Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to childhood stroke and designating an appropriate date as "National Childhood Stroke Awareness Day".

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Maryland for his statement and yielding me the time to present the opening day's rules package for the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, rarely has our great Nation faced such grave challenges. Millions of Americans are without jobs and consequently also without health insurance. Our troops are fighting two wars overseas. And as our economy spirals downward, Americans from coast to coast are struggling to make ends meet.

But there is reason to hope. In fewer than 14 days, a new President will be sworn in. And President-elect Barack Obama, the House Democrats and I, and my Republican friends are committed to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work immediately to solve the critical challenges that face our Nation.

On this day I am honored to address the House at the beginning of the 111th Congress to present the rules package that will govern this body as we work to meet the needs of American families over the next 2 years.

It is the responsibility of the majority to protect and enhance the integrity of the institution, and that is what this rules package does. Through building upon the important rules changes that Democrats implemented during the last Congress, we are keeping our commitment to the American people to restore accountability and honesty to government.

In the 110th Congress, Democrats put forth critical measures to restore transparency to the House. We banned gifts from lobbyists. We prohibited the use of corporate jets. We mandated ethics training for all House employees. We ensured transparency for earmarks by requiring the full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports. We established an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. And today we are building on our commitment to the American people to further strengthen the integrity of this institution in the 111th Congress.

By closing the loophole that allowed ``lame duck'' Members to negotiate employment contracts in secret, we are opening the doors of Congress and shedding light upon the process. By codifying the additional earmark reforms adopted mid-term in the 110th Congress, coupled with the ongoing rules that required the Members' signatures and their reasons for their requests, we are permanently strengthening earlier comprehensive reforms,

resulting in even further transparency and accountability in the earmark process.

By making commonsense changes to the motion to recommit, we are helping Congress to function more effectively while preserving the minority's legitimate right to present their policy alternatives through offering a motion that amends the bill or a ``straight'' motion that sends the bill back to committee without amendment.

By removing reference to term limits for committee Chairs from this package, we take away what was from the first a political consideration to eliminate that from the official House rules where they don't belong. And by maintaining strong PAYGO rules, we are demonstrating our strong commitment to fiscal discipline.

These important measures make good sense to protect the integrity of this institution and to enable Congress to help America get back on track. Today, we are not only harnessing the belief that we can continue to restore integrity and accountability to Congress, we are also laying down a strong foundation for House action on the grave challenges that face this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker and my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American people know exactly what's at stake over the next few years, which is why they have resoundingly raised their voices for change, and Democrats are listening. We are ready to help put Americans back to work by investing in job creation initiatives, strengthening our economy. We are ready to fix our broken health care system so that every citizen can get quality, affordable health care that they desperately need and are entitled to. We are ready to cultivate a clean energy economy by turning wind into energy, energy investments into innovation, and innovation into good-paying American jobs.

We are ready to begin responsibly withdrawing troops from Iraq, ready to ensure quality education for our young people, ready to continue making the tough choices that the American people elected us to make.

Yet in order for us to begin addressing these pressing challenges, we must ensure that Congress continues to put integrity and accountability at the heart of our daily actions. I can think of no better way to do that than by adopting these amendments to the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, it will be a long and difficult journey to strengthen our economy, to reform the health care system, and create a clean energy future worthy of our children and grandchildren. But the rules package before us today is an important first step, one that will ensure integrity in Congress as we move forward on this pivotal path.

It is time to reinvigorate America. It's time to make history. And let us begin.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this commonsense rules package to allow the House to operate more effectively and productively in solving the challenges facing our great Nation while strengthening our integrity in Congress.

Section-by-Section of Rule Changes--111th Congress

The changes in the standing rules of the House made by

House Resolution 5 include the following:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the vice chair of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, please let me yield myself 1 or 2 minutes. One minute, I think, would be sufficient. I hadn't planned to do this, but I think the Record requires it.

I want to quote from three of our Republican Members for whom I have great affection and an awful lot of respect. The first one, Representative Tom Davis, who is not with us this year, stated the minority's intent to use ``promptly'' motions to kill legislation during debate on a motion to recommit H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. And let me quote him: ``Let me just say to my colleagues, I think the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and would join my colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do that. Instead of bringing it back to the floor forthwith for a vote and send it to the Senate, it simply sends it back to the committee, essentially killing it.''

Representative Joe Barton of Texas likened motions to recommit promptly to gimmicks during debate on H.R. 3693, the Children's Health Insurance Program: ``I will tell my friends on the majority side, it's not going to be a gimmick. I think it will say forthwith, which means if we adopt it, we vote on it.''

I yield myself 30 seconds.

During the debate on Representative Paul Ryan's motion to recommit on H.R. 5501, the Lantos-Hyde HIV/AIDS Act of 2008, Mr. Ryan acknowledged that ``promptly'' motions are intended to kill bills. ``This recommit motion is not intended to kill the bill. This is a forthwith recommit,'' he said.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I don't have any further requests for time, or at least not from anybody who is presently on the floor, so I will reserve to close.

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, without any question, all of us who serve in this House love it. We understand our responsibilities to our constituents as well as to this institution. I want to make it absolutely clear, unequivocally clear, that no intention here today is to in any way impede the minority rights. We will defend them to the death.

But we would have to be Alice in Wonderland, saying that she would be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, if we gave serious thought for one moment to the possibility that a motion to recommit promptly is anything other than a way to kill a bill.

What we are trying to do here is to expedite the process to get the Obama agenda, which apparently we are in solid agreement on, moved forward because the American people are crying out for it. It must be done. We want to do this fairly. We want to do this equitably. I hope we can do it with minds that meet on all of these subjects, but we must remove some of the gimmicks which have done nothing but subvert the will of the House.

So I am really happy to close with this. I hope that everybody in the House--all of the new Members whom I congratulate, people who have been here for some time and those of us who have been moderately here for a long time--will all, please, get together today. There is nothing in here that hurts anyone. We are simply attempting to move forward the business of the United States of America for which we swore an oath not an hour ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Motion to Commit

The former minority whip has just proved the opposite of his case. In the one instance that he refers to where a bill came out of the committee which I chair, we were prepared to accept that amendment on the floor. It was offered promptly. We asked if it could be done, as we often did, as forthwith, and it could have been adopted on the floor. In that case it wasn't 6 days, it took several weeks, because we cannot drop everything and get to a bill.

Now, understand that when a bill is sent back to a committee, all the rules apply. And, by the way, nothing stops you from making this a revolving door, Mr. Speaker. People can keep doing this.

The motion to recommit, Members have said on the other side they want to be able to offer an alternative. Nothing in this proposal in any way diminishes their ability to offer an alternative. They are fully able to offer an alternative as an amendment. What they will be losing here is a legislative Ponzi scheme in which you pretend to be something you are not.

Here is the way it works: If the minority wants under any bill to offer a motion to recommit, as the rule will now read if this passes, they can offer a motion to recommit with a germane amendment that is binding, and if it is adopted, the bill is amended on the spot. But they often don't want to do that. Often their amendments are really disguises for opposition to the bill in general. So they take an amendment that would pass virtually unanimously because it is so popular and say it should be done in a way that sends the bill back to committee rather than to amend the bill.

So let's be very clear. Their ability to offer a motion that is an amendment

to the bill is in no way diminished by this. It is in no way changed. It is exactly the same. What they lose is the ability to take something that would pass overwhelmingly if they would allow a serious vote on it and use it as a way to get a bill sent back to committee for purposes of delay.

Now, the gentleman is right. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the bill survives. Sometimes it doesn't. There is often a traffic jam on the floor. There are also cases where timeliness is important, where the administration may be about to do something we want to stop them from doing and we want to be able to move reasonably quickly.

I will say this with regard to where he said bills came from nowhere. The bills where this tactic, this Ponzi scheme has been used, on bills that have come out of the Financial Services Committee, were not those bills. They were bills where there had been open amendment processes, where I have often gone to the Rules Committee and asked for amendments to be in order.

In fact, in my experience, the committee of jurisdiction leadership has no input into these motions. I have asked. There are amendments offered on the floor that were never offered in committee when they had a chance to be offered, and I will guarantee you that is a fact, because the purpose is not to amend the bill. If you were trying to amend the bill, you offer the motion to recommit in a way that amends it on the floor. That is not good enough for them, because they are not interested in substance. They are interested in this game playing and this charade--well, it is not a charade, because that is talking. They are interested in this pretense whereby you try to slow a bill down because you aren't willing to vote against it.

So if this rules package passes, there will be two options for the minority: They can move to send the bill back to committee, that can still be done, the motion to send it back to committee will still be there; or they can move to amend it on the floor. Their ability to offer an alternative is in no ways changed.

What they can't do is to pretend to be amending the bill by putting forward very popular language that would pass overwhelmingly, but doing it in a way that in effect sends the bill back to committee which doesn't allow the House to adopt that amendment, and then they want to be able to say Members weren't in favor of this noncontroversial piece.

So it is a legislative Ponzi scheme. It is a pretense. It is something that ought to be abolished. It does not add at all to the legitimacy of debate.

Let's adopt this rules change. The minority will have the two options, and that is all that democracy requires.

The gentleman from Wisconsin said, why will the majority not in some instances agree with the minority? That's the problem. We are talking about cases where we in the majority have tried to agree with the minority, and they would not be agreed with. They would not take yes for an answer.

This is the issue: if they offer a motion to recommit and it says forthwith, and they win the vote, the bill is amended. If they offer an amendment to a bill, not having offered it in committee, not having gone to the Rules Committee to ask it to be on the floor, if they take a noncontroversial popular issue and offer it as the motion to recommit, but say it should be sent to the committee and reported back promptly, we have tried to agree with them, and they have refused. This literally is a way to not take yes for an answer; it's a way to take something to which the majority would like to agree.

I have been here when I, and when the majority leader has said, in such a

situation, could we get unanimous consent to simply agree to that now, and the minority has said no.

Well, people have a right not to be agreed with. People have a right not to be agreeable. Some indulge that right more than others. But you don't have a right to refuse to be agreed with, and then complain that you weren't agreed with. And that's all that's at stake here.

So, yes, there are times when the majority should say yes to the minority, and that should be determined by the floor. What we're saying is the minority should not manufacture a situation in which there is no way to say yes to them because their goal is patently not to amend that particular bill, because if it was, they would accept the request that that amendment be accepted. Instead, it is to put a bill back to committee because they're afraid to vote against it. That's the issue.

This is used as a way to send bills back to committee to avoid votes. And this leaves, this package, the minority, fully able to offer any motion to recommit or send it back to committee. It just says they can't play games.

I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the time.

First, let me congratulate Speaker Pelosi as she begins her second term as Speaker of the House. I also want to congratulate my colleagues for their elections, and I welcome our new colleagues to the House of Representatives.

Our Nation is facing very challenging times. Twelve years ago, when I was first elected to Congress, our economy was still growing, and we were looking at a significant budget surplus. Our world was relatively peaceful. Now, after 8 years of reckless and wasteful spending, and after an ill-advised war, we face a global economic meltdown and international instability that seem to be spreading all too quickly.

In November, the American people elected a new President and larger Democratic majorities in the Congress. The voters sent a very clear message. Things have got to change here in Washington, and Congress has to accomplish things.

We know that Congress will need to act quickly and responsibly in order to pass legislation to help our Nation solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This rules package is designed to help us do just that. This is a good package, and I am pleased to support it today.

There are many important parts this package. I am pleased that this is first rules package that is gender neutral. There are other technical fixes included in this package that will help the House operate more smoothly and efficiently.

One of the major changes, as we have heard, in this package deals with the motion to recommit, which is modernized in this package. Specifically, the minority will no longer be able to offer a ``promptly'' motion to recommit, which sends bills back to committee with no timetable for return, essentially killing the bill.

The minority, however, will have the ability to offer a proper ``forthwith'' motion or a ``straight'' motion. But no longer will the minority be able to abuse the process by offering political amendments designed to either kill a bill without actually voting against it or to provide fodder for a 30-second political ad.

During the 12 years while Democrats were in the minority, we offered only 36 ``promptly'' motions to recommit. Over the past 2 years, Republicans offered 50 of these motions.

Following the 2006 elections that brought Democrats back into the majority in the House, the new Republican minority had two options, either work in a bipartisan way to address the needs of the American people, or obstruct the business of this House through gotcha-style politics. Unfortunately, too often they chose the latter.

The motion to recommit was not designed for this purpose. It was designed to be a tool for legislating, not a political weapon. Repeatedly, the Democratic majority attempted to work with the Republican minority on their motions to recommit, but every time we offered to accept their motion in return for not killing the bill, the Republican minority refused. They chose talking points over accomplishments. They chose to be the party of obstructionism, not offering alternatives, but instead trying to derail the entire process for political gain. It's a cynical way to do business.

That's not legislating, and it's not what the voters sent us here to do. I strongly disagree with those who say modernizing the motion to recommit is undemocratic. Let me be clear, any Member who opposes a bill still has the ability, indeed, the responsibility, to vote ``no.''

Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein said it best, and I quote, ``A minority party deserves the right to be heard and to have alternatives considered, but with those rights comes responsibilities. If the minority uses the opportunity to offer amendments to exploit cynically the opening for political

purposes--through `gotcha' amendments designed to offer 30-second attack ads against vulnerable majority lawmakers, or through poison pill alternatives designed only to scuttle a bill, not to offer a real alternative--it soon will lose its moral high ground for objecting to majority restriction on debate and amendments.''

Mr. Speaker, I finally would like to point out that in this package is included H. Res. 5, which is the reauthorization of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. The United States must reclaim its moral authority on human rights. I am honored to cochair that commission along with my good friend Frank Wolf of Virginia, and I look forward to working with him and our other Members to advance the cause of human rights around the world.

Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, our distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Democrats were elected to the majority with a pledge that under our leadership the House would dedicate itself to integrity and accountability. We believe we kept that promise.

Today, gifts from lobbyists are banned, the use of corporate jets is prohibited, the earmark process is transparent, all House employees are trained in ethics, and an independent Office of Congressional Ethics has been established.

But we also understand that holding this House to high standards is not simply the work of one session or one resolution or, indeed, one Congress. It is a project for all of us to renew year after year. I would like to touch on some of the most important new standards for the 111th Congress: a new rules package that will ensure that the House does the people's work ethically and efficiently.

First, we understand that ``revolving door'' between the public and private sectors can compromise the independence of judgment that voters want and deserve. That is why these new rules will prevent ``lame duck'' Members from negotiating employment contracts in secret before their terms expire.

Secondly, the rules will no longer set term limits for committee Chairs. I understand that our Republican colleagues once wrote term limits into the rules in an effort against the entrenched power. But it is now clear that that effort fell victim to what conservatives like to call the law of unintended consequences.

With chairmanships up for grabs so frequently, fundraising ability became one of the most important for job qualification, and legislative skill was sacrificed to political considerations.

Third, these rules limit the abuse of motions to recommit. We invite good-faith efforts to improve legislation. And in these hard times, we need the Republican Party to be constructive partners in policy making. We welcome it. But we all understand which motions are not offered in good faith. Those are the motions that attempt to kill bills through parliamentary tricks and waste our constituents' time on ``gotcha'' politics.

Fourth, we are continuing our work to reform earmarks, removing loopholes that allow Members to make some earmarks in secret.

Fifth and finally, these rules confirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

A binge of borrowing has weakened our economy, tied our hands in a financial crisis, and saddled our children and grandchildren with $9 trillion in foreign-owned debt. That recklessness must end, and these rules will help end it.

Mr. Speaker, these rules embody our vision for the House as an institution: a place that debates constructively, spends wisely, and lives in the actions of all its Members and all its staff by a standard we can be proud of.

That is our vision for this House, and I urge my colleagues to adopt these rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be controlled by the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman Slaughter.