Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to respond to the indictment of, or the filing of charges of criminal conduct in a court of the United States or any State against, any Member of the House of Representatives by empaneling an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations not later than 30 days after the date the Member is indicted or the charges are filed.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Pending that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, congratulations. It's very nice to see you in the chair.

I would like to insert a section-by-section analysis of the resolution to appear at this point in the Record.

section 1. resolved clause.

This section provides that the Rules of the l12th Congress

are the Rules of the 112th Congress, except with the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution, and

orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.

section 2. changes to the standing rules.

Citing Authority under the Constitution. Paragraph (a)

creates a new clause 7 in rule XII providing that a Member

may not introduce a bill or joint resolution unless the

sponsor also submits a statement citing as specifically as

practicable the power or powers under the Constitution

authorizing the enactment of that bill or joint resolution.

The statement will appear in a separate section in the

Congressional Record and be made available to the public in

electronic form.

While the rule requires that a Member submit the statement

at the same time as the bill is introduced, there is nothing

in the rule to prevent the sponsor of the bill from

submitting an additional statement later in the process if he

or she wants to revise the initial statement. With regard to

electronic availability, appearance in the electronic version

of the Congressional Record will initially satisfy the

electronic availability requirement of this paragraph.

However, ultimate the intention is that the Clerk will make

the statements available in a searchable, sortable, and

downloadable database as soon as practicable.

With respect to Senate bills, the provision authorizes the

chair of a committee of jurisdiction, prior to consideration

of the Senate bill, to submit a statement as if the chair

were the sponsor. Finally, the provision also repeals the

current requirement for a similar statement in committee

reports.

When a Member introduces a bill or joint resolution, the

Clerk must ensure that a statement required under this

paragraph accompanies the measure. However, the Clerk is not

required to evaluate the content of the statement or its

adequacy; those are matters to be considered by Members

during consideration of the legislation.

Three-Day Availability for Unreported Bills. This provision

adds a new clause to rule XXIX establishing a point of order

against consideration of a bill or joint resolution that has

not been available for three calendar days. This provision

mirrors existing layover rules prohibiting consideration of

bills reported by a committee or conference reports.

Transparency for House and Committee Operations.

Subparagraph (i) directs the Committee on House

Administration to establish and maintain standards for

documents made available in electronic form by the House and

its committees. Subparagraph (2) provides that a measure or

matter will have been considered as having been ``available''

within the meaning of the rules if it was publicly available

in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee

on House Administration.

The intention of these provisions is to ensure that Members

and the public have easy access to bills, resolutions, and

amendments considered in committee and by the House. The

standard for electronic documents is intended to evolve over

time. While the standard may initially include more static

formats such as a searchable PDF, the intention is to

eventually transition to more flexible structured data

formats, such as XML, as the tools become available to ease

the creation and ensure the integrity of House documents.

With respect to availability, the provision is intended to

place electronic distribution on par with traditional

printing; rather than entirely replace it. Finally, the rule

contemplates a singular location that will direct Members and

the public to the text of measures to be considered by the

House and its committees.

Subparagraph (3) amends clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI to

provide for a minimum notice period of 3 days for a committee

meeting. This joins the current requirement for 7 days notice

for a committee hearing. The provision maintains the current

ability of the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking

minority member, to waive both notice periods if they find

good cause to start the hearing or meeting sooner. The

provision can also be waived by a majority vote of the

committee.

Subparagraph (4) requires that the chair of the committee

make the text of the measure or matter being marked up

publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior

to commencement of the meeting. This provision is intended to

ensure that members have the text of the measure or matter in

sufficient time to review the measure and draft any

amendments. Accordingly, if the committee is considering a

committee print, or the Chair of a committee intends to use

an amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text

for purposes of further amendment, circulation of that text

will satisfy this requirement. While the rule requires that

the text be circulated at least 24 hours in advance of the

meeting, that text should be circulated as early as possible

to provide members the maximum amount of time to review the

measure or matter and draft any desired amendments.

Subparagraph (5) requires that the chair of a committee

make the results of any record vote publicly available in

electronic form within 48 hours of the vote, while

subparagraph (6) requires that the text of any adopted

amendment be made similarly available, along with the text of

the measure being marked up, within 24 hours of commencement

of the markup or adoption of the amendment.

Subparagraph (7) requires the posting of non-governmental

witness ``truth-in-testimony'' information (with appropriate

redactions, such as a home address or phone number, to

protect the privacy of the witness). Subparagraph (8)

requires public availability in electronic form of the

committee rules.

Subparagraph (9) requires each Committee, to the maximum

extent practicable, to provide audio and video coverage of

each committee hearing or meeting and maintain recordings

that are easily accessible to the public. This subparagraph

is not intended to require audio and video coverage in

situations where it would be technically impracticable, such

as where a hearing or meeting is held in a room without audio

and video broadcast equipment, or create a defect with a

hearing or meeting if a webcast or recording is not available

due to technical issues.

Subparagraph (10) strikes an exception, adopted in the

110th Congress, for the Committee on Rules to accurately

report its votes in committee reports to accompany a rule,

joint rule, or a special order of business.

Subparagraph (11) amends clause 2(d)(1) of rule X to

require committees, during development of their oversight

plan, to include proposals to cut or eliminate mandatory and

discretionary programs that are inefficient, duplicative,

outdated, or more appropriately administered by State or

local governments.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subparagraph (d)(i) replaces the current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with a ``cut-as-you-go'' requirement. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subparagraph (2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by Congress of the budget resolution,

thereby avoiding a separate vote in the House on the public

debt-limit legislation. Subparagraph (3) adds a new clause to

rule XXIX that clarifies that the chair of the Committee on

the Budget, rather than the entire committee, is authorized

to provide guidance to the presiding officer on the budgetary

impact of legislative proposals. This change reflects the

current practice under majorities of both parties.

Subparagraph (4) modifies clause 3 of rule XXI, pertaining

to transportation obligation limitations, to protect the

balances of the Highway Trust Fund by establishing a point of

order against consideration of any general appropriation bill

or joint resolution, or accompanying conference report, that

provides spending authority from balances in the trust fund

(other than those from transfers from the General Fund of the

Treasury) or reduces or limits the accruing balances of that

trust fund for anything other than activities authorized for

the highway or mass transit programs.

Subparagraph (5) modifies clause 7 of rule XXI, which

places restrictions on reconciliation directives contained in

a budget resolution. The new modification would specify

that it would not be in order to consider a budget resolution

or amendments thereto, or a conference thereon which would

have the effect of increasing net direct spending.

Other Changes to House Operations. Paragraph (e)(1)

provides the Chair of the Committee of the Whole with

authority to employ two minute voting during a series of

votes.

Subparagraph (2) changes the current rule regarding

electronic devices, which prohibits the use of mobile phones

and personal computers on the floor, to prohibit the use of

any mobile electronic device that is disruptive of the

decorum. This change will give the Speaker greater latitude

in deciding which mobile electronic devices may or may not be

used by Members on the floor.

For historical purposes, it is important to note that the

use of electronic devices in the chamber of the U.S. House of

Representatives is governed by the rules of the House. In the

111th Congress, the fourth sentence of clause 5 of rule XVII

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

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

As we've seen here today, Madam Speaker, we are marking an important turning point in the history of the United States House of Representatives. We have before us a package of reforms that will bring greater transparency and accountability to this House, and it will once again give the American people the opportunity to participate in the legislative process. They've made clear to us that what their priorities are--job creation, economic growth, and a smaller, more accountable Federal Government--must be done. The reforms included in the rules package are designed to ensure that those priorities are met and that we are held responsible for our actions to do the people's work.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank each and every one of my colleagues who have worked tirelessly on this rules package. Never before in history has there been the kind of Member involvement--bipartisan Member involvement--in an opening day rules package. I particularly want to thank my good friends Greg Walden, who led our transition team, and Rob Bishop, who led the rules reform effort, as well as the other members of our transition working group. We had four new Members of Congress who right after the election got involved in working on this very, very important transition, and I want to express my appreciation.

As I said, Madam Speaker, this has, for the first time, ever been bipartisan. I don't want to claim that my Democratic colleagues are supportive of this rules package, but I will say that when we began the process, I'm happy that former Speaker Pelosi designated as liaisons to work with us through the transition process the distinguished former chair of the Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I want to express my appreciation to them again for their hard work.

As we looked for ways to chart a new course and reduce congressional waste, we knew that we had to consider good ideas from both political parties, and that's why I'm happy to say we had input from both Democrats and Republicans in fashioning this opening day rules package. Our Democratic liaisons were tremendous partners, and again, I express my appreciation to my Democratic colleagues for joining with us in this effort.

Now, having completed our transition work, we are now beginning a new Congress. Each of us faces the new beginning with the knowledge that congressional approval ratings are abysmally low. It's rare that the Congress is held in high esteem by the American people--we all know that--but it is even rarer to have an approval rating that is as low as it is right now.

Now, why is it that this body has become so unpopular? The reason is that the American people felt that they were not being listened to. They have sent us here to conduct the 112th Congress differently than any Congress of the past. I'm not going to just talk about the last two Congresses, Madam Speaker; I'm going to say that they sent us here this year to perform differently than any Congress of the past. What's more, they have given us, as Speaker Boehner likes to say, some pretty simple and clear and direct marching orders when it comes to our work: fulfill our constitutional duties in an open and transparent way.

Now, Madam Speaker, this rules package that we have before us provides us the tools to do just what the American people have asked: to perform our constitutional duties in a transparent and open way. Because our highest priorities are job creation and economic growth, we must rein in the government spending that has spiraled out of control over the past several years. We're taking several steps to meet that goal.

For starters, we're requiring that any new spending be offset for five 10-year budget windows. If a bill increases the deficit by more than $5 billion in any of these 10-year windows, it will be subjected to a point of order. In other words, we're changing the rules of the House to ensure that we look at short, medium, as well as long-term consequences to Federal spending. We should not, and cannot, consider legislation that pushes the Federal budget deficit and the problems down the road.

We will also be reforming the spending process by replacing PAYGO with CutGo. Rather than pairing spending with tax increases, job- killing tax increases, we will pair it with spending cuts. It's often been said that we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. These new rules will make it easier to reduce spending rather than increase it. In fact, the idea behind this package is to focus on ways in which we can increase the opportunity to reduce spending rather than increase it.

Now, Madam Speaker, we're also taking important steps to make us more accountable to the American people, the people whom we're so honored to represent. We won't be voting on bills unless they've been available for at least 3 calendar days. We will be returning much of the legislative work back to the committees where greater transparency will be required. The work product, the recorded votes, and the video archives of all committees are required by these rules to be posted online. No longer will massive legislation be written behind closed doors, regardless of political party, and rammed through the House before anyone has the chance to review or amend the text. Our work will be done in an open way that affords all Members the opportunity to participate and scrutinize.

Another key reform by this rules package is the creation of an electronic format for legislation. This represents a dramatic change in how legislation is made available, not just to Members but to the public and the press as well. Now, Madam Speaker, for the last two centuries, legislation was considered available when a paper copy was dropped off in the document room across the street. Now it will be considered available when anyone with access to the Internet can look it up.

This new format will evolve over time, and there's work ahead that still has to be done as we implement these rules changes, but no Member should consider this vote as the end of the reform efforts of this Congress. Again, what we're doing here today is simply the first step in what is going to be a one-year, 2-year process of reform.

We will not be wed to the way we used to do things. Rather, we will be looking for new and different ways to do our jobs and to do them in the most transparent and accountable way. And let me say again, Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to ensure that we have the input of my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) and other Democrats, as well as Republicans, in this process.

Madam Speaker, this rules package is a very significant first step. We have learned the hard way that bad process inevitably results in bad outcomes. We need look no further than our ailing economy and spiraling deficit, not to

mention Congress' abysmal approval rating, to see that that is true.

By reforming the rules of the House, we set the stage for reforming the entire Federal Government. Ultimately, we ensure fidelity to the original rules document, that being the Constitution. And I am so pleased that tomorrow on the House floor, led by our friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we will be having a bipartisan reading of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, our Founders understood better than anyone the importance of restraining Federal power. I think that Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said, ``In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.''

Now, Madam Speaker, in this Congress, we will refocus our efforts on fulfilling our constitutional duties in a transparent and responsible way. We will be reform-minded and accountability-oriented, and we will be driven by the number one concern of the American people--getting our economy back on track. Madam Speaker, form dictates function, and these new rules will set us on the path toward greater economic growth and confidence for the American people.

With that, I urge support of this very important resolution and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington, Sheriff Reichert, our distinguished colleague and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my very good friend, the minority whip.

On the issue of CutGo versus PAYGO, I think it's important to note that in the bipartisan agreement that was put together just last month, supported by President Obama, there was an actual embrace of the John F. Kennedy vision of recognizing that economic growth and an enhanced level of revenues to the Federal Treasury come about by keeping marginal rates low.

Now I will say, Mr. Speaker, that was a bipartisan agreement; and so what we've said is that as we look at growing the economy, we are very enthused at the fact that job creators are going to be able to have revenues focused on job creating, therefore enhancing the opportunity for more revenues coming to the Federal Treasury.

Second, I think it's also very important for us to realize that the focus does need to be on spending; and we believe very passionately that, in the last 4 years since we've seen a 92 percent increase, a 92 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in nondefense discretionary spending, that we need to have a laser-like focus on that.

Now, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have come together to decry both the lack of jobs that exist in our economy, as well as deficit spending. There's clear bipartisan agreement on that. We all want to create more private sector jobs, and we all want to see the deficit reduced.

Now, how is it, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with those two issues?

The single most important thing that we can do to ensure that we address that is to ensure economic growth. And so the notion behind PAYGO, which would, in fact, bring about, unfortunately, an increase in taxes that dramatically would stall this recovery--and even Keynesian economists, those through the 1930s, 1940s--John Maynard Keynes died in 1950--there are many people who have followed his economic model, that being stimulating through greater Federal spending.

Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that increasing taxes, when you're dealing with a difficult economy, in fact, undermines the potential for economic growth.

Now, let me take the second issue that my friend mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and that issue has to do with the question of our delegates. They're all friends of mine and I respect--I've visited most of the territories, if not all, and I will say that these are very diligent, hardworking Members.

But we all know what the bottom line comes to here. The bottom line comes down to that the vote here in the Committee of the Whole counts until it doesn't count, and it doesn't count if it counts. And that's why I understand. And my friend, Mr. Faleomavaega, said correctly, this is a symbol. It is a symbol. And I think that their membership and participation on committees is important, and there is a great deal of camaraderie that does go on with our friends.

But the fact is, when you have a structure where the vote counts until it doesn't count and doesn't count if it counts, it seems to me that that is not the proper route for us to take; and so that's the reason that this action has been taken.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my very good friend, the distinguished minority whip.

I've actually been here a few months longer than my friend has.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I would say that I began by talking about a great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, who used this model. And the notion of simply looking at 1981, 1989, and 2001 is not the simple basis for the argument that I'm propounding. I'm beginning, if you look at modern history, with John F. Kennedy as President of the United States.

And I will also say that, in looking at the 1993 bill, I am convinced, as I stand here today, that if we had had simply that tax increase and not put into place the measures that we did in 1994, 1995, 1996 that focused on job creation and economic growth, reducing the top rate on capital gains and, in fact, bringing about marginal rate reduction, we would not have enjoyed that tremendous period of growth that we experienced through the decade of the 1990s which, as we all know, was the time that the Republicans were, in fact, in control here.

We've had a nice exchange. If I could reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear further from my friend if Ms. Slaughter would yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very distinguished new Republican whip, my good friend and fellow Californian, the gentleman from Bakersfield, Mr. McCarthy.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who led our effort to bring about reform of the rules and help put this package together, my very good friend, Mr. Bishop, the gentleman from Utah.

I am happy to give my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 45 seconds to the distinguished new chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

If the gentleman would yield, I would say, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct. Clause 3 of rule XXI, as amended, does not change the way in which the underlying programs are funded, which is through contract authority provided by authorization acts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of our transition committee, my friend from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Will the gentleman yield?

I will simply say I was quoting Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Hoyer when they used that term.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, but I have to say that I am very, very troubled that we are where we are.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, my very good friend from Detroit, Mr. Conyers, on the floor. Just before we adjourned for the Memorial Day break, he and I were in a lengthy exchange, both upstairs in the Rules Committee and then here on the House floor dealing with the issue of lobbying reform, and I was very pleased that Mr. Conyers supported an amendment that I offered dealing with disclosure of post-employment plans for Members. It was a very thoughtful process. Concern had been raised about that, and Mr. Conyers was very, very generous in looking at that issue, in dealing responsibly with it, and accepting the amendment that I proposed to that issue.

When we were in the midst of debate, and I will have to say when he stood there, I was somewhat concerned over the fact that we saw gross politicization from some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who have continued to try to make campaign speeches on this issue of lobbying and ethics reform, talking about the message that was sent last November.

We all know that the American people want an institution, a United States House of Representatives, that is above reproach. We all know that Members of this institution should in fact be held to the highest possible standards.

But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about where we are at this moment. I just today looked at a report that was issued on the great new openness and the way this institution has been run and how dramatically improved it is. And then we are given, with this resolution, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, a very, very poorly drafted resolution. That is the reason that we have a referral process.

In the 109th Congress, we had many, many issues that we had to address. And original jurisdiction matters that were referred to the Committee on Rules in fact were addressed in hearings, were addressed in markups, and in fact were resolved.

We listened to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, talk about all of these great reforms that were implemented on the opening day of the 110th Congress and these great changes that have taken place. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we also have been spending time in the 110th Congress cleaning up the poorly worded, messy language that we dealt with.

One example: In a rule that was passed by this House we self-executed a provision which actually allowed Members to once again attend charitable events. In the opening day rules package that was put into place on this issue, Mr. Speaker, there was a provision that actually denied Members, it denied Members, the opportunity to attend charitable events.

Now, that was rectified. But I use that one example, Mr. Speaker, to point to the fact that if we had handled this issue the way Mr. Conyers had handled the issue of lobbying ethics reform, which we supported in a bipartisan way, we would not be dealing with a resolution that creates the potential, Mr. Speaker, for Members of this House who face a traffic ticket, Members who might want to protest, as I said earlier in my remarks, at the Sudanese Embassy over policies that are taking place there.

What it would mean, Mr. Speaker, is under this resolution, a Member who gets a traffic ticket, gets a ticket for littering, is arrested for protesting at the Sudanese Embassy, that that would have to be referred to the Committee on Standards.

My friend has just said there is a provision in here, it is the last line, item 2 in the ``resolved'' clause, which says if the committee does not empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations, submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not empaneling such an investigative subcommittee, together with the actions, if any, the committee has taken in response to the allegation.

So, Mr. Speaker, this very, very poorly crafted resolution basically does state that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does in fact have to deal with this, even if they choose, because it was a protest or a traffic ticket or a littering ticket, they still have to deal with this issue by choosing not to empanel an investigative committee to address that.

Now, our new colleague from Kansas stood up and very proudly talked about the fact that she is dealing with this issue of pension reform. We all want to do everything that we can to make sure that Members don't have the taxpayers subsidizing these pensions of criminals, people who are imprisoned.

We know there was concern raised about family members, but I will say there is nothing in this resolution that we are debating right now, Mr. Speaker, that addresses the issue of ensuring that criminals who have served in this institution are not going to continue to benefit from their pensions. In this very unique case, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we are very troubled over the fact that there are co-conspirators involved in this charge; and, Mr. Speaker, they are in fact family members who potentially could become the beneficiaries of this pension.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will say again I am going to vote in favor of this resolution, but I am very, very troubled about the way it has been worded. I am very troubled over the fact that it was not referred to the Rules Committee of which I am privileged to serve as the ranking minority member. I think this is a very poor way of doing business.

Our Republican leader came forward with an appropriate privileged resolution which simply called for the Ethics Committee to expeditiously take action. We have had to wait for nearly half a year without any action whatsoever being taken to follow up on the action that was taken in the 109th Congress.

I believe everyone should in fact be deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that as we look at this, though, it is imperative that we have action taken as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Texas, Judge Gohmert.

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

I would like to once again engage in a colloquy with my very good friend from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, if I might.

As we are standing here today, I will say, unfortunately, on the House floor this has become sort of the Rules Committee original jurisdiction process. We are now doing it on the House floor because a decision was made by the majority leadership to prevent the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to even consider this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if I might just pretend as if this is a committee hearing and assume that the distinguished Chair has yielded time to me, I would like to inquire of the author of the resolution as to whether or not it is the intent to have Members of this institution who might possibly be engaging in a very, very great protest over which they feel very strongly and they are arrested, I would like to inquire is it the intention of the author of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, to have that measure, have that Member, referred with a potential huge, huge legal fee, $450 to $1,000 an hour, to action taken by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct?

And, similarly, I ask whether or not it is the intent of the author of the resolution to have the measure if someone, a Member of this House, gets a traffic ticket and they have to face a legal challenge there, if it is their intent that the issue of a Member's traffic ticket be referred to the Ethics Committee so the Ethics Committee can decide whether or not they want to empanel an investigative group to look at this, or choose to waive it. Or, as I said earlier, for littering or any other small instance.

My concern with this very poorly crafted resolution, my concern, Mr. Speaker, is we will see a situation whereby Members are faced with that kind of challenge.

I would be happy to yield to my friend to have him respond if that is the intent of his legislation here.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did say and he talked about the great colleagues we have who serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and he did refer to the fact that this measure and the concern over a traffic ticket would, in fact, have to be referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. So I am inferring from that that it is the gentleman's intent that a measure like a traffic ticket or a protest at the Sudanese Embassy is to be referred to the Committee on Standards.

Sure. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say if the gentleman were to read the resolution which he has authored, he would see there is no specificity. And, in fact, it is very possible, it is very possible that if we pass this legislation, we would be in a position where the Committee on Standards would be forced to deal with the issue of a traffic ticket, a protest, a littering ticket or any measure like that. My only question of the gentleman was that in fact his intent. He said this was authored in response to the Republican measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the only point I am trying to make to my very good friend from Maryland is that this is a measure that clearly should have been referred to the Committee on Rules. The gentleman has on three occasions talked about the intent, the intent of his legislation.

This is drafted. We are about to vote on it. Why is there not specificity as to how Members are treated when dealing with an issue like of a traffic ticket juxtaposed to the 16 counts we are dealing with in the case of Mr. Jefferson?

There is not clarity in this measure, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is very important for us to recognize that if we are in fact in this House with a great new sense of openness and a greater deliberative nature, this is a sad commentary on where we are. As I said in my remarks, everyone wants to talk about and is a proponent of holding this institution to high ethical standards. This is not a partisan issue. Unfortunately, it was used as a very partisan issue in last November's election.

But as we have found, there are problems of corruption on both sides of the aisle. It seems to me that as we deal with an issue that is as important as holding this institution to the highest possible ethical standards, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to do it right.

Unfortunately, and again, while I am going to vote for this resolution, I think it was very, very poorly crafted. I think we as an institution, Mr. Speaker, can do much, much better than we did with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side of the debate?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend from Maryland would be very generous. Most of the time that I yielded was for his very thoughtful explanations as we were going through what I consider to be the Rules Committee hearing process here.

Well, 5 minutes, actually I'm going to reserve the time. If the gentleman would like to answer on his own time, the gentleman has twice as much time as I have. We have requests, and we are trying to get through the entire Rules Committee hearing here in a matter of 15 minutes. It's going to be a challenge for us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, and I really, really look forward to continuing our Rules Committee hearing process with my friend, the majority leader, after we have our line of very thoughtful speeches being made by our friends on the other side of the aisle. He said he had a whole lot of them, so I'm going to reserve my time if I might, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend, the distinguished majority leader, how many speakers he has remaining on his side?

Okay. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I'd like to during this period of time engage my friend in a colloquy.

And let me say as we begin this process, that I'm very troubled that we have this 40 minutes of debate, and we are in a position right now where we had to hear a whole line of campaign speeches that were, as the gentleman from Maryland said, a very important part of last November's process, the election, and we had to listen to those speeches again rather than trying to clean up this very, very poorly crafted legislation.

Now, I asked my friend to yield earlier, and he refused to yield to me, Mr. Speaker. And as I made that request, I was struck with the fact that the report that was just issued today continued to talk about this great sense of civility, openness and bipartisanship that exists in this institution. So I will say that I was somewhat troubled by that.

Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that the distinguished majority leader has another speaker from which we're going to hear, and before I engage in my colloquy with him, and I hope he might be generous with whatever time is remaining so that we can try to clean up this legislation or at least the intents of it, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is remaining?

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

As we've been sitting here listening to what frankly have been a flow of campaign speeches, we've been trying to sort of study and analyze and scrutinize what the majority leader, for whom I have highest regard, describes as well-crafted legislation.

So I'm going to with the remaining time that I have continue to try and inquire about this legislation which should have been referred to the Rules Committee, that should have been an original jurisdiction hearing.

A question that has just come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to yield to my friend for an answer on this, is whether or not a Member who conceivably receives a traffic ticket, and again, the language here says, ``be it Resolved, That whenever a Member of the House of Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress, is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct.''

Now, my question to my friend would be, if a Member were to get a speeding ticket, and I was just informed by one of our crack staff people here who is aware of the fact that in the State of Virginia, if someone exceeds the speed limit by 10 miles an hour, they could be out here on the George Washington Parkway, there is in fact a criminal charge leveled against them. If that were to happen to a Member, is that Member under this resolution that we are going to be voting on compelled to actually inform the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that that person faces that criminal charge?

And I'd be happy to yield to the majority leader to clarify this bit of confusion that we have in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, when the gentleman says I'm just focusing on traffic tickets, if in fact someone is arrested for a protest at the Sudanese Embassy, is it the intent that that Member be compelled to inform the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of this action?

These are the questions we want to have answered, and I'm underscoring, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is a lot of confusion about this resolution. I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

I'm happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, that is the reason we need to have that clarified. Let me read the resolution on which we're about to vote.

It says, ``otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct.'' That is the language that is here. If that happens, then the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is expected to take action, whether or not they choose to empanel an investigative committee or choose to waive it. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is compelled to take action, whether it be a traffic ticket, an arrest at the Sudanese Embassy or a littering ticket.

And I'm happy to yield to my friend if he wants to further clarify the confusion and explain to us what ``otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct'' is, and Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm doing this is to simply underscore the fact that this measure should have been referred to the Committee on Rules so that we could have held an original jurisdiction and done what we've already had to do in this Congress so far, and that is clean up on issues like the charitable events attending, we had to clean that up

through a self-executed measure in a rule that was passed last month.

That's why we have a chance to do it. I believe it should be done.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I am not trivializing. I am not trivializing this issue at all.

Mr. Speaker, I am not trivializing this issue at all. There is nothing trivial about this issue.

My time has expired? Will the gentleman from Maryland yield me time to respond?

Mr. Speaker, let me say there is absolutely nothing trivial about this issue. We are here on the floor because of the fact that we have faced a very serious attack with an indictment against one of our colleagues. That Member happens to be a Democrat.

We have all discussed the fact that this is a bipartisan issue, and there is a goal to ensure that this institution is held to the highest possible ethical standards. We have before us a resolution, which, based on my experience in this House, is very poorly crafted. It is a resolution which creates the potential for all kinds of havoc.

I have been spending the last 40 minutes making a feeble attempt at trying to create some kind of legislative history as to how Members of this institution in the future are going to be treated, as our friends on other side of the aisle have rushed to the floor and tried to politicize this very, very important substantive issue.

They have done it. They have done it through the campaign process last fall, and I believe that we need to do what we can to put this measure before the Committee on Rules so we can, in fact, have a decent hearing on it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I am pleased to say this morning that I am delighted to be here.

I want to give my congratulations to Mr. Dreier on reclaiming the Rules seat, and we are very keen on our side to make our case before you today.

Madam Speaker, actually, my head is somewhat spinning because, not 20 minutes ago, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood where you are and said he was going to be listening to people, but the first order of business before the House came from the delegates whom this rule disenfranchises--not only the delegate of the District of Columbia but all of the Territories. They didn't get to say a word. So my head is somewhat spinning at this point, and we hope to try to at least give them unanimous consent so that they can try to get some message into the Record.

It is again part of the rhetoric from the last campaign that keeps spinning in our heads: All we want to do, they said, is to bring down the deficit. We're going over a cliff, and we've got to bring down the deficit.

As we stand here today, on the brink of a new session of Congress, the concern about deficits has disappeared from everything but the press releases. Under the new majority rules, the other side will essentially gut PAYGO--the pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2007 under which tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Under President Clinton, it gave us the biggest surplus we have ever had. It was a hallmark of Democrat leadership, and we are proud of it. We adhered to responsible spending levels and affordable tax cuts, and we took sensible steps towards controlling the deficit.

But not today.

Their talk about belt-tightening and deficit reduction is going to be thrown out the window so that they can free themselves to hand out even more tax credits to their friends, the corporations. Under these proposed rules, notes The Washington Post, tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected, but tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget about it.

Obviously, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other respected news organizations have cried foul at this sleight of hand. In recent days, editorials have appeared slamming this hypocrisy and phony attempt at fiscal austerity.

What seems crystal clear to me is that the other side has doubled down and adopted the mentality of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who responded to the 2002 midterm elections by advocating in favor of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts. ``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. This is our due,'' said the Vice President. The other side now wants to adopt the posture of budget cutters, but when it gets right down to it, they want to be able to make sweetheart deals without having to pay for them.

Nor is their sleight of hand or hypocritical actions an isolated event. It was less than a month ago that Republicans successfully held unemployment benefits for Americans hostage until they got their wish-- more Bush-era tax cuts for the people making more than $1 million a year. That package added another $140 billion to the deficit, but that didn't seem to bother them either, obviously, as they have told the world it is their number one priority.

Just this week, Republican new Members ushered in the new Congress with a $2,500 a plate fundraiser at the W Hotel in downtown Washington. Lobbyists, political action committee members, and other exclusive guests were treated to a night of drinks and entertainment by country singer LeAnn Rimes. Those who donated $50,000 were treated to a VIP suite at the W, along with the rest of the night's entertainment.

Last month, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee offered his own assessment of Republican oversight. He told the Birmingham News in Alabama, ``In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.''

And according to Politico, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking for ways to make government more responsive to Wall Street and their corporate allies like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health.

Instead of all this business as usual--and we are headed right back into where we were before 2006--what I'd like to see is an honest attempt to create a set of rules that provide for openness, transparency, and good government. This set of rules is not that document. And I hope that the other side--and I believe they have good intentions--will join us in supporting this effort.

Deficit Hypocrisy

[From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2010]

It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding

unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end

Bush-era income tax cuts and--as a little bonus--won deep

estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts

will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term,

while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money

had been spent more wisely.

That should have been evidence enough that the Republican

Party's one real priority is tax cuts--despite all the talk

about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some

more:

On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays,

House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they

intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and

will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.

First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted

by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax

cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by

tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big

health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which

spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for

veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending,

which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress

annually.)

The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because

they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for

tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican

fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.

It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-

spending increases be offset by spending cuts only--and

actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such

spending.

Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child

credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to

help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that

lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax

at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue

reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years,

but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.

Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget

Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget

impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural

course of politics for which no payment is required.

For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts

permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of

repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new

rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working

families--extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal--

unless it is fully paid for.

House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing

going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing

spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all,

and it unfailingly rallies their base.

The challenge for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers

is not to get drawn into that warped mind-set. They need to

present an alternative, including investments--in energy,

technology, infrastructure and education. They also need a

plan for long-term deficit reduction that recognizes what the

Republicans ignore: Never-ending tax cuts make the deficit

worse. Prudent tax increases need to be part of the solution.

New Pay-Go Rules Reveal GOP's Misplaced Priorities

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2011]

Are House Republicans serious about dealing with the

deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric--or you could

read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the

new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The

latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to

continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting.

The ominous signs come in the wording of the new majority's

version of its pay-as-you-go rules, which normally require

that new programs or tax initiatives be covered with cuts to

other programs or new revenue. In

the GOP concept, pay-as-you-go applies only to spending

programs. When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay.

Taxes can be cut, and the national debt increased, without

any offsetting savings.

If you thought the sticker shock of the latest tax deal

served as a useful reminder that tax cuts cost the Treasury

money, think again. Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when

it comes to tax cuts. But that's not all. Under the new

rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go

concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is

with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed--not

even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on

tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes,

no problem. No need to pay for that.

Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the

rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit-

busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume

the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the

new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax

break to let ``small businesses,'' which can be expansively

defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross

income.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax

help for those at the other end of the income spectrum?

Forget it. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and

the Child Tax Credit, programs that help keep low-income

working parents and children out of poverty, are not assumed

to continue and would have to be paid for--with, of course,

spending cuts. This is about as upside-down a set of

priorities as can be imagined.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who, as I said, is disenfranchised by this rule. Millions of Americans will be underrepresented.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

(Mr. PIERLUISI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the Delegate from Guam, Delegate Bordallo.

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules Package which once again removes the opportunity for Delegates to Congress and the Resident Commissioner to vote on amendments in the Committee of the Whole. It was our privilege in the past two Congresses to vote along with our colleagues on issues of importance to all Americans, especially the over 4 million of us who live and work in the U.S. territories.

The people of the U.S. territories are a diverse group, much like their fellow citizens on the mainland. Some are born in the territories under the American flag, some have migrated there and embraced our culture and our values before naturalization, others were born in the states and have chosen by virtue of their chosen occupation or by love of our islands to make the territories their home. All are Americans in every sense of the word, except for full representation in the House of Representatives and the ability to vote for the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the U.S. territories have served their country in all of its

conflicts from the American Revolution to the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have given their youth, their time and even their lives for our country. We had hoped through our participation to obtain the good will of all of our colleagues to ensure full participation in the democratic process for all citizens of our country. The events of this week have proved to us once more that we still have a long way to go to ensure equality and justice for all.

I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

(Mr. SABLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands are citizens of the United States. And the Constitution declares we are ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''

But today the majority's Rules exclude us from even symbolic representation in our government.

The Pledge to America declared the majority would fight those who whisper America's standing as the world leader of democracy is ending.

But today the majority breaks its own Pledge with Rules that take away the vote from 5 million Americans.

What a sad way to begin this new Congress.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland will offer an amendment to restore fiscal discipline in the House.

I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee now, so that he may explain his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a former member and missed member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I congratulate her and all of our colleagues on their membership in the 111th Congress.

As we have heard from the speeches delivered by the Speaker and the Republican leader, today marks the start of the 111th Congress, a new beginning for the first branch and for the people's House.

As was stated, 2 weeks from today we are going to be making history with the inauguration of Barack Obama. President-elect Obama has already reached out to congressional Republicans, expressing his desire to work with us in this new Congress.

We all know very well what an honorable campaign Mr. Obama ran. While I didn't support his candidacy, I, like many of my colleagues and fellow Americans, was inspired by his message of hope, unity, and change for the future.

He laid out a vision that replaces bitterness with bipartisanship, cynicism with a sincere commitment to a brighter future.

Of course, there is a great divergence of opinion on the details of exactly how we reach that brighter future. Congressional Republicans have our agenda. We feel very strongly about it. We are committed more than ever to the principles for which we stand. But we wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Obama that the way forward is through open, inclusive debate, a strong spirit of bipartisanship and the sincere pursuit of common ground.

Unfortunately, the high-minded rhetoric of the Presidential campaign only highlights the pure cynicism of this rules package that we are considering today. The Democratic leadership of this House is poised to consider, as its very first legislative act of this Congress, a rules package that literally shreds the Obama vision.

I am going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The package that we are going to be voting on today literally shreds the Obama vision. Fourteen days before he is even inaugurated into office, the President-elect's plan for unity and bipartisanship is being obstructed by his own party.

This rules package takes the abysmal record of the last Congress and actually makes it more restrictive. You will hear a lot today about arcane procedural tactics and wonder how it has any relevance to the problems that we face as a nation. But these changes, Mr. Speaker, have enormous consequences for the conduct and outcome of our policy debates.

Mr. Speaker, process is substance. As we tackle enormously important issues like, as everyone has said, getting our economy back on track, we cannot achieve a good outcome without a good process. We are very attuned to the concept of history being made right now and 2 weeks from today, so perhaps we should look at history.

The motion to recommit, as we know it today, was granted to the minority 100 years ago following a rebellion against the most dictatorial Speaker of the last century, Joseph Gurney ``Uncle Joe'' Cannon. This motion ensures that the minority gets at least one opportunity, one opportunity to offer an amendment or an alternative. During the Democrats' 40-year reign, they routinely denied Republicans, often dozens of times in a Congress, the single bite at the apple, one opportunity to offer an alternative. Mr. Speaker, when we took the majority in 1995, we guaranteed the right of the motion to recommit, and we never, we never denied it.

This body has always been governed by majority rule. The majority has a number of tools at its disposal, not least of which is the Rules Committee itself, on which I am privileged to serve. That's how they advance their agenda. An effective majority can abide by the rules and traditions of the House and still succeed legislatively.

By contrast, in the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership chose, instead, to resort to procedural gimmickry to advance their agenda. They had every legislative advantage as the majority party, and yet they felt compelled to trample the traditions of the House, rather than build consensus or engage in actual deliberation. They went so far as to shut down the appropriations process to avoid open debate. Mr. Speaker, as for the motion to recommit, that one single opportunity, that one single opportunity for minority input, the Democratic leadership

frequently resorted to legislative tricks to deny it.

Now, the Democratic leadership is no longer content to shut down debate on an ad hoc basis. They are making it official with this rules package. The underlying resolution contains a host of new procedural gimmicks to stifle debate and to perpetuate partisanship. This resolution changes the rules of the House to formally limit, to formally limit, the motion to recommit. This limitation prevents any bill from being returned to committee for further deliberation. It restricts Members' ability to strip out tax increases. Apparently, the Democratic majority believes tax increases are sacred, but open debate is not sacred.

This rules package also manipulates our budget rules, once again, to protect tax increases, as well as to protect spending increases. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership not only spent the last Congress shutting out Republicans, they also had to find clever ways to shut out fiscally conservative Democrats. Trying to build consensus within their own party was very time consuming. They learned their lesson, though. This rules package guts the budget rules that many Democrats hold so dear.

The laundry list of rules changes goes on. They cut term limits for committee chairmen, they scrap Medicare cost-containment measures. And if all this weren't enough, they include completely closed rules, completely closed rules for the two bills that will be considered later this week without ever having the Rules Committee meet. Apparently, the Democratic leadership scoured the House rules for accountability and transparency measures and systematically dismantled what they found.

So much, Mr. Speaker, for the Obama vision. While he is calling for the most transparent administration in our Nation's history, his congressional Democrats are launching the most closed Congress in history.

But I believe that President-elect Obama is sincere. Since the day he was elected, he has been reaching out to Republicans. He has called many of us individually to express a sincere desire to move beyond the divisiveness of politics and to work together. I can only imagine the chagrin at his own party, their attempt to undermine his best efforts. Today's rules package is a huge step backward. It sets the stage for even more closed, bitter, rancorous debate.

The next major item on the agenda is more than a $1 trillion stimulus package. Republican Leader John Boehner has laid out several modest, but critically important, requests for an open process. There should be public hearings. The text should be available online for a full week prior to a vote. There should be no special-interest earmarks.

These are commonsense guidelines that are widely supported by the American people. They understand that our response to the economic crisis is too important to allow it to be slapped together in secret behind closed doors and rammed through the House. Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of good ideas that should be considered and debated.

Today I will be pursuing an economic recovery package that focuses on pro-growth policies. I am introducing a trio of bills aimed at growing our economy by simplifying and reducing the tax burden on individuals and job creators, jump-starting our housing market and reviving the auto industry.

I hope we can move forward on these kinds of policies, but neither I nor my colleagues ask to prejudge the outcome of those debates. We simply ask that that debate take place.

Majority Leader Hoyer agrees, and said so on an interview that he had this past Sunday. We can only hope he is able to convince the Speaker to keep the process open and transparent. If her leadership's first legislative act of this Congress is any indication, it won't be a fruitful endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, today's new beginning is nothing more than a new low for the Democratic majority. Their cynicism and manipulation is all the more dismal against the backdrop of President-elect Obama's vision for hope, unity and change for the better. The Democratic majority's actions today do not represent change that fulfills hope. This is change that denies hope.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Miami, the hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

I will say as I do that, Mr. Speaker, that we would never have contemplated denying the then-minority what is being denied us under this measure.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the spirit of the debate here, refusal to yield, is indicative of exactly what this rules package consists of.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our very good friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very good friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the Chair of the Republican Conference.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman how many speakers she has remaining on her side, and how much time is remaining on both sides for this debate?

At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from San Antonio, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, let me just inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our great, relatively new Member from New Orleans (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it doesn't appear that we have any other speakers on our side.

Is the gentlewoman prepared to close debate on hers?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a fascinating debate here. I've repeatedly asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to yield to me so that we could engage in an exchange on this, and no one chose to yield to me at all, indicating exactly what this rules package is all about. We've repeatedly had academics quoted here over the past hour about the use of ``promptly'' and the fact that it kills legislation. Time and time again from the Chair, the Speaker of the House has ruled that a measure that is recommitted to a committee promptly is not killing the bill. Until the Chair says that, it is not killing the bill.

We know that the last Congress was the single-most restrictive, closed Congress in the history of the Republic, and it is very, very sad to have this sacrosanct right being obliterated that is granted to the minority, as Thomas Jefferson outlined in his manual, talking about the procedures and the rights that the minority should have. It is outrageous in the wake of Barack Obama's pledge to the American people that he wanted to have greater transparency and accountability.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate on the package, I'll be offering a motion to commit, which could be the majority's last opportunity to freely decide the form of the motion to recommit. Included in the motion will be an amendment. This amendment is the minority's attempt to restore some of the Obama vision of openness, inclusiveness and transparency to the underlying rules package.

First, it would restore the motion to recommit, which I've discussed. It is an important tool that ensures that the minority gets at least one chance, one bite at the apple, so that 100 million Americans represented by Members of the minority here can be heard.

Second, it would restore term limits for committee chairmanships.

Third, it would change committee membership ratios so that all committees, except the Rules and Ethics Committees, reflect the ratio of Democrats and Republicans in the House. This would help to ensure that the 100 million Americans, as I said, who are represented by Republicans would have some kind of say in this process.

Fourth and finally, it would require that all committee votes be available online within 48 hours, a proposal from the Republican Study Committee.

At the end of the last Congress, the Appropriations Committee filed reports on bills that had been ordered reported months before. The public should not have to wait to know how their Member voted in committee while committee chairmen dragged their feet. These four improvements are about nothing more than exactly what Barack Obama talked about--transparency, accountability and fairness.

Today's historic rules package rolls back reforms made a century ago this month by a bipartisan working group of Members rising against the repressive rule of Speaker Joe Cannon. Two of the reforms that were codified during that historic revolt on opening day in 1909 were a motion of recommittal for the minority party and an increased threshold to set aside Calendar Wednesday. Ironically, we find ourselves here in the same well 100 years

later, fighting to maintain these simple rights and guarantees which have for a century, Mr. Speaker, safeguarded this House from the rise of another tyrannical Speaker.

So it is in that light that I ask Members to join me in supporting the motion to commit. Let us not undo what has been done. Let us learn from our past. Let us move forward with the hope and comity inspired by Barack Obama. Let's show the world that, in this House, the democratic process is alive and well no matter how large the majority. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to commit.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 451) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to respond to the indictment of, or the filing of charges of criminal conduct in a court of the United States or any State against, any Member of the House of Representatives by empaneling an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations not later than 30 days after the date the Member is indicted or the charges are filed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minority leader, in closing on the resolution that will be voted on in a short time, correctly observed that every Member of the House needs to be held accountable for conduct which undermines the faith, respect and confidence that the American public has in this institution. We agree with that. In fact, we have been saying that for years and we have acted to effect that objective. This resolution, we believe, furthers that effort.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what this resolution says, it directs the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to respond to an indictment of or the filing of charges of criminal conduct in a court of the United States of any State against any Member of the House by empaneling an investigative subcommittee to review the allegations not later than 30 days after the date the Member is indicted or charges are filed.

As I said in my statement with reference to the previous resolution, this will be a general process of the House so that every Member knows that this process will be employed, not on a partisan basis, but on the basis of conduct and on the basis of actions that have been taken.

It also says, however, to the committee that if they find that such an investigative committee, under the circumstances that the bipartisan committee reviews, do not feel that going forward is appropriate, they can report that back. That, I think, responds to the concerns properly raised by the gentleman from California. This resolution under this suspension is the general of what the other resolution is on the specifics.

Mr. Speaker, I said that Nancy Boyda from the State of Kansas came here and offered legislation which essentially said that if Members were found guilty of a crime that adversely affected their service in the Congress of the United States, that their pensions would be at risk. That legislation was overwhelmingly adopted. I congratulate the gentlelady from Kansas for her focus on ensuring the ethics of this body and that the public is not subsidizing criminal or unethical behavior which subjects a Member to removal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume in support of the suspension to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space), who comes to the Congress replacing Mr. Ney because the people wanted honest representation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his question.

What the resolution anticipates is applying generally that which the resolution offered by the minority leader raises specifically because we believe that the Ethics Committee ought to ensure for the American public that ethical conduct which does not call in question the House of Representatives' standards of official conduct is being pursued.

But I will tell the gentleman further that I have great confidence in this Ethics Committee, led by a former member of the judiciary, I might add, who knows the law and who knows process. And I have full confidence that she and the Members of the Ethics Committee on both sides, and, as the gentleman knows, it is five Republicans and five Democrats, would summarily have a form available to them that would say if someone gets a traffic ticket that is not subject to further action. You and I would agree with that without hesitation.

I wanted to fully answer the gentleman's question in this committee hearing we are having.

If the gentleman would yield for a very specific response to that.

First of all, a traffic ticket is a charge, not a conviction. It is a de minimus charge that I think the committee would summarily deal with.

I would say to the gentleman, the intent of the resolution I think is clear. And that is to say when charges are made, and the gentleman tries to bring up de minimus charges that no American would think violates the ethics of the House of Representatives or essentially major transgressions.

I think the Ethics Committee, if that was brought before them pursuant to this resolution, would deal with them summarily as not being worthy of consideration as you and I would deem them not worth of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, clearly what the gentleman is trying to do in a debating framework is trying to say we didn't mention every specific instance,

whether very serious, moderately serious, or extraordinarily serious.

The gentleman is correct. I have responded to the gentleman that the Ethics Committee clearly, we believe, can make those judgments; and we believe and are confident that the committee will make such judgments and will not treat de minimus assertions as seriously calling for investigative subcommittees or further action by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

The gentleman from Maryland has many people who are very interested in speaking on this issue, and I will have to yield to them and use the time to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

I thank the gentleman. He will observe that our speakers have all been from districts where this was a compelling issue in the November election, and that is why they are so interested in speaking about it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, with the possibility of an additional minute, to my good friend from the State of Florida, Mr. Tim Mahoney.

I think that we are concluded with our speakers and I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we believe this resolution is well-crafted, and it's well-crafted to effect the end that it seeks. And the end that it seeks is very simple, that when issues are raised, the Ethics Committee will pursue them and that they will give confidence to the American public that we are taking seriously the allegations and/or the transgressions that might undermine the integrity of this House.

We think that's what the American people want. That's what we are pursuing. We think this legislation is very clear on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

My friend continues to focus on traffic tickets. He tries to--

Mr. Speaker, it is a short resolution. The gentleman may not think it's well-written, but nor has he well-read it. There is nothing in there that says the Member is compelled to do anything.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will tell the gentleman that this resolution that we are now considering does not seek to trivialize the issue. I suggest that the gentleman is trying to trivialize this issue. This issue does not deal with traffic tickets.

If the gentleman wants an answer, then he ought to give me the time to answer.

How much time do I have?

I yield the gentleman from California 1 minute.

The gentleman is welcome.

The pain of accountability is evident. What this resolution says, and I am pleased that the gentleman from California is going to vote for it, is that the American people are going to have confidence that when a criminal act is committed by a Member, whatever that act, that the Ethics Committee will look at it.

I said earlier in the course of this debate that I have full confidence that the Ethics Committee will dismiss summarily, summarily, the examples that the gentleman from California raises. That's not what the American public are concerned about.

Yes, perhaps it's politicized. But when Duke Cunningham takes $2.5 million of bribes to put earmarks in bills and calls the Defense Department and says, give Mr. Wade a contract, the American people knows that's something they want looked at. They want action taken. That Member was not expelled until conviction.

When Mr. Abramoff takes trips with a lot of people to Scotland for free, the American people knows that's not a traffic ticket. It's not demonstrating in front of the Embassy of Sudan to say stop the genocide in Darfur. The American public knows the difference.

When a gentleman gets $5,000 in chips to put in his pocket and pay his bills with, they know that's not a traffic ticket, particularly when legislative action is taken shortly thereafter on this floor. They know the difference.

I would hope that every Member would vote for this, because I believe that every Member in this House wants an ethical House, Republican and Democrat. Why? Because unethical conduct, yes, criminal conduct, reflects on every one of us, because the American public too readily assumes, well, if one does it, all do it.

That is not the case. I believe that I am privileged to serve with those of you on the Republican side and those on the Democratic side with some very ethical members of our society who have been chosen by your neighbors to represent them in this body.

All we are saying in this resolution is that, ladies and gentlemen of America, we are going to hold accountable each and every one of us if we do not act in accordance with your justifiably high expectations. I hope every Member of this body votes for this resolution and says to our constituents, this body will be an ethical, honest body representing your interest.

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

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