To suspend temporarily the duty on perfluorobutane sulfonyl fluoride.

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.

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.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I am going to support the bill at hand because it is the only way we can implement what we just did.

I want to thank my friends on the other side. I know this is a complex rule. It is unfortunate we had to go through the machinations we did to get where we are, but this was a historic vote today as we propel legislation along the great ark of our Nation's history as the world's most vibrant experiment in representative democracy.

Two hundred six years ago this month, Thomas Jefferson became the first President to take his oath in what was called the Federal City here in Washington. But through the confluence of circumstances and accident, the great compromise that birthed our Constitution and put the Nation's Capital here also produced a grotesque injustice we have so far been unable to right. Today is a time for another great compromise.

The capital of the free world doesn't provide full voting representation for residents. In fact, that has been true for too long, but today we have started the process of correcting an unhappy legacy left by the first Congresses.

I have discovered over the last 4 years that there are substantial myths surrounding the founding of Washington, DC, so I want to take a few minutes today to lay out the facts of how the city became what it is.

The idea for a Federal district arose out of an incident that took place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers who had not been paid gathered to protest outside the building, the Continental Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia. The State refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New Jersey.

After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a Federal district under solely Federal control for the protection of the Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital. So the Framers gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal district and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what the Framers say about a Federal district in the Constitution, that there should be one, and that it should be under congressional authority.

After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to face the new Congress was where to place the Federal District. Some wanted it in New York. Others wanted it in Philadelphia. And others wanted it near George Washington's home on the Potomac.

These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great capitals of Europe. They never once talked about denying that city's inhabitants the right to vote.

Finally, Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid, Philadelphia got the capital for 10 years. Then, as now, those political decisions were shaped by the issues of the day.

In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act in which the right to vote was given to those residing in the new District. But while the capital was being established, those living here were permitted to continue to vote where they had before, in their States, on the Maryland side in Maryland, on the Virginia side of the District in Virginia.

The seat of government officially moved in 1800. In his final address to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, ``It is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress shall be immediately exercised.'' That one statement explains the nature of the debate to follow.

Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The political parties couldn't come to an agreement. Imagine that. The Federalists wanted to ensure a strong central control over the city. Anti-Federalist Republicans wanted to limit authority and distrusted all things urban.

With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the Presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before Jefferson took over, it would never pass.

Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped-down version of a bill authored by Virginia Congressman ``Light Horse Harry'' Lee. It simply stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having been superseded in the District, would still apply.

We may never know why this version was passed because no records survived, but there is absolutely no evidence the Founding Fathers, who had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government, then decided the only way to secure that government was to deny representation to some of their fellow citizens.

One historian aptly described the process as a ``rushed and improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the desperate logic of lame-duck political maneuvering.'' But the inelegant compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in its wake. District residents had no votes in Congress.

This wasn't, and is not, merely a quirk of history that affects very few people. The problem affects the very

reputation of our entire Nation. Foreign visitors I have met comment with puzzlement on the lack of voting representation in the Nation's Capital. I heard it from the mayor of Hong Kong when we were discussing his relationship with China.

Over the next few weeks and as this moves to the other body, we have to agree on this principle. So we have taken important action today.

Our very practical Founding Fathers left us a tool in the Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason. Congress reaches its zenith of power in dealing with issues relating to the District.

Over the years, Congress has exercised its power to treat the District as a State when necessary, to ensure that the citizens of the city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans. Surely Members should resolve any difference of opinion they may have in favor of our authority to use that plenary power to provide residents with full voting representation.

Scholars spanning its political and legal spectrum have concluded, as I do, that Congress has authority through this legislation to provide voting representation in Congress for local residents. What was done by statute in 1790, and then undone by statute in 1800, can be redone by statute today.

This is often called the ``People's House,'' and rightly so. Article I, section 2, sets forth that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States.''

That same language, ``People of the several States,'' among the several States, is why the District of Columbia pays Federal taxes, even though it applies to people of the several States.

The sixth amendment's right to trial by jury, even though it says that it will be an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall be committed, has been applied to the District.

Prohibiting district laws which interfere with interstate commerce among the several States, Congress has applied that to the District of Columbia and the courts have upheld it.

Treat the District as a State for purposes of full faith and credit. That talks about States and the Constitution. But under the District clause, we have included the District of Columbia.

Grant people who live in the District the ability to sue people. Diversity of jurisdiction again applies to States, between citizens of different States under the Constitution, but under the District clause we have applied that by statute.

This body has taken an historic step today. I want to thank my colleagues who worked toward this, including my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, who supported this. But to continue this, we need to support the issue at hand, the bill that is currently on the floor under the PAYGO legislation.

It is kind of a jurisdictional morass, but I urge my colleagues to support it.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Title II of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the ethics rules contained in Title II because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq, for Administration cronies like Halliburton.

Ethics and legal scandals plagued the Republican Congress--from the resignation of Reps. Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham to

the admission of illegal or improper conduct by Reps. Bob Ney and Mark Foley.

The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, a former congressman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud-- accepting all-expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland and accepting meals, sports and concert tickets, while providing legislative favors for Abramoff's clients.

But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead of night.

The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exits polls indicated that 74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very important issue in their choice at the polls.

Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this critical election, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Slaughter and the members of the Rules Committee for their excellent work in preparing this ethics reform package. The reforms contained in the package are tough but not nearly too tough for persons elected to represent the interests of the 600,000 constituents in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar bipartisan lobbying and government reform proposals were debated and passed by the House and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to reconcile the two versions.

Mr. Speaker, I support each element of the ethics reform package, which bans gifts from lobbyists; bans lobbyist financed trips and travel; requires pre-approval and certification for travel financed by outside groups; prohibits use of corporate aircraft; ends the notorious K Street Project; and mandates ethics training for all House employees.

bans gifts from lobbyists

Members of Congress are paid enough by the taxpayers to afford to pay for their own meals. Lobbyists can make their case by providing Members of Congress accurate, reliable, and persuasive information. Thus, it is appropriate that the House rules should ban gifts, including meals and tickets, from lobbyists and the organizations that employ them, and require that tickets to sporting and other events given to Members and staff by non-lobbyists are valued at market price.

bans lobbyist travel

Another reform that I support is the ban on lobbyists and the organizations that employ them from financing travel for Members or staff, except for one-day travel to visit a site, attend a forum, participate in a panel, or give a speech. As the scandal involving Jack Abramoff revealed, lobbyist financed travel led to serious abuse. The new rules do not ban such travel altogether but directs the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to develop guidelines for minimal lobbyist involvement for one-day/one-night travel. It should be noted, however, that travel provided by a private university is not to be affected by anything in the rules package.

requires certification and pre-approval for travel paid for by outside

groups

I also support the travel certification and pre-approval provisions. The new ethics rules require sponsors of all other permitted travel to certify that they have abided by all restrictions on lobbyist involvement and requires Members and staff to obtain pre-approval from the ethics committee for travel to ensure trips are connected to official duties, the amount spent is limited to reasonable expenses, and the destination is related to the purpose of the trip. The rules require the full disclosure of all travel within 15 days after the trip. Travel provisions take effect beginning on March 1, 2007.

prohibits use of company planes

Next, the new rules prohibit the use of official, personal or campaign funds to pay for the use of non-commercial, corporate jets. This provision does not apply to charter plane services or to airplanes owned by Members.

ends the k street project

Clarifies that no Member can take or withhold an official act, or influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the official act of another with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity.

mandates ethics training

Finally, and effective March 1, 2007, the new rules require the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer annual ethics training to members, delegates, the resident commissioner, officers and employees of the House. This training would be required to involve the classes of employees deemed appropriate by the committee and must include the aspects of the Code of Official Conduct and related House rules deemed appropriate.

The required training is to be provided to new officers or employees within 60 days of their employment, and each officer or employee is to file a certification with the committee by January 31 certifying that they have attended training in the past year.

Conclusion

Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that the Members of this House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment to the national interest.

This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To do that, we must start by adopting Title II of H.R. 6, the ethics reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress.