on the stage with me during that period of time to address this issue. There was a reluctance in doing so. I know I started the process out in February of last year and ended it in December, and between that time that I started in February to December, there was a complete change in the way each person who was running for that nomination addressed the issue of immigration. Finally, every single person, including the present nominee of the party, agreed that we had to secure the borders first. We must do that. There was no longer ambiguity in their statements about this. Our borders have to be secure.

Now, I hope of course that the rhetoric turns into action. I commend to my colleagues here who will be returning next year that their task will be ahead of them to make sure that that is what is done.

So we have done a great many things. There are still a lot of concerns that most of us have about where we go from here. It is imperative that we stay strong in our opposition to amnesty of any kind. It is imperative that we push for a border fence and for one that is, in fact, a real deterrent to the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

It is imperative that we never, ever do to anybody else what we've done to Agents Ramos and Compean, who are still imprisoned for essentially doing what they were hired to do in protecting our borders.

There are threats to our sovereignty like the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the North American Union. They continue to exist in some form or other. Legal immigration is still at an historical high. The effects of our language and of our culture threaten not only what kind of a nation we will be but whether we will be a nation at all.

This leads me to the next part of this discussion and, perhaps, even to the more serious part that we must begin to work with as we have now accomplished a number of goals that we have set and that I have set, essentially, for myself here, which is one of the reasons why I chose not to run again. I mean, when I look back at where I started in this process and where we are now 10 years later, I feel like I have accomplished many of the goals I set for myself in this body. There are many people here who I can turn to now and hand the baton to and know that they will take it up--it's wonderful--to Judge Poe and to Steve King. I could go on and on with the number of people who are here today who are committed to doing something about true immigration reform. Hence, I feel very comfortable in taking my leave of this place at this time, but I do so with this caveat:

We must never forget the real threat that exists as a result of massive immigration, both legal and illegal, into this country when it merges with what I have often called the cult of multiculturalism. It permeates our society, this cult does. It is an emphasis on all of the things that pull us apart as a society--an emphasis on creating linguistic and cultural enclaves, on turning us into a cultural and linguistic Tower of Babel. It is a focus on all of the negative aspects of Western civilization and the United States' exemplification of Western civilization's greatest attributes.

The colleges and institutions of higher education and certainly even our high schools and our K-12 educational system is fraught with this idea of this cult of multiculturalism and the attitude about America and about the west. It permeates all of the textual materials of most of the professors who are at these institutions, who always confront the issue of America and the west and western society in the most negative terms, who are always tearing us down--who we are, what we've built, what we're all about. This is the cult of multiculturalism. When millions of people come into this country, either legally or illegally, who are also interested in ideas and who are interested in things other than becoming an American, we become susceptible to a disease that really will destroy us. It is a disease that works its way from within the body politic in this country, and it is susceptible to an attack from without.

We see what's happening today. We have been calling it a war on terror. It is a misnomer. It is incorrect to label it that way. It is not a war on terror that we face and that we are trying to advance. It is a war against radical Islam. Terror is a tactic of radical Islamists. It is not the entity with which we are at war.

Lao Tzu, of course, is a famous Chinese philosopher, and he has stated and

has been quoted over the years because of his insight into both the nature of war and into the nature of human beings. He said at one point that there are two things that are desperately needed in order to be successful in any clash. One is the knowledge of who your enemy really is. Who are they? What makes them tick? Why do they do the things they are doing? The other is, he says, a knowledge of who you are. We have to understand who it is we are fighting. Again, it is not simply terrorists.

It is radical Islam. Islam's hostility towards the West has nothing to do with American troops in Muslim lands or America's support for Israel or the plight of the Palestinians. The first thing we must understand is that Muslims believe the Koran is the word of god as dictated to Mohammed. It cannot be interpreted by man. This is troubling because the book's passages call for the destruction of opposing religions, the extermination of non-Muslims, and the imposition of a worldwide caliphate.

Among other things, the Koran tells Muslims: those who disbelieve we shall roast them in fire, they may feel the punishment. When you meet the unbelievers, smite them, and when you have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly on them. Take the infidels captive and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. They that reject faith, take not friends from their ranks and make them flee in the way of Allah . . . seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take no friends from their ranks. Fight them until there is no dissension, and religion is entirely Allah's. Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Prepare for disbelievers chains, yokes, and a blazing fire. Cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve and strike off their heads and fingertips.

This is Islam's instruction book, and the instructions are quite clear.

So whether we want to admit it or not, the Western world is locked in a struggle against this form of Islam--a religion whose practitioners and adherents are inextricably linked to terrorism. And if we are to successfully defend ourselves against the desire of our enemies to impose a caliphate on the world, we must first be willing to openly identify them, say who they are.

Politically correct politicians in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere are quick to dispute notions that Islam is inherently violent, and they flatly reject that Islam is engaged in a global struggle to dominate the world. But a quick look around the globe tells a different story.

While the most obvious clashes between Islam and the West are taking place in the streets of Israel, in the mountains of Afghanistan, and in the deserts of Iraq, Islam's foot soldiers are waging their war against non-Muslims in all corners of the world.

In Sudan, the conflict between the north and the south was basically a conflict between Arab Muslims and southern black Christians.

A visiting teacher from Denmark was jailed for insulting Islam after she let her class name a teddy bear ``Mohammad.''

In Thailand, a nation of more than 60 million that is more than 95 percent Buddhist--a nation that is known worldwide for its friendly people and enduring spirit of hospitality--some 3,000 Thais have been killed in brutal uprisings by Muslims who are determined to replace Thailand's democratic kingdom with an Islamic State.

Last week, Islamic militants in the southern Thai town of Pattani shot a state official some 30 times with a machine gun as he arrived to visit a school. After the attack, the gunman dragged his body out of the truck and chopped off his head in front of the horrified students and teachers.

In the Philippines--a former U.S. territory known more for its food and cathedrals than for Islamic extremism--the government has also been struggling with Islamic militants seeking to overthrow the democratic system and ``return'' the country to its ``pre-Christian 'Moor' national identity.''

This insurgency has gone on for decades and claimed more than 120,000 lives. Over the last few years, Filipino soldiers, priests, other Christians, and non-Muslims have been routinely captured and beheaded.

In Indonesia--which is struggling to maintain a democratic system amid calls for the imposition of Sharia law--dozens of demonstrators recently attacked the local ``Playboy'' magazine office, injuring police officers and damaging property. Keep in mind that the Indonesian version of the magazine does not even contain nudity, and is primarily dedicated to Western pop culture and fashion.

After the incident, it was not the militants, but Erwin Arnada--the magazine's editor--who was arrested and forced to face charges of violating the country's indecency laws and faces a long prison sentence.

For more than 40 years, Malaysia--a former British colony--has successfully balanced its democratic secular form of government with the plurality of its citizens' Muslim roots. Slowly, however, these roots are ripping up the fabric of freedom in this country.

In 2005, the country's Federal court system dismissed appeals by four Muslims who were sentenced to 3 years in jail for wrongfully attempting to convert from Islam. Despite the Malaysian constitution's guarantee to all people the right to profess and practice one's own religion, the court disregarded the Federal constitution and ceded jurisdiction of the case to a Sharia court.

In 2007, over the objections of his Hindu wife and family, Emm Moorthy--part of the first Malaysian team to climb Mount Everest and an army commando--was declared a Muslim after his death and buried as one.

In another case, local authorities refused to recognize the conversion of a Muslim woman to become a Catholic. In addition, the local registrar refused her application for marriage to a Catholic man because Islam prohibits Muslims from marrying non-Muslims. Courageously, she filed suit, optimistic that the Malaysian constitution's provisions for equal protection and freedom would win the day. Unfortunately, amid Islamist protestors' shouts of ``Allah-o- Akbar'' inside the courtroom, a judge dismissed her application finding that ``ethnic Malays'' are constitutionally defined as ``Muslims,'' making conversion from Islam and her marriage to a Catholic man illegal.

The judge went on to say that he could not allow her to change her religion because granting her such an exemption would encourage future converts.

That's part of the world that we seldom hear about but where actions like this are everyday occurrences. These developments in Asia and Africa are problematic, but the wave of Islam is also washing over Europe's shores. While Islamists work to eliminate legal protections for free speech and free association in Asia and Africa in order to replace pluralism with Islam, they are using these freedoms and the legal system in Europe in order to determine democratic institutions and replace them with Sharia Law, undermining democratic institutions.

Sharia Law calls for brutal punishment, such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or having children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves, lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol and a failure of women to wear a veil or head-scarf.

Muslims in the UK recently used a loophole in the Federal arbitration law to make Islamic Sharia Law and the decisions of the Sharia court legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom.

A recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion in the United Kingdom found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide. Another 32 percent of the British Muslim youth living believe that killing for the religion is acceptable, while 20 percent are unsure.

Just days after the London subway attack, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest that London residents ``paid the price'' for British support in the Iraqi campaign.

Another academic, George Hajjar, went even further proclaiming, ``I hope every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war and will shift the war not only to America but to . . . wherever America may be.'' He added, ``There are no innocent people,'' and referred to the victims of the attack as ``collateral casualties.''

In the Netherlands, the number of Muslims has grown from just 54 in 1909 to almost 1 million in 2004. These changes have not come without costs.

2002, Pim Fortoon, a politician who expressed concern about the rapid influx of Muslim immigration, was shot six times in the head as he walked to his car. During his court appearance, the killer told the judge in killing Fortoon he ``acted on behalf of the country's Muslims.''

2004. Theo Van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker who had the temerity to make a movie critical of Islam's treatment of women, was shot and killed by a 26-year old Dutch born Muslim in broad daylight in a busy Amsterdam street. After shooting Van Gogh, the jihadist pinned a note to his body threatening the co-author of the script. Then he began the task of decapitating Mr. Van Gogh's lifeless body.

Another Dutch politician who has raised concerns about the danger of Islam's rise in Holland, Geert Wilders, has received numerous death threats and is forced to travel with 24-hour day security. According to Mr. Wilders, the Dutch government has completely capitulated to Islamists in the wake of these politically motivated murders.

He recently told the Hudson Institute, ``We have gone from calls by one cabinet members to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays to statements by another cabinet member that Islam is part of Dutch culture,'' to an affirmation by the Christian Democrat Attorney General that he is willing to accept Sharia Law in the Netherlands. And there is another majority.

We now have cabinet members who pass with passports from Morocco and Turkey. More alarming still, one half of Dutch Muslims say they understand the 9/11 attacks.

Before I go on, going back to the United Kingdom for a moment. The largest mosque in the world is being built outside London. Recently Archbishop of Canterbury said they should have two tracks, a two-track system in England: one Sharia Law and one traditional English law. Mohammed is now the most popular name in England for a child.

France is also gripped by the crisis. Muslim rioting gripped the country for weeks last year resulting in death and unprecedented destruction of private property. There are hundreds of areas inside Paris and inside and around Paris where police do not go. They are entirely Muslim areas, and the police are essentially afraid to go in there.

The PEW Research Center reported that more than half of all French Muslims loyal to Islam is greater than their loyalty to France, and one in three do not object to suicide attacks.

The demographics, of course, are significant, and that is what is causing a significant change in the entire attitude of Western Europe about such things as Islam and the changing of Western laws.

That is the point of this, that all of this comes with a cost. There is a challenge to western civilization. We have a system that was established by the concept of the rule of law and many other things that unite us as a Nation in the past and united the West in the past are being threatened and destroyed.

Before liberals in America roll out the Islamic welcome mat any farther, they ought to look closely at Europe. As I noted, many Muslims in Europe openly expressed a desire to replace secular democracies there with Islamic caliphates. Hardly surprising when you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing the radical ideology, an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of Western democracy, such as gender equity, pluralism, and individual liberty.

These lessons are unfolding in plain sight across the Atlantic in Europe, but what many Americans don't realize is that these same problems are beginning to manifest themselves here in the United States in parts of Michigan, New York, and Virginia. Yes, yet America's political leaders remain asleep at the switch.

The PEW Research Center, for example, asked American Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29, When are suicide bombings justified? Twenty-six percent said that they were always justified. Another 15 percent said they were often justified.

Another potential threat, settlement poses to the United States is made worse by the fact of the sheer volume of both legal and illegal immigration into our country. Combine that with the rise of culture relativism, political correctness, and the lefts' obsession with diversity, and you have a recipe for disaster as immigrants are prevented from assimilating and separate ethnic cultural communities spring up all over the United States.

We are again confronted with this situation, and we are made less able to deal with it because of this, the political correctness that-- and this multicultural society that we are creating here. It makes us weaker as a society to deal with this.

We are told constantly, as I said earlier, about the deficiencies of the West and that we are not really a country at all, that the United States isn't just a Nation of sovereign people, it is just a place on the planet. Just a place on the continent.

It's called America, and if you live here, you're an American. There are no other ties that should bind us, certainly not a linguistic tie, certainly not the English language. That's what they say. I say it is the imperative tie that must bind us. It is the glue that holds our society together. It is the thing that allows us to communicate with each other. And it is imperative that we have something because we have so many things in this country that pull us apart, it is imperative that we have something, anything, that pulls us together. Language is that one thing.

Our people come from everywhere around the world from every different kind of culture, religion, color, historical background, and language. We have--something when they come here has got to begin the process of assimilation because immigration without assimilation is creating a phenomena that is like putting a gun to our heads.

Examples of this kind of political correctness go on and on. Los Angeles Roosevelt High School. An 11th grade teacher told a nationally syndicated radio program that she hates the textbooks that she's been told to use and the State-mandated history curriculum because they ignore students of Mexican ancestry. Because the students don't see themselves in the curriculum, the teacher has chosen to ``modify the curriculum'' by replacing it with activities like mural walks intended to open the students' eyes to their indigenous culture.

A friend of the teacher invited to help with the mural walk went on to tell the students, ``Your education has been one big lie after another.''

In a textbook called, ``Across the Centuries,'' which is used widely across America for the teaching of 7th grade history, the term ``jihad'' is defined as ``to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil.''

In 2002, the new guidelines for teaching history in the New Jersey public schools failed to mention America's Founding Fathers, the Pilgrims, or the Mayflower. After this became public, New Jersey changed the guidelines.

In a Prentice Hall history textbook used by students in Palm Beach County high schools, titled ``A World Conflict,'' the first five pages of the World War II chapter cover such topics as discrimination against women in the Armed Forces, racial segregation during the war, and internment of Japanese Americans, far fewer than are dedicated to the 292,000 Americans who died in the conflict, fighting against totalitarianism and genocide.

A Washington State teacher substituted the word ``winter'' for the word ``Christmas'' in a carol to be sung at a school program so as not to appear to be favoring one faith over another.

In a school district in New Mexico, the introduction to a textbook called ``500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures'' states that it was written ``in response to the Bicentennial celebration of the 1776 American Revolution and its lies.'' Its stated purpose was to ``celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders.'' The chapter headings include ``Death to the Invader,'' ``U.S. Conquest and Betrayal,'' ``We Are Now a U.S. Colony,'' ``In Occupied America,'' and ``They Stole Our Land.'' This is a textbook in a New Mexico school district.

Nicholas DeGenova, an assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia

University, told students that he wanted to see ``a million Mogadishus''--a reference to an operation in Somalia in 1993 in which elite U.S. Army personnel were pinned down in a fierce firefight. Eighteen Americans were killed and 84 wounded. DeGenova added that, ``The only true heroes are those who find ways to help defeat the U.S. military.'' Administrators at Columbia University expressed regret, saying they were ``appalled by the statements,'' but took no action to dismiss DeGenova, who is still teaching. Teaching, by the way, is a liberal way to interpret his activity.

At Royal Oak Intermediate School in Covina, California, students in Len Cesene's seventh grade history class fasted last week--this was some time ago, last week was the quote from the article--last week to celebrate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. His letter to parents explained that ``in an attempt to promote a greater understanding and empathy towards the Muslim religion and toward other cultures, I am encouraging students to participate in an extra credit assignment. Students may choose to fast for one, two, or three days. During this time, students may only drink water during daylight hours.''

A Federal judge in Brooklyn interpreted New York City policy on holiday displays in public schools allow for the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Muslim Crescent--but not the display of a Christian Nativity scene. The judge based his decision on the notion that the Muslim Crescent and Jewish Menorah are ``secular'' symbols, while the Christian Nativity scene is not, and the list goes on and on.

Certainly, many people have heard about the professor from the University of Colorado who claimed that all the people that were killed in the Twin Towers deserved to be killed; they were little Eichmanns. Again, it goes on and on.

And individually, these kinds of incidents may seem regrettable and harmless. They are just examples of Americans' tolerance for diversity and multiculturalism. Collectively, they will subject our Nation to death by a thousand cuts.

Islamic leaders have seen the inability of our government institutions to maintain cultural cohesion, and despite the mainstream media's attempt to report it because of political correctness, they are no longer shy about expressing their own intentions.

According to the Manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, ``Our work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.''

According to Professor Hatem Bazian of the University of California at Berkeley, ``It's about time that we have an intifada in this country, that changes, fundamentally the political dynamics here.''

Yousef Khattab, of the U.S.-based Islamic Thinkers Society, recently said in an interview that ``Islam will dominate, that's what it will be. We want to see Sharia Law here, and it will be. The flag of Islam will be, God willing, on the White House, if that's where we choose it to be.''

According to a co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relation, CAIR, Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, ``We Muslims have a chance, in America, to be the moral leadership in America. The problem is when? It will happen, I have no doubt in my mind. It depends on me and you, either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.''

The head of another Muslim group, Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations, Imam Johari Abdul Malik, told a crowd, ``Before Allah closes our eyes for the last time you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America--that's where we are now--to the first religion in America.''

Muslim ``activist'' Abu Waleed told a crowd of reporters, ``We are not Muslims . . . who are simply here to integrate and become part of democracy and freedom and adopt these values. Rather, what we hope to do is to engage with the . . . society to . . . one day implement the Sharia over manmade law and sharia over . . . Washington, D.C.''

A Muslim man recently told CNN's Anderson Cooper, ``We are bound by the rules of Islam. If a woman runs away, she must be killed.''

Our essentially ``open door'' policy of unlimited legal and illegal immigration may seem like a harmless manifestation of our national tradition of welcoming newcomers with open arms, but it is an invitation to our destruction.

For example, the American left's dogmatic adherence to the idea of ``diversity'' and their tendency to elevate it above all other values also led them to establish the visa lottery, or ``Diversity Visa'' program in 1990. Hundreds of thousands of people have come with these kinds of programs throughout the United States, and we do this at our peril.

We were a Nation that was identifiable. It was identifiable by the kind of language that we spoke, the religion that we observed. Just an example of what we were at one time and what we must think about as what held us together, the ideas, the attitude, yes, the religion, yes, the language. They were something that at one point in time held us together as a Nation.

The Trinity Church case in 1892 said, ``If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its law, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth . . . this is a Christian Nation.'' Justice Brewer.

``We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God,'' Justice Sutherland, 1931, the Macintosh case.

1983, ``To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not . . . a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.''

And then, of course, later decisions began to erode that concept of religious similarity in this country.

Who we were, this is something that I want to read and will tell you at the end who wrote this; although, probably the content of it will let us know. It was written on June 6, 1944.

``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

``Lead them straight and true; give them strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

``They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

``They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of consequence. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

``Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

``And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

``Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

``Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our Armed Forces.

``And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrow that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

``And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith

in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

``With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

``Thy will be done, Almighty God.

``Amen.''

That, of course, was the prayer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as our men embarked upon D Day. This prayer, I wonder if it could be said today by the leader of this country. I wonder if the President of the United States would have the courage to start off a prayer asking for the Lord to help protect our religion, our civilization, our Republic, and to set free a suffering humanity. Would we add the words ``our civilization,'' ``our religion''? Could we? Do they mean anything? What do they describe today to anyone? Or are we too afraid to mention this for fear that it will be perceived by someone as narrow-minded?

And so, therefore, we do not discuss who we are or at least who we were. But just as dangerous an event as D Day was and just as much as we needed prayer to protect the men who were going across that channel, we find ourselves in a world that's equally dangerous. We find ourselves daily facing events that challenge us in so many ways and are as dangerous and as threatening to our very existence as was the threat posed by Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.

They come from a different source, those threats. They are not identifiable as a single nation. It makes it harder for us to deal with it. But we as a country must do so.

And this is my parting thought for this Congress, for this Nation. Pray for the same thing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed for: strength, courage to defeat an enemy that has every intention of defeating us and destroying Western civilization. Do not walk quietly into the night of a dark age. Know who we are. Know who the enemy is. Hold up this Nation's flag. Take back our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time this afternoon focusing on the fact that we have the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in our Nation's history. And I think it is also very important for us to note today that we have the first female Chair of the House Rules Committee in my good friend, Ms. Slaughter, and I would like everyone to join in extending congratulations to Ms. Slaughter.

Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I look forward to working in a bipartisan way in the spirit that was outlined by Speaker Pelosi, and I, of course, will treat the new Chair of the Rules Committee with the dignity that she deserves.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I do rise with mixed emotions today. I was very proud to join with you as we came down the center aisle escorting the new Speaker of the House, my fellow Californian. And I am very pleased that we have the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian American as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I have mixed emotions because, while I am very, very proud of Speaker Pelosi, and the new Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and others who are assuming leadership positions, I also am very disappointed.

I am disappointed as I look at this package that we are about to consider, because I do join with you, Mr. Speaker pro tempore, the distinguished majority leader, and Speaker Pelosi, as we have discussed privately and publicly, in our quest, and I think Speaker Pelosi put it extraordinarily well, focusing on the priorities that we have. We are, first and foremost, Americans. We are here to do the people's business and they sent a very strong message last November, and I believe we have an opportunity to do just that.

I will say that I remember very well the opening days of the 104th Congress, 12 years ago. I remember the very heady feeling that came from knowing that, for the first time, at that juncture, in almost half a century, we Republicans were in the majority of the House of Representatives, and we were going to do all that we had promised the American people.

We were that optimistic, quite frankly, because we didn't know any better. None of us had ever served in the majority and we were blissfully unaware of the pressures and problems associated with trying to govern this institution.

During the 109th Congress, the Democratic Caucus, many of whom actually served in the majority before 1995, made a lot of promises about how they would run this place if they ever achieved the majority again. Of course, they, unlike Republicans in 1994, had the experience of having run this place, having served in the majority. And I have a great deal of admiration for my colleagues, because they know exactly what they are facing. Knowing that, knowing exactly what they would face in the majority, they made a commitment to minority rights, should they regain the majority.

And that, Mr. Speaker, is why I said I am disappointed. The resolutions before us bear very little resemblance to the rhetoric on this floor and on the campaign trail. The much ballyhooed commitment to minority rights is virtually nonexistent in the measures before us today. They undermine minority rights that were constantly guaranteed when we were in the majority. The rights of the minority are undermined. Their promises are for a delivery date at some later point, if we agree to be cooperative, according to one Member on the other side of the aisle. And we have, as an IOU now, a wink and a nod and a gentle ``trust us.''

Mr. Speaker, trust is something that is in short supply in this House, and the actions of the incoming majority are, based on the package that has been brought before us early last evening, certainly less than 24 hours before we are considering it here on the House floor, are not doing a lot to bolster our reserves when it comes to the issue of trust. Despite an oft repeated commitment to provide Members with, as I said, at least 24 hours to review legislation before voting on the floor, we received this package at 6:15 last night, 6:15 only after that package was delivered to our friends up in the press gallery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, despite Speaker Pelosi's principle that we need to return to regular order for legislation, including a full committee process of hearings and markups and, I quote Ms. Pelosi here when she said we need an ``open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Now, we, in spite of that great directive that came forward, we have a rules package that actually self-executes closed rules for bills that haven't even been introduced, and won't even be going through the committee process. The section of the package that includes those closed rules is debatable for just 10 minutes. This is the polar opposite, the polar opposite of how the Republicans opened the 104th Congress, when our priorities were considered in regular order and under an open amendment process.

Mr. Speaker, also providing a stark contrast is the fact that we put in place, from day one, a guaranteed bite at the apple for the minority in the form of a motion to recommit. We felt so strongly about the fact that when we were in the minority we were denied that chance. So that is why at the beginning of the 104th Congress we put into place that guarantee for the minority.

But I must remind my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee that, time and time again, they have made clear their view that the motion to recommit is an insufficient opportunity to articulate their alternative. That argument was propounded constantly as we were dealing with public policy questions. So you can imagine how surprised I was when the Speaker recently replied to a reporter's question about Republican alternatives to

the Democratic priorities by saying, ``They'll have a motion to recommit.''

Even worse than five closed rules, Mr. Speaker, is the rollback of one of the most essential elements of transparency that Republicans put into place back at the beginning of the 104th Congress; that is, the right to know how a member of a committee votes on legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this rules package exempts the Committee on Rules from the requirement to publish the votes of its members on its committee reports, something required of every other committee except the Ethics Committee.

Now, in my 12 years as a member of the Rules Committee majority, we took more than 1,300 votes in committee, every single one of which was accurately reported in the committee's report.

Mr. Speaker, at best, this is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, it is an attempt to shield the Rules Committee from the public scrutiny of its actions.

We were told by the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee that ethics reform and rules reform were not just election year issues for Democrats. Now, Mr. Speaker, sadly, this document says something quite different than that. Promises were made, and they are not being kept. That is the thing that I find to be most troubling. We intend to explain the many inconsistencies for the record and as the debate moves forward.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we want to work with our democratic colleagues. Even with this treatment of minority rights, we stand here determined to work in a bipartisan way to confront the challenges that we all know face this country. Unfortunately, this rules package shuts us out from the start. It is my hope that the promises made will, indeed, be kept. But, Mr. Speaker, this package does not inspire a great deal of hope in that they in any way will.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of disappointment and a great deal of concern about the first actions that we are taking here.

Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate Ms. Castor and certainly welcome her to the Rules Committee and look forward to serving with her.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

My parliamentary inquiry is, may I ask of the Chair exactly what it is we are debating and considering at this point. The Chair of the Rules Committee stood up and said, after I gave my opening remarks, that we were in the midst of a debate on the last year's rules package. I was wondering if the Chair might enlighten us as to exactly what it is that we are considering.

For the consideration of the rules package for the 110th Congress, am I correct?

Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, at this juncture I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a very, very hardworking Member of the House, the Chair of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a hardworking former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very distinguished chief deputy whip, my good friend from Richmond (Mr. Cantor).

I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that I never used the words ``pain,'' I never said ``hurt.'' I said ``disappointment.'' I said disappointment, Madam Speaker, because I am very disappointed.

I will tell you this: I am prepared at this moment to take my three Republican colleagues and go right upstairs to the Rules Committee and go to work at this moment so that we don't have closed rules in the opening day rules package for consideration of measures that have not gone through the committee process and have not had any opportunity to even have our amendments denied in the Rules Committee.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Let me just say, we are prepared at this moment, Madam Speaker, we will send a resolution right now so the Rules Committee can begin meeting upstairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I will yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina who would like to be recognized.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee now, are there any further speakers on the majority side?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, I am actually very enthused and excited about the great new opportunity that lies ahead for every single one of us. We have heard speeches today from our distinguished Republican leader, and we are all very proud that my fellow Californian has become the first woman to preside over the greatest deliberative body known to man. And, as I said earlier, I am particularly proud of the fact that I am being succeeded by the distinguished chairwoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), as the first woman to chair the Rules Committee.

I am enthused about the challenges that lie ahead, and I am very encouraged by the words that we heard from our new Speaker about the need for civility, about the need for us to make sure that we recognize that we are first and foremost Americans, and that the message from last November's election was a very clear one. It was a message that we should come together, work together, Democrats and Republicans alike, to solve the challenges that we face so that we can in fact do the people's business.

We are very proud of the accomplishments that we have had over the past 12 years, and I believe we can work with the new majority to build on those successes, the successes of ensuring that we have an economy that is second to none, an unemployment rate that is at near-record lows at 4.5 percent, strong domestic product growth, more Americans working than ever before in our Nation's history, more Americans owning their own homes, and more minority Americans owning their own homes.

I also am particularly proud of the fact that working together, Madam Speaker, we have been able to ensure that since that tragic day of September 11, 2001, we have not faced another attack on our soil.

The fact that we have not faced another attack is not an accident. It is because of good public policy and the leadership that we have had. Now we do have a change in leadership here in this institution, and there have been a wide range of promises that were made by Members who formerly served in the majority and now are coming back to majority status. As members of the minority, they talked about the need for enhanced minority rights. And I believe many of those things are very, very important. I believed them before, and I believe them now.

One of the things that I think is very important is for us to have an opportunity for consideration of measures here on the House floor that allow for a greater opportunity for Member participation. The thing that troubles me most is if we don't defeat this previous question and then defeat this rule that allows us to move forward, we will be proceeding with a package that will bring forward five closed rules, preventing the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to in any way consider the chance to bring forward amendments.

Never before, never before in our Nation's history have we seen an opening day Rules Committee that would allow for the consideration of five closed rules in the opening-day package. And one of the things, of course, that was discussed widely by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle which we have strongly supported is the notion of transparency, accountability, and disclosure.

One of the most troubling aspects of this measure is that we would move to prevent the Record from showing the votes that are cast in the Rules Committee.

We were very proud that we eliminated proxy voting when we came to majority status. Why? Because we wanted Members to show up to work, and we wanted the American people to see their work product.

Well, unfortunately, the American people understand what it means to show up to work. They understand what it means for greater disclosure and accountability and transparency. We heard the opening remarks during this rule debate on letting the sunshine in. The sun is shining outside today, and it is going to shine in. Under this provision, we see a prevention for the opportunity for the sun to shine in the Rules Committee, and I find it very troubling.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend this rule to make in order to consider the Speaker's minority bill of rights as was outlined on May 25, 2006, in her document ``New House Principles: A Congress For All Americans.'' We need to give the new majority an opportunity to live up to those commitments that were made.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by extending my compliments to my very good friend from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. In fact, Mr. Hoyer just quoted John F. Kennedy and I believe that he was right on target in focusing on that brilliant quote of President Kennedy's where he said that we should not seek the Republican answer, we should not seek the Democratic answer, we should seek the right answer. I was struck with that, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we should join in strong support of this resolution, of support of this title; and I am going to urge my colleagues to join in voting in support of this title which uses the rules base of the 109th Congress as the basis for which these proposed changes are being offered.

But I think it is very important for us to note that if we are going to, in fact, seek the right answer as opposed to the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, we need to do that by vigorously pursuing the deliberative process about which we all speak. And I know that during the past several years, my very distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle raised concerns about a lack of deliberation that existed in this House and the fact that more amendments could have been made in order. I will acknowledge that we could have made more amendments in order. That was clearly an option there. But as my friend, having served in the majority, knows very well, there are challenges that need to be addressed when you are in the majority, challenges of managing this institution. I see him sitting there very comfortably and I am glad that he is comfortable at this point, but I know full well that he, Mr. Speaker, is going to face many management challenges in the days and weeks and months ahead.

But during the past couple of years, what we have heard is a commitment to minority rights made by those who were formerly in the majority, who were in the minority at that time and are now back in the majority. And so I would argue that the words of President Kennedy can best be implemented if we in fact do increase the level of deliberation, and that is why as we look at the proposed changes that we are going to be considering, I have to say that when it comes to the actual management, I am concerned. I am concerned about the prospect of, for the first time in the history of this institution, taking prospectively five closed rules and placing that in the opening-day rules package.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the prospect of taking this issue of transparency, accountability, and disclosure about which we on both sides of the aisle regularly talk because we are here to represent all of the American people, the notion of now saying again for the first time in the history of this great institution that we are going to create an opportunity whereby we will not have accountability and transparency in our very important deliberations that will take place in the Rules Committee.

And so again I would say in response to the brilliant words of President John F. Kennedy, as outlined by our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, that we do seek the right answer; and I believe that the best way to seek the right answer is through enhanced deliberation, and we have a chance to do that.

Now, I will when it comes to this vote urge my colleagues to vote in favor of title I. Title I, as you know, Mr. Speaker, simply provides a chance to use the opening rules package of the 109th Congress, and I think that that is a correct thing for us to do; and I hope the Democrats and Republicans alike, and the majority leader has just called for support of title I and I will urge the colleagues on our side of the aisle to join so that again we will be coming together and I think having the right answer on that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. I really am very hesitant to interrupt the brilliance of my good friend from Fort Lauderdale.

Now that I have interrupted it, I just couldn't hesitate to interrupt when I heard that I somehow had a draft by virtue of knowing what the rules package that was put into place for the operation of the 109th Congress was? That was all we had. We had nothing whatsoever beyond the rules of the House and that is it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Pasco, I would simply like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at this point a copy of the draft that we received that is dated January 2, 2007. The time stamp on that is 5:45 p.m. I was informed that we had it last night at 6:10 p.m., and it had already been circulated to those in the press gallery by that point.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

The section that we are talking about right now is simply implementation----

It is simply implementation of the rules that have existed for the 109th Congress. I clearly was talking about the rules for the 110th Congress. In fact, if the gentleman was here when I had an exchange with the distinguished new Chair of the Rules Committee when she tried to argue that we somehow were debating the rules for the 109th Congress, the Chair confirmed the fact that we are in fact considering in toto the package for the 110th Congress using as base text the 109th.

What I have here and if I am able to gain unanimous consent for this, Mr. Speaker, to include in the Record, is the draft which uses the 109th base text and has the proposed changes, the different titles for the proposed changes for the rules of the 110th Congress.

I would ask unanimous consent to include this draft with the date and the time on it showing that it did not fall within the 24-hour notification period of time that my friends have consistently insisted on.

The gentleman objects to my including the draft?

Mr. Speaker, the simple point that I am trying to make is that we all know what the rules for the 109th Congress were. We have lived under those rules for the last 2 years. Yes, I was proud to have crafted those, working with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and we passed those at the beginning of the Congress and we are going to have a chance in just a few minutes to vote on those again.

The point is, it is not the rules of the 109th Congress that we didn't have a draft of. We did not have a draft until January 3 at 5:45 p.m., which clearly did not comply with that 24-hour requirement that has been put forward. And that is the only point that I am trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we can, in fact, join in a bipartisan way in supporting implementation of title I of this provision. And I believe that it is great that my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) began heaping praise on the many accomplishments of the 104th Congress when we implemented things like an end to proxy voting, term limits on committee chairmen, and the other items which we have which go on and on and on, increased transparency and accountability and disclosure.

I will say that, as I have said, I am very, very troubled and saddened by the inconsistency when it comes to the issue of transparency and disclosure in light of the discussion that Mr. Hastings of Pasco, Washington and I have had about closing down transparency in the Rules Committee now.

My friend from Florida mentioned the fact that I may be the champion of closed rules. I will admit that as chairman of the Rules Committee, I did bring more than a few closed rules here, primarily on bills that related to tax issues, which was done under the Democratic majorities of the past and I suspect will be done in the future as well. But I will say this: Never before, never before have I, as chairman of the Rules Committee, prevented the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to deliberate and including in an opening day rules package five closed rules. I am concerned as we move forward with that. We will have that debate later on. But I look forward to urging my colleagues to join in support of title I.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this package. Once again, I think we will have an opportunity for bipartisanship. The issue of ethics and lobbying reform is something that we believe is very, very important. As I sit here today, I am reminded of the fact that 1 year ago this month, Speaker Hastert and I stood right upstairs in the press gallery and unveiled a package for lobbying and ethics reform, which was maligned by many of our colleagues, unfortunately.

But I will say that I am very pleased with the fact that we were ultimately able to pass out of the House our measure, which did a number of things that I am happy to see are incorporated in this provision that is coming forward from the new majority.

The thing that troubles me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this was done in a unilateral way. We are all very proud of the fact that we have a working, strong, vibrant bipartisan Ethics Committee. It would have been great if we could have had the Ethics Committee come forward with these recommendations.

There has been no consultation whatsoever between the majority and the minority, although I will say, again, I congratulate those Members of the new majority for including, including many of the items that were either incorporated in H.R. 4975, which was our lobbying and disclosure act that we passed out of the House last year, and some of the provisions that Speaker Hastert and I outlined a year ago this month: free clearance of travel, a ban on travel and an end to gifts. An end to the K Street Project. These are all very important reforms that I do think are essential.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my very good friend from Massachusetts, and I congratulate him on his new position in the majority on the Rules Committee, what happens between today and March 1 of this year? Well, let us see, we have the month of January and the month of February, and, guess what, under this package, the status quo in the 110th Congress, under the Democratic majority, remains in place without any kind of reform or change.

So I have got to ask rhetorically, anyone who wants to answer as to why we are waiting until March 1 before we see any kind of implementation here. They want to see guidelines put forward, maybe by the Ethics Committee. If that is what they would like to do, why don't we impose an immediate ban until they come up with recommended guidelines?

So I will say that as I listen to these proposals, they are interesting, I am very pleased that they have incorporated them. I don't believe they go far enough. In a few minutes, my colleagues, Mr. Kirk and Mr. Shadegg, will be talking about concern on the pension issue, which unfortunately has been left out of this, but I do believe that by and large this is a measure that is going to be worthy of bipartisan support, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield? If you will recall, we passed

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, let me, again, say that we look forward to supporting this package, much of which, the items that the gentlewoman just outlined, were included in H.R. 4975, which passed this House last May with strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, let me just, before yielding to the gentleman from Marietta, say very quickly again, the legislation that passed the House, H.R. 4975, specifically banned the K Street Project. Look at the language. It is virtually identical. We focused on the issue of lobbyist travel and gifts. And I believe that we can come together in a bipartisan way. We want to work in a civil tone, as was outlined by Speaker Pelosi today.

Mr. Speaker, with that I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to congratulate the gentleman from New Hampshire. We welcome him here. Unfortunately, this package doesn't start today and start now. It starts March 1 of 2007, 2 months from now.

I also want to say to my very good friend from Massachusetts once again that if you look at the package that we passed in May of last year, it is a package that enjoyed bipartisan support. It is one of which we are very proud. And I believe that if you look at the fact that we did go beyond preventing registered lobbyists from coming onto the House floor and the gym, we are doing many of those same things here. It has been done before.

And that is why we are proud to be here in support of this effort, which, again, some of us believe does not go far enough and there are some problems with it, but we do believe it is a positive step. Why? Because it is a reaffirmation of what Speaker Hastert led us to last year.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I do congratulate my colleagues. I want to begin by saying as a Californian that I am very proud of the fact that California has provided the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similarly, I have congratulated our colleague, Ms. Slaughter, who will be the first woman to chair the Rules Committee in our Nation's history.

This has been a historic day and I believe a very exciting day for us. I am pleased that we have been able to do a number of things already in a bipartisan way, and I think this issue of ethics and lobbying reform, building on the reforms that we passed in the 109th Congress, utilizing those very positive provisions, is exactly what we are about to vote on here in just a few minutes; and I think that it is a time when we can be civil.

And I will say to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American people want us to deal with these problems, and I will reaffirm my commitment to my colleagues on the Rules Committee that I will continue to strive to comport myself in the most dignified way possible in dealing with my colleagues, and I urge support of this very important measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the measuring sticks against which I will weigh any proposal brought before this Congress to bail out Wall Street investment houses.

Number one, financial reform must come first. America needs reform, not a bailout. Over the last 20 years, legislation has been passed by this Congress, H.R. 1278 in 1989 called FIRREA, interstate banking in 1994 which created those big mega banks, and H.R. 10/S. 900 in 1999, which overturned the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed banking, real estate and insurance all to be under the roof of the same firm.

Well all those bills together have created a highly concentrated financial system, particularly in housing finance, rather than a decentralized one like that which we had for most of the 20th century. This bailout is the result of high-risk misbehavior by distant financial giants. They have sucked equity out of local communities and turned local markets into derivative, debt-ridden communities rather than independent, robust, credit markets with prudent savings and lending practices.

Reform should restore those prudent and transparent banking practices defining the difference between banks and investment houses and protecting and restoring the protections that existed prior to 1999 when that Glass-Steagall Act was eliminated. Conflicts of interest at bond rating agencies should be addressed by such agencies becoming public. Reform, as I say, and regulation should come first out the door before the money, not later.

Number two, Main Street housing market deflation must be stabilized as step one. A moratorium should be placed on all home foreclosures for 120 days. That will take us into the new year. And deflation in the housing market really is what has triggered this credit crunch. The Federal Reserve could use its influence through its regionalized structure to bring parties together to work out affected loans in places like Ohio to stabilize local real estate and housing markets. That is where the real assets are and where the markets must clear and adjust.

What a crime it would be if people are thrown out of their homes and an institution somewhere over in England like Barclays becomes the owner of those assets and gets them at fire-sale prices. We need to put those assets back in the hands of the American people.

The traditional home loan backed by savings deposits was converted into a bond during the 1990s and then securitized into those international markets. The time-tested loan standards of character, collateral and collectibility were shelved, and therefore to reform this system it must be decentralized again, with the community savings and home loan bank system being reestablished with an emphasis on increasing savings deposits with enhanced local mortgage origination and oversight, as opposed to concentration of activity in Wall Street investment houses.

Number three, a new Financial Assets Management Board should be formed to manage this mortgage refinancing and workouts at the local level, similar to FDR's Homeowner Loan Corporation.

Fourth, the Department of Justice should be authorized to investigate the wrongdoers, to track down the fraud, misrepresentation of asset value, insider trading and related crimes in this scandal. There should be over 500 attorneys and accountants and support staff to conduct thorough investigations, forensic accounting and prosecution.

Fifth, any Federal dollar that is expended must result in equity to our taxpayers. If our people are going to be forced to fund unlimited private sector bad debt, our people must receive an equity share in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt held that is shifted to the taxpayer.

Our people are being asked to take 100 percent of the risk. They should be afforded the benefit of any future profits. A 0.25 percent transaction fee should be charged on every Wall Street trade or Chicago Board of Trade transaction, and that $150 billion a year that will be yielded should pay the American people back over time.

Sixth, a select congressional committee should be established to hold hearings, do proper oversight and advise the next President and Congress on mortgage and financial recovery operations and additional means to assure any necessary repayment of public investment.

Seven, standards for executives and compensation structure in the financial services industry should be established. Those outlandish salaries that they get should be curbed, and all bonuses, stock options and exceptional compensation for those individuals and their boards of directors should be discouraged. We should help to pay the bill by going after some of their assets.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to place this in the Record, and also include bankruptcy reform as one of the major changes that we need to make in any measure. These are the steps that would actually result in market recovery, not just bailing out unknown assets and bad debts from Wall Street.

Kaptur: Real Reform or Nothing--Financial Reform Must Come First

America needs real financial reform first, not a bailout.

Over the last 20 years, legislation passed by Congress (HR

1278 in 1989, HR 3841 in 1994, and HR 10/S 900 in 1999) has

highly concentrated financial activities on Wall Street--

particularly housing finance--rather than decentralized them.

This bailout is the result of high risk misbehavior by

distant financial giants. They have sucked equity out of

local communities and turned local markets into derivative,

debt-ridden communities rather than independent robust credit

markets with prudent savings and lending practices.

Such reform should restore prudent and transparent banking

practices. Reform of the deregulated financial structure

should start with defining the difference between banks and

investment houses and restoring protection that existed prior

to 1999 when the Glass-Steagall Act was eliminated. Each

should have defined activities and be regulated separately.

Conflicts of interest at bond rating agencies should be

addressed by such agencies becoming public.

Reform and regulation should come first, not later.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt invented the basic framework that

served

America well for the last century. Congress should adapt it

to current challenges on a Jeffersonian model, not the

proposed Hamiltonian approach.

main street housing market deflation must be stabilized as step one

Legislation should mandate a moratorium on all home

foreclosures for 120 days. Deflation in the housing market

has triggered this credit crunch. The Federal Reserve must

use its influence through its regionalized structure to bring

parties together to work out affected loans to stabilize

local real estate and housing markets. That is where the real

assets are and where the market must clear and adjust. Before

the Federal Reserve and Treasury, or its consultants, can

foreclose upon any home, it must first certify under criminal

penalty that a workout was attempted with the mortgage. A

workout certification on every home will be required.

Additionally, a 120-day moratorium will drastically reduce

the amount of capital needed. Otherwise, millions more of our

citizens will be foreclosed and financial giants like

Barclay's will pick up local real estate at fire sale prices.

The cowboy banking that accelerated in the last 20 years

concentrated financial power on Wall Street and huge regional

mega-banks. The traditional home loan, backed by savings

deposits, was converted into a bond that was securitized into

international markets. The time tested loan standards of

character, collateral, and collectibility were shelved. They

must be restored. To reform the system, it must be

decentralized, with the community savings and home loan bank

system being reestablished, with an emphasis on increasing

savings deposits, enhanced local mortgage origination and

oversight, as opposed to concentration of activity in Wall

Street investment houses. These local institutions should be

empowered to do workouts and supported through any housing

finance provided. The federal incentives for savings and home

loan institutions, as existed pre-FIRREA, should be restored.

In a letter to Congress the CEO of BB&T states, ``The

primary beneficiaries of the proposed rescue are Goldman

Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'' This is essentially unfair and

improperly focused. Attention must be placed on restoring

value to local housing real estate markets.

a new financial assets management board should be formed to manage

mortgage refinancing and workouts (similar to fdr's home owner loan

corporation)

Board Members: Secretary of Treasury, Federal Reserve

Chairman, Comptroller General of the United States,

Appointees of House Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senate

Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader, Appointee from

the States Attorneys General, U.S. Attorney General.

Department of Justice Should Be Authorized to Investigate

Creation of a Special Prosecutor position at the U.S.

Department of Justice with authority and adequate funding to

track down the fraud, misrepresentation of asset value,

insider trading, and related crimes in this scandal.

Funds should be allocated to hire 500 or more attorneys and

accountants and support staff to conduct thorough

investigation, forensic accounting, and prosecution.

Recovery of assets fraudulently or illegally obtained by

individuals, Boards of Directors, and institutions involved

shall be required retroactive to the decade of the 1990s to

the present.

equity to taxpayers must be mandated

If U.S. taxpayers are forced to fund unlimited private

sector bad debt, they must receive an equity share in every

Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of

bad debt held that is shifted to the government.

Since taxpayers are assuming 100 percent of the risk, they

should be afforded the benefit of any future profits. Those

profits should be placed in a special lock box account for

Social Security. The trustee should be restrained to

investments in AAA state and local bonds.

Taxpayers who have been up-do-date on home mortgage

payments but who will be required to help fund the bailout

should be afforded lower interest rates on their existing

home mortgages to total the amount being borrowed from them.

A .25 percent transaction fee should be charged on every

Wall Street or Chicago Board of Trade transaction and the

funds yielded should be used to pay back the loan for U.S.

taxpayers, this fee will yield about $150 billion annually.

a select congressional committee should be established

A cross-jurisdictional Select Committee of Congress should

be established in both chambers to hold hearings, do proper

oversight, and advise the next Congress and President on

mortgage and financial recovery operations and additional

means to assure any necessary repayment of the public

investment.

standards for executives and compensation structure in the financial

services industry established

Compensation for financial executives at all levels should

be limited to five year rolling average, made public on a

quarterly basis, similar to Securities and Exchange

Commission filings.

Alternatively, compensation for top executives at financial

houses should not exceed the salary of the President of the

United States until such time as the federal government

recovers or receives repayment for any financing that may be

provided.

Anyone who had major responsibility for buying or selling

these junk bonds should be permanently banned from holding

any position in any company dealing with financing of any

sort.

All bonuses, stock options, and exceptional compensation

(present and post for 10 years) for those individuals and

their Boards of Directors should be disgorged. This should be

a responsibility of the Department of Justice's

investigations. Since executives and Boards of Directors were

paid for fraudulent transactions and likely insider trading,

their earnings were assumed under false pretenses.

New leverage ratios should be devised and incorporated with

this law, probably 10:1, not 30:1.

Anyone or any company involved in leveraging or selling any

sub-par mortgages involved in the bailout should be banned

from employment by Treasury to help in these workouts.

Secretary Paulson and all political appointees in the U.S.

Treasury and the Federal Reserve should be required to renew

their public disclosure statements as circumstances have

changed since their original filings.

All financial institutions and executives that will benefit

from this bailout in any way should be banned from making any

political contributions this election cycle and during the

111th Congress.

Additional Financial System Reporting and Transparency Requirements

Must be Required

The Financial industry, including hedge funds, shall comply

with new regulations involving disclosure, capital

requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation.

All hedge funds must immediately disclose holdings.

Hedge fund profits must be taxed at the sane rate as other

financial corporations, their current rate is 15% on current

income with a capital gains rate of only 5%.

Consumer credit debt must be reported quarterly to assure

Congress has complete information on market conditions that

may impact future solvency.

The source of the bailout money must be explicitly

identified as well as the costs and nature of the financing

agreement. If foreign nations, banks, or sovereign wealth

funds provide monies, and trade or defense concessions are

inherent in the agreement, Congress shall require

certification from Treasury and the Federal Reserve that no

side deals were transacted as a part of the agreement.

A provision should be included that if such side deals of

any kind that may be implied or thought to exist, the United

States is not bound by it.

As part of the legislation, the Secretary of Treasury and

the Federal Reserve Chairman are required to provide a

statement as to how the arrangement will be executed in order

to avoid fueling inflation and rising interest rates.

Bankruptcy Reform

Bankruptcy law should be changed to give bankruptcy judges

the authority to: Reset primary mortgages during personal

bankruptcies; and Release credit card holder from that debt

in personal bankruptcy.

Our nation, our taxpayers, and our communities need real

reform or nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it may seem like the November elections took place ages ago, but the sentiments that created new majorities in the House and Senate are still strong.

The American people spoke loud and clear on November 7. Together, Republicans and Democrats and independents from across this great Nation voted for change. They voted to end the cycle of corruption, pay to play, and junkets.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic majority is fulfilling the pledge we made to the voters. We are going to clean up Washington, D.C. We are going to give the people their House back.

Two years ago my friends on the other side of the aisle brought forward a rules package that, in my opinion, did not go nearly far enough in upholding the highest ethical standards. Today we offer a package that is based on real change. Members of Congress are elected to serve the American people, not their own individual private interests. And I am proud to say that today, this House of Representatives will enact a reform package that ends the culture of corruption once and for all. The days of the K Street project are over. No longer will Members of this House be able to dictate to any private entity the hiring or firing of anyone based on their political affiliation.

This rules package prohibits Members of Congress from traveling on corporate jets. My constituents in Massachusetts don't have the opportunity to get cheap travel on corporate jets and neither should Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this rules package also changes the way Members of Congress and staff can travel for official business. I strongly believe that overseas trips and other travel can be important tools to helping Members of Congress understand complex domestic and international issues.

But the days of lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets will be relics of the past. The actions this package takes are simple and straightforward: no more junkets, no more gifts from lobbyists, no more travel on corporate jets.

This rules package is comprehensive, and it is historic. We are going to change the way this place is run, and we are going to change the way people look at the Congress. The American people don't want to pick up their morning newspapers and read about golf junkets to St. Andrews. They don't want to hear stories about how their Congressman or Congresswoman was wined and dined with $100 steak dinners.

Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. These are commonsense items that should have been dealt with years ago. The time has come to do what is right, to hold Members of this House to the highest ethical standards.

With the election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker in the history of the United States, Democrats are ushering in a new era and putting an end to the culture of corruption. We are changing the tone in Washington, and we are changing the way we conduct business.

Now, I know full well that the ethical problems of the past were not limited to one side of the aisle, and the solutions to those problems can and should come from both Democrats and Republicans. I know that many of my Republican friends agree that change is needed, and they wish that their leadership in the past would have moved forward on some of these changes. I look forward to working closely with them in the weeks and the months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the American people demand, and they deserve, a higher standard of conduct from their elected officials. Today, we are raising the bar for how Members of the 110th Congress will carry out their duties and do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from California, whom I have a lot of respect for, there is a big difference between what his leadership proposed in terms of higher ethical standards and what is being proposed here today. I have got to say to the gentleman that we include a little bit more than just banning lobbyists from the locker rooms. They are banned

from the locker rooms in this bill, but there is a heck of a lot more.

I am in the middle of my statement. I would also say to the gentleman that his party has been in control for 12 years, and there has been ample opportunity to change the status quo. The gentleman's party not only embraced the status quo, but we saw a proliferation of the culture of corruption, and that is what this is a response to. In answer to the gentleman's question as to this March 1 deadline, that is to give the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ample time to put the rules and regulations and the disclosure requirements into place so that this can be an effective change.

So this is real historic change. We are going to end the culture of corruption in this Congress today. I am glad that the gentleman has said that he is going to support it. I hope that this is a bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes, for the purpose of debate, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just educate the gentleman that the change that he is asking for requires a statutory change. Today we are dealing with the House rules. I will assure the gentleman and his constituents in Nebraska and people all over the United States who agree with him that we will have the opportunity to do that. We will go through House Administration and you will have the opportunity to do that. We will hopefully have a unanimous vote on that.

I am also happy to hear the gentleman and others on the other side of the aisle all of a sudden speak in favor of ethics reform and real change and ending the culture of corruption in this House. It is amazing what an election will do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a new member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) by saying I know I am from Massachusetts, and you may think I have a funny accent and you have trouble understanding me. But let me repeat what I said before. In order to make the changes on the pension issue that he is asking for, which we all support, it requires a statutory change. And I think the staff over there will help clarify that. We are all for that.

In H.R. 4011, which Ms. Pelosi supported that you mentioned was a statute. We are going to do that.

Let me just say one other thing to the gentleman. You keep on referring to your ethics reform package as if it was some kind of this monumental change and reform.

You didn't ban the K Street Project, which has really resulted in so much outrage across the country. You had a temporary suspension on the issue of travel, and you had no ban on lobbyists' gifts.

This is real reform. We are going to end the culture of corruption.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of debate only 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, respond to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who I am going to miss on the Rules Committee, if he thinks that the Republican reform package was meaningful reform, I will lend you my bifocals so you can read it more carefully. What ended up happening, what you ended up enacting essentially, after 12 years in the majority, was banning lobbyists from the locker room. That is all that became law.

You controlled the House of Representatives. You controlled the Congress. And you controlled the United States Senate, and that is basically all that you did.

So I would just say to the gentleman, if he wants to vote ``no'' on this, he can go right ahead and vote ``no'' on it. But that is defending the status quo.

I think the American people made it very clear during the last election that they are sick of the culture of corruption; that they want a ban on lobbyists' gifts; that they want an end to the K Street Project. They want a ban on Members using corporate jets to fly around the country. And so if you want to vote for the status quo, vote ``no'' on this. If you want to vote for real meaningful change, vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will commit to the gentleman from Arizona that we are going to enter into that exchange, and I look forward to having that statute on the floor where he can speak in favor of it and we can speak in favor of it too.

Let me also, Mr. Speaker, correct the record. The distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee said none of this ethics reform takes place for 4 months. That is true on the travel, and I clarified that earlier as to why that is the case, so we had time to implement the rules and regulations of disclosure. But everything else, I will assure him, takes place immediately.

So once this ethics package passes, I would urge my colleague from California not to go out to dinner with any of his lobbyist friends because he might be breaking the law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of debate only 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) that I appreciate his words of cooperation and bipartisanship, and I do hope, and it is my belief, that you will see a change in terms of more outreach across the aisle and more respect, quite frankly, for the opinions of every single Member of this House.

I agree this is a historic day. This is not only a historic day because we have elected the first woman Speaker of the House in the history of the United States of America, but this is also a historic day for what we are about to vote on. We are about to change the way we do business here in Washington. We are responding to what the American people made very clear on election day, that they are tired of the ethical lapses of their leaders in government; that they want an end to the culture of corruption; that they want a government that has high ethical standards; that they want Members of Congress to adhere to those high ethical standards and, if they do not, that they will be held accountable. So what we are doing today in this ethics package, I think, is also an important moment in our history.

What we are doing is we are doing what is right. We are holding the Members of this House to the very highest ethical standards. And I want to say to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that I agree with him on the pension issue. So do, I think, everybody on our side of the aisle. And we are going to address that and we are going to hopefully get a unanimous vote on that issue, because he is right on that issue. But, again, we are not dealing with that. That requires a statutory change, and today we are dealing with the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today, I will remind my colleagues again, is very important. We are ending gifts by lobbyists to Members of Congress, we are banning the use of corporate jets for Members of Congress for a minimal price so that they can take a corporate jet and fly anywhere in this country. No one else can do that, yet that has been a practice by too many Members in this Congress. That will be banned.

We will end the lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets. They will be relics of the past. This is a new day. This is a day where ethics and where integrity are going to hold a very, very high place. We are going to end the culture of corruption with this vote, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on that.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, House rules allowing for cosponsors have yet to be adopted. Therefore, I would submit this list of cosponsors for House Resolution 6 for the Record.

Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following sponsors are hereby added

to H. Res. 6.

Louise Slaughter, David Obey, John Spratt, Zach Space,

Chris Carney, Baron Hill, Heath Shuler, Steny Hoyer, James

Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel, John Larson, Xavier Becerra, Chris Van

Hollen, Rosa DeLauro, George Miller, Jim McGovern, Alcee

Hastings, Doris Matsui, Kathy Castor, Betty Sutton, Peter

Welch.

Gary Ackerman, Tom Allen, Jason Altmire, Rob Andrews,

Michael Arcuri, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, Melissa

Bean, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Tim

Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Madeleine Bordallo, Leonard Boswell,

Nancy Boyda, Robert Brady, Bruce Braley.

G.K. Butterfield, Lois Capps, Mike Capuano, Dennis Cardoza,

Russ Carnahan, Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen, Yvette

Clarke, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Jim

Cooper, Joe Courtney, Joe Crowley, Henry Cuellar, Elijah

Cummings, Susan Davis, Danny Davis, Artur Davis, Lincoln

Davis.

Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Bill Delahunt, Norm Dicks,

John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Joe Donnelly, Mike Doyle, Keith

Ellison, Brad Ellsworth, Anna Eshoo, Bob Etheridge, Eni

Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney

Frank, Gabby Giffords, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bart Gordon.

Al Green, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, John Hall, Phil Hare,

Jane Harman, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Maurice

Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Paul Hodes, Tim Holden, Michael Honda,

Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Jesse Jackson,

Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson.

Steve Kagen, Marcy Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Dale Kildee,

Ron Kind, Ron Klein, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Lampson, Jim

Langevin, Tom Lantos, Richard Larsen, Barbara Lee, Sander

Levin, John Lewis, Dan Lipinski, Dave Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren,

Stephen Lynch, Tim Mahoney, Carolyn Maloney.

Ed Markey, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott,

Mike McIntyre, Jerry McNerney, Mike McNulty, Martin Meehan,

Kendrick Meek, Michael Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald,

Harry Mitchell, Dennis Moore, Jim Moran, Chris Murphy,

Patrick Murphy, Jerry Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Eleanor

Holmes Norton, James Oberstar.

John Olver, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Donald

Payne, Ed Perlmutter, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, David

Price, Nick Rahall, Charlie Rangel, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro

Rodriguez, Mike Ross, Steve Rothman, Lucille Roybal-Allard,

Dutch Ruppersberger, Bobby Rush, Tim Ryan, John Salazar.

Linda Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff,

Allyson

Schwartz, David Scott, Jose Serrano, Joe Sestak, Carol Shea-

Porter, Brad Sherman, Albio Sires, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith,

Vic Snyder, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie

Thompson, Mike Thompson, John Tierney.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Nydia

Velazquez, Tim Walz, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Maxine Waters,

Diane Watson, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler,

Charlie Wilson, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Al Wynn, John

Yarmuth, Rush Holt, Bobby Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I enjoyed listening to my colleague and good friend, and he is my good friend, former chairman of the Rules Committee, speak about closed rules. Since he is the master of closed rules, I know he knows of what he speaks.

Title I of our rules package is, or at least should be, the least controversial part, as the ranking member has said, of what we are going to discuss over the next few hours. Title I is very simply the rules of the 109th Congress. We are taking the Republican rules from the last Congress and using this as our base. The changes we will make to improve on the previous Congress's rules will come later and will be discussed by the members of the Rules Committee. This section of the House rules package makes it clearer that the former chairperson of the Rules Committee, my friend from California, was being just a bit disingenuous when he said the other day that, and I quote him, we have not received even a draft, unquote, of the Democrats' rules. Of course he had, Mr. Speaker. They were the rules of the House that he helped draft as Chair of the Rules Committee 2 years ago. All we have done is taken the old House rules and improved them to make the House a more ethical, more democratic, more open institution.

Of course I will yield to my friend.

Now that you have.

Well, you helped make those rules, my good friend. Perhaps you didn't utilize the fact that you did as a draft. But in either event, I take it that I have made my point and you have made yours.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, many of the changes to House rules that our Republican colleagues did make in 1995 and subsequently, in my opinion, were good ones and some of them we have kept. Proxy voting in committees was eliminated. That was an excellent reform. We have kept it. It is in our rules package. You gave the Speaker emergency power to recess the House and convene in another place in case of a terrorist incident. That was a good reform, and it is in the package that we have offered. You prohibited public works projects being named for serving Members of Congress. That always kind of bothered me, and I am glad that you got rid of it, and it was a good reform and it is in our package.

So, Mr. Speaker, title I, I think, is pretty straightforward. I think we should all be able to agree on it, and the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee has indicated he agrees. They are the Republican rules of last Congress that today's majority agrees with, draft or no draft. We will get to the changes later. But title I are the rules that today's minority wrote 2 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am glad my friend yields. You do agree that the rules that you wrote are the rules that are being adopted in this section that we are talking about?

Can I get a yes or no?

I object, and I reserve the right to object.

I just wish to share with Mr. Dreier in the spirit of bipartisanship that mincing words with reference to whether or not you knew that this portion of the draft of the 109th rules are those of the 110th actually don't even get to the level of substance that we ought be dealing with, with something as important as the rules.

You know the rules. I agree with you that that draft that you are talking about came from the 109th; but all I am suggesting to you is that you are not surprised by anything in title I, because you participated in writing it and, therefore, I think that the record should reflect that, notwithstanding the fact.

Now, I assure you, having served on the Rules Committee with you with distinction and respecting you greatly, that you can reasonably expect that you are not only going to have 24 hours notice, you are going to have a lot of notice regarding a lot of measures that we were never accorded. And, toward that end, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will not object to your offer.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I want to assure my colleagues that this is not the intent of this provision. It is not intended to apply to a Member who is using her or his own airplane, whether or not it is on his personal campaign or official business. Specifically, it is not intended to apply to the use of the Members' representational allowance to reimburse a Member for mileage on his or her own airplane. We will work closely with the Ethics Committee and the Committees on House Administration to ensure that this is how these committees will interpret the rule.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, my good friend, Kathy Castor, who is the first new Member to speak in the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, who is my neighbor, Mr. Ron Klein, who I believe is speaking for the first time.