To amend title 5, United States Code, to make noncreditable for Federal retirement purposes any Member service performed by an individual who is convicted of any of certain offenses committed by that individual while serving as a Member of Congress, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 476) to amend title 5, United States Code, to make noncreditable for Federal retirement purposes any Member service performed by an individual who is convicted of any of certain offenses committed by that individual while serving as a Member of Congress, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today was introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Nancy Boyda from Kansas. It represents part of a continuing effort by the Democratic leadership to clean up the ethics outrage left over by the Abramoff scandal.

The fundamental concept of this bill is simple. If Members of Congress are convicted of engaging in illegal behavior during the performance of official duties, then in addition to going to jail, their public pension will be eliminated. The language was included in the Republican lobby reform bill last year. The only difference is one enhancement responsive to Senate concerns. We have added language to deny pension benefits to Members who ask others to lie for them, or help them cover up their crime.

Applying this penalty to those convicted of corruption is another step toward comprehensive ethics reform and restoring the public trust in Congress.

It goes without saying that no one should ever violate their oath of office. No one in this body should ever engage in criminal conduct. Such conduct distorts the people's business and leads to the formulation of bad public policy. It breaks the social contract that Americans have with one another, and with their elected leaders. Such conduct demoralizes the Nation, and it damages the reputation of this great institution.

The bill before us represents one step toward discouraging illegal and unethical abuses of our office. As a consequence of enacting this bill, Members hopefully will think twice before stepping over the line.

The Boyda pension forfeiture bill denies a congressional pension to any Member of Congress who is convicted of certain felonies and who has exhausted all appeals. It does not apply to a Member's own contributions to the retirement system.

The covered felonies include: Bribery of public officials and witnesses; acting as foreign agent; conspiracy to commit the above offenses, or conspiracy to violate the postemployment restrictions; perjury by falsely denying any of the above-listed crimes; and subornation of perjury by getting someone else to lie or cover up for you.

Every act constituting any of the above felonies: Must have occurred while the Member is in office; must directly relate to a Members's official duties; and must take place after the date of enactment.

Any element of a crime leading to a final conviction can occur at any time after enactment. So passage of this initiative, Mr. Speaker, puts every current and future Member on notice that there will be an additional price to pay for criminal behavior while holding an office of public trust.

Now does this bill go too far or not far enough? I have heard it argued both ways. Some say that more crimes should be included. Others ask: ``Why should a criminal's spouse or child be eligible for the criminal's forgone pension?'' Some argue that prosecutors should be empowered to use pension forfeiture as a negotiating tool. Others argue that judges should be able to adjust pension forfeiture to fit the crime, and there are many more such questions and thoughts.

I will tell you now that this policy is an important step, but it is only a first step. It is a way to lay down the law. It is a way to tell the public that we reject criminal behavior while in office. It is a way to tell the American people that we are serious about addressing illegal and unethical behavior by our colleagues. And it is a way to get this pension forfeiture penalty enacted. No, it is not perfect, but it moves us in the right direction.

You will hear arguments that it doesn't go far enough, that previously convicted Members should not presently be allowed pensions. And while I am not unsympathetic with the underlying sentiment, we are prohibited, as legislators, from passing ex post facto laws, which criminalize or penalize past behavior, which is again a violation of the Constitution.

You will hear arguments that more types of criminal behavior should be covered. One of my colleagues indicated last Friday that more types of criminal behavior should be covered. Up until this point, pension forfeiture has only applied to treason and espionage and related offenses. So this is a big step. We are extending pension forfeiture to cover those offenses that lie at the heart of violations of the public trust and relate to the performance of official congressional duties. We are not applying this to others in the executive branch, so this is without precedent.

You will hear arguments that an innocent spouse or child should be punished along with the criminal. On balance, I don't think that is good policy. It may satisfy one's desire for revenge, but if you believe in individual responsibility, then you don't punish an innocent person for another's bad behavior just because they are related by marriage or parentage. I think we need to take a look at this principle in other situations as well, but today we are looking at it in the context of criminal behavior by Members of Congress.

The American people are rightly outraged by elected officials' criminal acts, but the American people are also humane and understanding. Although the first response to this outrage is likely to be ``throw the bum in jail,'' most Americans will not countenance throwing the child of a criminal into the street, or anyone's child.

Assuming family members are innocent of any wrongdoing, this bill gives the Office of Personnel Management the discretion to respond to hardships placed on the family and caused by the Member's criminal wrongdoing. If OPM decides to do so, it will come out of any amounts contributed directly by the Member, and to which he or she is still entitled. That is fair and just, in my opinion. OPM could still impose full pension forfeiture, or something less if the totality of the circumstances warrants a different outcome.

There are lots of other arguments we can have about the merits of this initiative and whether it goes too far or not far enough. Some may even question whether it even goes in the right direction. All of these are legitimate policy concerns, which can be pursued by the interested Members with the committees of jurisdiction through future legislation. But the bill before us today, however imperfect you may judge it, is an immediate response to the American people's demand that we change the way we do business here in Washington.

There are many other initiatives we will be taking to reverse the last decade of criminal and ethical decline. We will do them, and we will be a better and more responsive government for having done so. But this is step one. The American people are sending an unequivocal message to all Representatives and Senators: If you lie, cheat or collude with others to cover up your criminal abuse of public office, you will not only go to jail, but you will sacrifice something that the American people provided you, and that is trust, which the American people can take away from you if you violate that trust. Dishonor that trust, and you break your contract with the American people, and the consequences are clear.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Is that a parliamentary inquiry that he is just suggesting here?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan, the effective date is upon enactment of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take about 30 seconds to correct a misrepresentation of the ranking member. He spoke of mail fraud, of which Mr. Rostenkowski was convicted, was not one of the crimes contained in the House bill that was passed out of this House by the Republicans last year. So that is a mischaracterization.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Irrespective of, it was not one of those that were, as you had suggested in your opening statement.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the author of this bill, the outstanding new Member who introduced this bill, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time left for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of seconds, and I would like to speak to the speaker who has just spoken. He spoke about the amendment to this bill, the subornation of perjury. This is in the gentleman's bill that he has introduced, so I don't know why his objection to that. The Democrats have added two additional crimes to this bill, and one is that; the other is a conspiracy to violate postemployment restrictions. We have tried to put in this bill to strengthen this bill two additional crimes, and so I am concerned that his argument is one that is in his bill that he has introduced.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Susan Davis.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that my colleague has said that the bill could be stronger. That is an argument that we could make on every bill that comes to this floor, it can be stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield to our majority leader 1 minute, the Honorable Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, the speaker who just spoke stated that we changed the date. We changed the date of the bill to comply with the leadership on the Republican side. So he was disingenuous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made earlier about the gentleman from Arizona, it was not my intent to question his motives. And I look forward to working with him in the coming days and weeks and months ahead. And so I do not intend for him to take that personally, and I am sorry for that.

Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues who are listening and have listened to this debate today, please take note. The Democratic leadership of this institution plans to clean up the criminal and ethical morass it inherited. This bill is a down payment on the new ethical climate control system we are building.

The American people deserve to know that criminal and unethical behavior by any of our colleagues will be punished, and that the penalties for violating the sacred trust which has been bestowed upon us by our voters and the States we represent will be substantive and serious and not window dressing.

We have more to do after this bill passes, so we can continue this discussion during the next installment of ethics reform. But I urge my colleagues to take this leap with me today and with the very distinguished gentlewoman from Kansas who introduced the bill, to begin this journey toward a more open and honest government, and toward a more ethical direction in this 110th Congress. The American people deserve it, and it is up to us, you and I, to deliver it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back whatever time that I have left.

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

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the points of order being made are debate and comment, not points of order. And I am going to object to the continuation of a process that theoretically raises points of order which is debate and not a point of order.

It is tough to be in the minority, isn't it? I feel your pain. I want you to know that.

Of course, that perfect bill of which all of you speak could have been passed in 1995 or 1996 or even 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000, or even 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes, 2006 when you were in charge, and we had no say as to what you passed or what you didn't pass. But you didn't pass this bill. You passed this bill through the House; it is not law. It is not law. And you had the President, you had the Senate, and you had the House.

There is now a claim that we have heard now for 2 weeks: The energy bill could have been better. Yes, but many of you voted for it. You indicated, many of you, that the minimum wage bill could have been perhaps better by adding some things on, but 82 of you voted for it.

This bill could be better, but it is timely. It is timely to do the right thing.

Mr. Kirk has a number of suggestions. I think they are pretty good suggestions. I don't mind them. He asked about income tax. Now, we all pay income taxes. All Americans pay income taxes, or some have preference items they avoid, assuming they are doing it legally. But that is not part of our duties as a Member of Congress; it is part of our duties as a citizen.

What this bill seeks to say is when you raise your right hand and swear that you will serve your constituents faithfully and honestly, that you do that; that you don't do it for some outside lobbyist or interest group. And that if you do, we are not going to pay your pension. That is all this bill says.

It is late in coming, but it is never too late to do the right thing, and I

would hope that every Member of this House when the roll is called on this bill will say to their constituents that I am going to take pensions away from those who abuse their power and responsibility given to them by the American people as Members of this House and undermine the faith and trust that the American people have in Members and in this House.

I agree with Mr. Terry, it could be better. We could add things to it. Perhaps we will. As a matter of fact, we just added something, as you have pointed out, because we thought that not only is lying bad, but asking people to lie is bad. It is called a fancy word, subornation of perjury. But what it is, is asking your staffer to say, don't tell the grand jury I did that. That is essentially what that says. So you can't tell your staff to go to the grand jury, when the grand jury says, does Member A, B or C take money or lie or do something or take money to vote on something, if you ask them to do that, and, after all, they work for you, you have control of their salary, you are also going to be subject to loss of pension.

So I agree with those that say this bill is not perfect. They are right, but a lot of the bills that we have passed, as a matter of fact probably no bill that we have passed has been perfect, but this is a good bill. As my friend, the former Congressman from Kentucky would say, ``And I tell you that frankly.''

My expectation is we are going to have almost every Member, I would hope 100 percent of the House say to the American people we will not allow Members who misuse and fail your trust to get your taxpayers' dollars paid to them in pensions. Vote for this bill. It is a good bill.

I want to congratulate Nancy Boyda for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, vote to say to the American people, we won't take your pensions if we do wrong by you, and we won't let others do as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

First of all, let me say that I do not think this is the best procedure that we could have followed.

No. I thought I was recognized. I was speaking.

Point of Order

I think we are beyond that point, but let me say I don't believe the gentleman is disingenuous. As a matter of fact----

Mr. Speaker, I move to table.

Parliamentary inquiry. Did you recognize the appeal of the ruling of the Chair?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could dissipate, first of all, any implication that anybody was disingenuous. There are obviously disagreements on issues. I know that the gentlelady, the Chair of the committee, and Mr. Shadegg have spoken. I think that is a good thing.

I wanted to say to Mr. Shadegg, I certainly did not believe he was anything but stating his opinion, and I think that is certainly appropriate to do. I want to make that very, very clear, that we do not and I do not nor did the chairwoman intend to put anybody's motivation in question. We should not do that. Hopefully, we will all try not to do that.

Secondly, let me say that in terms of notice, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Boehner on Friday. This bill was scheduled, as you know, for consideration on Friday.

There was concern that perhaps people hadn't seen it for sufficient time, although this bill, in substance, has, in fact, been passed by the House before with your leadership. So Mr. Boehner and I have discussed it. Mr. Blunt and I had a colloquy, in which time I said that this would be on suspension tonight.

The bill was amended, the gentleman is correct, within the last few hours. The date was changed at the request of Mr. Boehner. I happen to agree with Mr. Boehner that the date of 2009, which was in the bill, and I know Mrs. Boyda, I talked to Mrs. Boyda about it, she agreed with the change as well. The change was made because it was Mr. Boehner's feeling, and I think the minority's feeling, that the bill ought to go into effect immediately.

The reason the date was put in as 2009 because that is what the Senate bill does under the constitutional provision of the 27th amendment, where compensation of a Member may not be changed during the course of their term. So it was made effective at the next term.

But my observation, and I think Mr. Boehner's, I don't know whether he is on the floor, were the same; that if that question would be raised, let a defendant who is convicted of falling short of his duties and responsibilities, or hers, to their constituents and to this institution, let them raise that. I agreed with that. So that change was made mutually.

There was an additional subornation of perjury which we think is appropriate. But I want to say to Members on both sides, I am an institutionalist. I believe in this institution, I believe in the Members, and I believe the Members need to have careful and thoughtful consideration.

This bill is straightforward and, as I say, for all intents and purposes has been passed. I want to tell everybody, I think we are going to roll the vote on this bill because we don't want anybody to miss it. There are 11 Members on each side absent because of planes that have not flown on schedule because of weather. And it is an equal number on each side, so we are going to wait.

But I hope when this bill comes to a vote that all of us vote for it, notwithstanding our differences on process, which ought to be better. We are going to strive to make it better.

I want you to know that I feel strongly. When I said I feel your pain, I do. I don't think it is disingenuous pain. I think you are accurate on that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could conclude the debate on this. I think we are all going to agree on this.

I see my friend Mr. Boehner coming to the podium. But I would hope that we could move this bill and give to the American public the understanding that we believe this is a very serious matter, and we are going to address it, and we are going to address it soon.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And as we had a good discussion on this particular bill last week, but I understand the gentleman's position. I don't think it is an unreasonable position. I think our perception is that this is a bill that has passed. It is of deep interest to the American public, and we wanted to make a statement as early as possible. We are not going to affect anybody, obviously, in the past, but going forward we wanted the public to be very assured what our position was. And that is the purpose of this.

I know that the fact that it is on suspension means that it is not open to amendment. We understand that that may cause some consternation, and others will think that that is a procedure under which this kind of a bill probably should be concerned, in any event. But I appreciate the gentleman's view.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 599) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and to insert extraneous materials relating to the bill under consideration into the Congressional Record.

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

Today, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I introduced, the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007, which will help ensure that safe and effective antiterrorism technologies are being deployed by the Department of Homeland Security to bolster our security throughout the country.

The Support for Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act as it is known, was designed to provide incentives for development and deployment of antiterrorism technologies.

The SAFETY Act was intended to address the liability concerns of businesses and to pave the way for innovative development of key antiterrorism technologies. Unfortunately, a lack of personnel within the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, an excessively burdensome application process, and a lack of communication between the Department's procurement and management divisions made for difficult implementation of the SAFETY Act.

This legislation which I have introduced, along with Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rogers and many other members of the Homeland Security Committee, should fix many of those shortcomings.

Last year the Homeland Security Committee held a subcommittee hearing highlighting some of the problems that arose from the SAFETY Act's implementation. We heard from a variety of industry leaders and experts that the application process was overly burdensome, and that it took far too long for the Department of Homeland Security to properly evaluate and approve many of the applications that businesses submitted.

While I am pleased to see that many companies with new and innovative technologies have already applied for the SAFETY Act program, the program can be effective only when the applications are properly approved.

My legislation, therefore, takes three important steps to improve the effectiveness of the application process. First, this bill will help facilitate communication between the Department of Homeland Security's procurement sector and the Department's Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, which is the entity tasked with reviewing the applications. This approach will allow officials at DHS to thoroughly review applications while also maintaining quick turnaround times.

Second, the bill would require that the Secretary employ a sufficient number of analysts in the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation who can deal with the ever-growing number of applications. Appropriate staffing will help ensure that the applications are being processed in a timely manner, thereby allowing us to deploy the newest and best technologies as quickly as possible.

Finally, this legislation will help raise awareness of SAFETY Act risk management provisions among procurement officers across Federal, State, and local levels, and throughout the private sector.

Contributions made by private enterprises are an extremely important component of our Nation's security, and our governmental policies should continue to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

By passing the SAFETY Reform Act, I am optimistic that we will be able to effectively streamline the application process and encourage participation in this program across all levels of government and the private sector.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the speakers who have come forward. I want to thank Members on the other side of the aisle for working with us in a bipartisan fashion to bring this bill to the floor. I want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman Thompson and his due diligence in seeing that this act was put together in such a timely fashion and brought to the floor so quickly.

It is the responsibility of every level of government, whether it is the local, State or Federal level, first and foremost to protect our citizens. Our Nation is at war, and homeland security must be our top priority. The quicker that we can get these new and vital technologies in place that will better protect the American people, the better off we will all be.

So it is my intent that this act will clarify some of the problems with the original SAFETY Act and with the implementation that has been witnessed by the Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that we have brought this act to the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I move its passage.

Madam Speaker, I request that the following letters be made part of the Congressional Record.

Professional Services Council,

Arlington, VA, January 22, 2007.

Hon. James Langevin,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,

Science and Technology.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations

and Oversight.

Homeland Security Committee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Langevin and Congressman Rogers: On behalf of

the Professional Services Council (PSC), the leading national

trade association representing the professional and technical

services industry selling to the Federal Government, I am

writing to endorse the legislation introduced by you and

others (H.R. 599) to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-

terrorism technology procurement processes.

We appreciated the bipartisan leadership of Chairman

Thompson and Ranking Member King during the 109th Congress to

provide strong oversight of SAFETY Act implementation,

including the execution of the responsibilities of the

Secretary of Homeland Security and the Under Secretary for

Science and Technology in administering the Act. We are

confident that the Committee's support for the full

implementation of the law and for extending the coverage of

the Act to appropriate anti-terrorism technologies will

remain strong through your Subcommittees' leadership. '

PSC has been a strong and active supporter of the SAFETY

Act since its development in Congress in 2002. We have

commented extensively on the Act, on the implementing

regulations, application kits, and operating principles. We

have met repeatedly with key leaders within the Department

and other offices in the Executive Branch. We testified

before your Committee last year on the Act. We are pleased

with the recent progress made in providing the regulatory and

administrative framework for implementation, and with DHS's

renewed commitment to moving

that implementation forward. However, more can and should be

done.

While the Department is fully committed to robust

implementation of the Act, we see your bill as an important

step in helping the Department achieve that goal--whether

through the allocation of additional full-time DHS employees

to carry out the functions assigned under the Act or ensuring

that the Department's internal procurement and policy

organizations are aligned with and use the authorities

provided under the Act. In addition, the Department plays an

important role in providing guidance and information to other

federal agencies and to other stakeholders about the Act.

Each of these important items is addressed in H.R. 599.

We appreciated the opportunity to comment on the draft bill

and are pleased to offer PSC's support for the legislation as

introduced. We strongly support passage by the House early in

the legislative cycle and look forward to further legislative

and administrative action to fully implement the goals and

objectives of the SAFETY Act. We also look forward to working

with your Subcommittees and others on this important homeland

security initiative.

In the interim, if you or your staffs have any questions or

need any additional information, please do not hesitate to

let me know.

Sincerely,

Alan Chvotkin, Esq.,

Senior Vice President and Counsel.

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

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

But to begin with, I would like to yield a moment to the chairwoman of the committee and ask, just to try to clarify this, what is the effective date of the amendment we are considering?

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the question was an honest inquiry simply because there has been a lot of confusion about the last-minute changes, which is certainly not customary for a bill taken up under suspension.

This bill would deprive Members of Congress from their pensions if they are convicted of certain crimes. Similar language was included in the ethics and lobbying reform bill passed by the Senate last week.

This is not a new issue. This is not the first time the House has considered the question of whether convicted Members should lose their pensions. In 1996, following the conviction of Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, a public outcry followed published reports that he would be receiving a generous pension even while serving his prison term. In response, the House scheduled and voted on H.R. 4011, to take away the pensions of Members convicted of offenses listed in the bill. It passed 390-32 in the House, but was not taken up in the Senate and did not become law; and Mr. Rostenkowski received his full pension.

Incidentally, mail fraud, the crime for which Mr. Rostenkowski was convicted, was a listed offense in that bill, H.R. 4011, but is not listed in the bill pending before us today. So if there were another Rostenkowski event, today this would not affect that behavior.

The recent convictions of some of our former colleagues, and published reports implicating a current Member in bribery schemes, have caused this issue to surface again.

Then, as now, these legislative efforts amount to an attempt to close the barn door after the horse has gone. Even if H.R. 4011 had passed in 1996, it would not have affected anyone engaged in criminal activity prior to its passage. In other words, Mr. Rostenkowski still would not have been affected by that bill. Whatever we do today will not deprive any of our convicted former colleagues of their pensions and won't threaten the pension of a Member who might have already engaged in criminal activity but has yet to be charged or convicted. The Supreme Court has ruled you simply cannot change the criminal penalty for a crime after it has been committed and apply it retroactively. This is called ex post facto punishment and is clearly prohibited by the Constitution, and that is why it is so extremely important to draft this bill properly.

The Congress had originally attempted to do this when it passed the Hiss Act in 1954 in response to the perjury conviction of Alger Hiss. The law applied to a number of offenses. But this law, though passed after his conviction, was written to take away Hiss's pension but was struck down by a Federal court, and later the Congress scaled the law back because it was unmanageable. This illustrates again the importance of careful work on bills of this nature.

Conviction of an offense listed in the Hiss Act, which is still in effect and applies to all government employees, results in total loss of the pension. The Hiss Act, as amended in 1961, is now limited to crimes against the State that threaten national security: treason, espionage, sedition, et cetera.

Of course, had the Congress enacted the House-passed legislation on the subject in 1996, those who have been convicted of listed criminal offenses in the interim would not be able to receive pensions and today's action would not be necessary.

In view of all this, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is most unfortunate that we are considering this bill under suspension with last-minute changes, with limited time for debate, and no opportunity to consider alternatives. I believe that it is important to look at some alternatives. The courts have raised the issue of proportionality, that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. This bill does not contain anything relating to that. And it should, because under this bill a person who commits a heinous crime and has 5 years of pension credit suffers a minor penalty compared to a person who might commit a minor crime but has 20 years of pension to lose. This is not taken care of in this bill, and it should be.

The issue of spouse pensions, as the Chair of the committee mentioned, is dealt with in this bill; but I don't think it is dealt with satisfactorily. I think we should give some guidelines to the Office of Personnel Management in dealing with that.

My point on all this, Mr. Speaker, is that this is an important bill. It is going to potentially affect each and every Member of the Congress. I think it should be done with due deliberation and carefulness, and I think it is most unfortunate that this bill has become clouded by the hasty effort to get this taken up on suspension with last-minute changes not approved previously by the minority.

I hope this is not an example of what we can expect in the future. The issue is certainly more important than naming a post office, which is what we normally do on suspension; and I hope that this bill, when it does pass, will come back in conference so that we will be able to fine tune it in conference with the Senate and produce a good bill that is worthy of final passage.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

The bill was passed in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kirk of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to grant 2 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

I would just like to make a brief response to the majority leader before recognizing my next speaker. The issue is not just the quality of the bill. The main issue is the process, and I recall many times over the past few years, when we were in the majority, I asked our leadership to take up a bill on suspension. They said we can't do it unless the minority agrees to it, and I had to wait weeks several times for that.

Now, suddenly, we get a bill tossed out in just a few hours' notice. That is not proper procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I next yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the other speakers that I have to yield their time, and I will just yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly wrap it up.

I appreciate the comments made by the majority leader and minority leader. I hope they cleared the air.

But I just want to add a personal note. I served on a county commission some years ago and became the chair of the county commission, and there I learned the importance of proper order in doing things in regular order. I served as president pro tem of the State senate, and that even reinforced it more strongly. Always proceed properly, fairly and in order.

And I think part of the difficulty we have had here today is that the members of the current minority sat here for 2 weeks grinding their teeth while they watched things come to the floor without having gone to committee, without prior debate and discussion. And this was the crowning insult, to bring something to the floor under suspension, and to make not just one change, we have heard discussion of the date, but two changes in the bill between the time it was agreed to and the time that it reached the floor.

We cannot have that. As a minority we will not tolerate that. We deserve proper order. We deserve respect. And I assume the majority will, from this time henceforth, give us that respect and follow proper order, proper procedure, so we can avoid these donnybrooks in the future.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Chair tell me if this bill was reported out of committee?

So it has not been reported out of committee?

Can the chairman tell me if this bill was subject to amendment in committee?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Can the gentleman tell me where and when this bill was amended?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Has the majority been provided the text of the bill at this time, or can you tell me when it was amended?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. We just asked for a copy of the bill, a Member just did, and was not able to get it. Do we have more than one copy?

One further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it has been widely reported today that this bill has a delayed effective clause which would not make it effective until January of 2009. That is different than the introduced bill, which had an immediate effective date.

Can the Chair clarify whether or not it has been amended in that respect?

I thank the gentleman.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, although the rules package contained a provision that said the majority would provide legislative text to the minority 48 hours before a vote, that is not, in fact, a rule; is that correct?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is there a means by which I can appeal the ruling of the Chair in order to allow the Members of the minority the time in the civility clause that is 48 hours to see the language of this bill which was apparently amended within the last 45 minutes?

I would very much appreciate an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that is asking too much.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I believe I stated a parliamentary inquiry.

So the answer to my question is that there is no procedure by which I may object to this bill going forward without the 48 hours promised in the civility provision of the House rules?

Mr. Speaker, we just heard how serious this bill is; and, indeed, I think it is serious and important.

Over a year ago, I introduced a similar bill, so did my colleague Mr. Kirk, and so did my colleague Mr. Terry. The majority leader has just told us that we ought to all vote for this bill because it is so important; but once again, we are here in a procedural abuse of mind- boggling consequences.

For my colleagues who have not been here, you need to know that in the last hour this bill has been amended by the majority. Indeed, in the last 24 hours, it has been amended not once but twice. It was introduced in one form. This morning they announced two different amendments to it, changing both its effective date and the crimes to which it applies, and your offices were all told when you arrived here today that it had a new effective date and had a new series of crimes to which it applies. But guess what, do not rely on your staff because this bill is so important the majority has amended it within the last few minutes. Now they have added a crime, but changed the effective date again.

This is not the way that serious Congresses legislate. If you believe this bill is important, don't ask these Members to vote on it with less than an hour's notice. If you would like to look at a copy of the bill, many of our Members on the majority asked for a copy moments before debate started, and they could not get a copy. Indeed, the amendments appear to have either been handwritten or typed within the last few minutes.

This is not the way to legislate. Procedure matters. We have not been allowed to see this bill go through committee and to be marked up. It did not go to Rules where we could offer amendments, where we could offer the effective date we think is right or the list of crimes that we believe is right.

No, the majority has decided that the minority does not matter. Well, let's talk about fundamental fairness. In the Contract with America, we allowed that side, when they were in the minority, to offer to our Contract bills 154 floor amendments. That is on top of taking all of those bills to committee, and 48 of those amendments passed.

This is a procedural outrage, and they ought to be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, did she not just call me disingenuous? I would like the words taken down.

Point of order.

You may not besmirch the motives of a Member of the body. I believe the lady said that my comments were disingenuous. I would like to hear the comments. If she called me disingenuous, I take that as an offense.

I want her words taken down. Mr. Speaker, I would like the lady's words taken down.