Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the minority leader or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The resolution that I am calling up on this historic day, H. Res. 5, provides for the consideration of a rules package, H. Res. 6, that we hope will begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.

The resolution we are now debating will allow the House to consider and vote on the Democratic rules package in five separate parts. The first title contains the rules package our Republican colleagues adopted in the 109th Congress, while the second through fifth titles contain amendments that will begin a reformation of this body that is long overdue.

I also include for the Record at this time a detailed summary of the changes H. Res. 6 will make to the standing House rules of the 109th Congress.

Summary of House Rules Package, Opening Day of the 110th Congress,

Prepared by the Rules Committee, Louise M. Slaughter, Chairwoman-

Designate

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself about 30 seconds, 45 perhaps, just to respond for a moment, to remind my friend that what we are voting on is the Republican package of the last term. If it was so bad, we thought it was pretty bad then as well, but we will have time to debate all these things. We will have open debate. And what we have said about fairness is what we are dedicated to do.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 5 and H. Res. 6.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, for the purpose of debate only, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), one of our brilliant freshmen and a new member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), and we welcome you home.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

I understand your pain, I understand the hurt, and I understand that you are not really sure that we are going to be fair and honest. But if you look back on the 40 years here before, and I remember on the Rules Committee, that when a bill was coming up to rules, always the chairman and the ranking member came together. They worked together on everything. If it was an oversight committee, I recall that both the chair and the ranking member signed the subpoenas. There was such a series of cooperation we have never, as far as I know, dealt with retribution or underhandedness or hatefulness.

We know we have an awful lot of work to do. We have got a country to save; we have got a reputation to try to get back in the world; we have got the worst deficit we have ever seen; and, we have got to do something about a war. Let me pledge to you, we have no time for vindication or revenge, and it would be so nice if all the Members in this vote for a change would roll in the same direction.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I simply want to say there is no point going up to Rules. The Rules Committee has not been constituted yet. This is being brought under privileged communication.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), one of the freshmen of which we are so proud.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.

There are not. And I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a jurisdictional memorandum of understanding between the chairmen-designate from the Committee on Transportation and the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us represents one of the last chances that the majority has to leave its mark on the 109th Congress, and yet again we are ending this session like we began it, rushing to pass a rule on a bill without having taken enough time to get either one right.

Along with the broken process used to pass this legislation, what is in this bill is a perfect representation of what is wrong with the way business has been done under this majority. It is a clear example of why we need a new direction in Washington, why we need a new philosophy of government to take root here in the people's House.

This continuing resolution will automatically fund government programs at their current levels through February 15 of next year. It is the third continuing resolution Congress has passed since the current fiscal year began on October 1. We are in the second week of December, and the majority has approved only two of the 11 bills that were needed this year. In fact, by the time this resolution expires in February, the Federal Government would have been on autopilot for more than one-third of the 2007 fiscal year. The nine spending bills that the 109th Congress will leave unfinished when it adjourns this week cover over $460 billion in Federal spending, 460 billion. That is almost half a trillion that the leaders of the Congress have decided to send out the door without any policymaking or oversight.

Madam Speaker, the majority didn't do its job. As representatives, we are sent here to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars that the Federal Government spends. It is one of our most important responsibilities. Voters do not expect us to abdicate that responsibility or any other responsibility, for that matter. What they expect is that we will take on the challenges confronting our Nation, challenges which have for years awaited a leadership with the vision and commitment needed to address them.

Madam Speaker, my fellow Democrats and I understand what the American people expect of us. Democrats believe that running this House correctly is a matter of pride. We believe it is a matter of having a fundamental respect for both the institution in which we serve and for the citizens who gave us the privilege to serve here.

And that is why when the 110th Congress opens next month, Democrats will actually face the unanswered challenges confronting us with a new promise and address them in a new way. The House will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its most basic duties. Democrats are going to show the American people a Congress with a new set of priorities and a new set of how best to do the people's business.

They are going to see a Congress committed to getting our deficits under control and passing critical bills like unfinished budgets before us on time. They will see a Congress focused on rewarding millions of hardworking

Americans with an increase in the minimum wage and on promoting education and employment opportunities to help save the backbone of our economy: the middle class.

Americans are going to see a Congress committed to the high standards of ethical conduct and procedural fairness so that corruption will no longer find refuge within these Halls.

And they are going to see a Congress with the principle needed to truly stand up for our troops in the field by changing our course in Iraq and by rooting out the fraud, waste, and abuse that to this day endanger the very soldiers that we have asked to risk their lives countless times on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, the new direction my fellow Democrats and I stand for will show our gratitude to the American people for giving us this opportunity to serve our country, to help our communities, and strengthen our future. It is in the Democratic Party's respect for the fundamental principles of our society that they will see the faith we have in the principles and their timelessness and in their strength.

It is in the challenges we choose to confront and the honest, open and fair means by which we confront them that they will see our dedication to a government of, by, and for the people of the United States.

The American people understand what is at stake in the years ahead. They understand that how we act, both in Washington and toward those at home and abroad, will determine who we are as a Nation. They want a country they can recognize. They want the country they grew up believing in. They want a Congress they can be proud of again. And, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the Democrats are going to give them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. But let me inquire if my colleague has any more speakers.

Then I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the so-called Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. While this bill purports to represent the findings of the scientific community, it is merely sensationalistic junk science.

This bill would force doctors to violate their Hippocratic oath by mandating that they provide women with incorrect, unsupported information. It misleads women into believing that they need general anesthesia for an abortion. By glossing over the established risks of general anesthesia, this bill puts women's health at risk.

But don't take my word for it--look to the science. An August 2005, Journal of the American Medical Association study states ``for pregnant women, general anesthesia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, particularly because of airway-related complications and increased risk of hemorrhage from uterine atony.''

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it best in their statement against this bill. ``Requiring a physician to provide a patient with information that is not supported by scientific fact violates the established doctrine of medical informed consent.''

As a scientist myself, I am embarrassed that this body would even consider something so egregiously devoid of fact and scientific proof-- something that blatantly puts women's health at risk. But I'm not the only scientist opposed to this bill.

The American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health--to name a few. All these groups oppose H.R. 6099. In total there are over 30 scientific, medical and advocacy organizations that are against this bill.

This bill is nothing but pure political pandering at the expense of science and women's health. Let's stop letting politics trump science. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, these are not the circumstances under which we should be considering this legislation. The bills before us deal with nothing less than the security of our homeland and the fundamental nature of our Nation. Our citizens deserve better than to have their elected representatives rush to pass all of these bills in one day, bills that say a great deal about who we are as a society and where we are headed as a country.

The Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report and the Military Commissions Act before us are manifestations of how this country has chosen to respond to the challenges that confront us, challenges to our safety and our peace of mind.

Will we respond with flawed acts that undermine our economic vitality and sacrifice the very liberties we are theoretically fighting to protect? Or will we be measured in our response and do what is necessary to preserve our liberty from both threats abroad and the consequences of fear and mistrust here at home?

Mr. Speaker, this homeland security legislation means a great deal to my constituents in western New York and to the tens of millions of Americans who live in northern border communities throughout our country.

Our relationship with Canada is truly a unique one. Ours is the longest unguarded border in the world, a demonstration of the spirit of trust and openness shared by our two great nations. That spirit has produced and sustained a thriving cross-border tourism industry and hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between our two countries every year.

Border economies on both sides of the divide depend on that trade and tourism. So it would be shortsighted and self-destructive to permit a flawed border security plan to cut off such a lifeline. Unfortunately, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, put forth with so much fanfare by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, threatens to do just that. In the name of heightened security, this plan, if implemented in its current form, will mean that millions of tourists from both countries will stay home and businesses will stop shipping their goods across the border. In its current form, this plan is a disaster waiting to happen. And considering that Canada is our largest trading partner, we have no choice but to fix it before it is too late. And what we need first is an extension of the WHTI implementation deadline, which I am relieved to see is still in this bill. Backing up the implementation until June or at least January of 2009 will give us the time we need to fix this program where it is broken.

My colleague and good friend from New York Representative McHugh and I have fashioned a bipartisan, commonsense bill that will correct the most egregious failings of WHTI and make it work for our constituents instead of against them. The Protecting American Commerce and Travel Act, or PACT Act, has gained the support of a wide range of Representatives in this body. It will ensure border security while at the same time keeping it open to travel and trade. I urge all of my colleagues to consider and pass the PACT Act in the months ahead. We don't have to choose between economic security and physical security. We can and we must have both.

Mr. Speaker, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was a flawed reaction to a perceived threat and today threatens the liberty and prosperity of our country more than those it supposedly protects us from.

In the same way, the Military Commissions Act before us represents a shocking assault on the fundamental

freedoms and liberties that we have been told we are fighting to defend. This bill will dramatically increase the President's right to detain men and women the world over and to hold them indefinitely without charge. What is more, it will serve as a backdoor legalization of all but the most brutal of interrogation methods, taking our Nation down a path that we have chastised so many other countries for following.

Yesterday in the Senate, my friend and New York delegation colleague, Senator Hillary Clinton, told a story about our country's first great military leader, a man who went on to become our first great political leader.

On Christmas Day in 1776, in the midst of the Revolutionary War, General George Washington launched a daring raid that culminated in the capture of numerous Hessian soldiers. They were foreign mercenaries known for their brutality and who were fighting for the British. Despite what they had done to American soldiers, he ordered his men to treat them humanely. He said, ``Let them have not reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army.''

George Washington, the man who so influenced our national consciousness, who was so deeply responsible for who we are as a people, wanted the world to know that the new American Army did not abuse its prisoners of war. He also wanted to do whatever he could to win the hearts and minds of the Hessians. If even one came to see the virtue of America and lay down his arms, that would be a victory in the fight for our Nation's freedom and independence.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard some of the best arguments against this bill from General Washington's successors: the men and women who have held top positions of responsibility in our Armed Forces. They have told us over and over again that if we ignore our country's longstanding commitment to the rules of war and international treaties like the Geneva Conventions, we will be putting our own soldiers and our own Nation at risk. Opening the door to detainee abuse and indefinite detention will make our soldiers more likely to be tortured and dehumanized so that they fall into enemy hands, and that means our own country will be less safe.

A world based on the rule of law is more safe, not less safe, than a world based on power alone. To argue that those who oppose this detainee bill want to let terrorists roam free is both wrong and illogical. Suspected terrorists who have evidence against them will be convicted by courts of law. They will stay behind bars. At the same time, a steadfast commitment to due process will both defend our most cherished freedoms and free the innocent from unwarranted punishment. Doing so will protect our liberty and deprive our enemies of one of the main tools that they are using to recruit their new followers.

We will show the world that the United States practices what it preaches about freedom and democracy and human dignity. We will bring others over to our side and make them less likely to take up arms against us.

There is a reason why Colin Powell recently warned us that the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight on terrorism. He said it because it is true and because such a reality is a truly dangerous one. What is more, humane interrogation methods will prevent us from chasing after ghosts, from following the fleeting leads of false confessions born not from knowledge but from desperation.

General Washington saw the value of a world based on law and principle over 200 years ago, and he saw it at a time when his fledgling Nation was truly in a fight for its very survival. And for us to pass a bill today that abandons some of the most fundamental principles of the civilization that we have sworn to defend would be an insult to all those who came before us, to all those who fought and struggled so that we could live free.

Mr. Speaker, it is such a respect for law and eternal principles that this administration and far too many in this Republican leadership lack. The proof lies in a provision of this bill which has received so little notice it is shameful but that is profoundly revealing about its true nature.

Ten years ago Congress passed a law called the War Crimes Act. Under that bill violating the Geneva Conventions is a crime in the United States. The administration argued that the Convention does not apply to enemy combatants, a term of its own invention. But the Supreme Court disagreed. In other words, the administration officials who have spent the last 5 years creating and directing our torture policy, as well as the government employees who have carried it out, could be liable for criminal prosecution for violating the War Crimes Act.

And so they have decided in this bill to go back in time to 1997 and to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make their actions legal. And that is exactly what this bill does. To call this strategy cynical and self- serving, Mr. Speaker, is an understatement. When President Bush signs this bill, he will be signing away any responsibility for the potentially criminal policies that he and those in his administration have enacted during the past 5 years. When he signs this bill, he will be signing a pardon for himself and for all other architects of these disastrous, self-defeating, and immoral policies.

But we have a choice here today. We can take a principled stand on behalf of the principles that make us great. We can choose to reject a future in which America can no longer honestly claim that it respects human rights, a future in which our own shortsighted, selfish, and immoral retreat into fear and suspicion has left us less safe and more isolated than ever before. We can choose to embrace our true nature and, in so doing, take a great step toward the creation of a world led by law and free from fear.

It is our choice, Mr. Speaker. And I implore all of my friends in this body, please, let us today make the right one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I will use my remaining time to close, but, first, I wish to insert for the Record an editorial from this morning's New York Times called, ``More Comfort for the Comfortable.'' That is the way they describe the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. They say it is a deeply misguided giveaway for big real estate developers.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 2006.]

More Comfort for the Comfortable

Congress, which has done so little this session to address

the nation's real problems, is expected to vote today on a

deeply misguided giveaway for big real estate developers. The

bill would create new property rights that could in many

cases make it difficult, if not impossible, for local

governments to stop property owners from using their land in

socially destructive ways. It should be defeated.

The Private Property Implementation Act would make it

easier for developers challenging zoning decisions to bypass

state courts and go to federal court, even if there was not a

legitimate federal constitutional question. Zoning

regulations are quintessentially local decisions. This bill

would cast this tradition aside, and involve the federal

government in issues like building density and lot sizes.

The bill would also make it easier for developers to sue

when zoning decisions diminished the value of their property.

Most zoning does that. Developers would make more money if

they could cram more houses on small lots, build skyscrapers

200 stories tall, or develop on endangered wetlands. The bill

would help developers claim monetary compensation for run-of-

the-mill zoning decisions on matters like these. It would

also make it easier for them to intimidate local zoning

authorities by threatening to run to federal court.

Zoning is not an attack on property rights. It is an

important government function, and most Americans appreciate

that it helps keep their own neighborhoods from becoming more

crowded, polluted and dangerous. If more people knew the

details of this bill, there would be wide opposition. As it

is, attorneys general from more than 30 states, of both

parties, have joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the

National Conference of State Legislatures and leading

environmental groups in opposing it.

The bill does a lot of things its supporters claim to

abhor. House Republicans were elected on a commitment to

states' rights and local autonomy, and opposition to

excessive litigation and meddling federal judges. It is

remarkable how quickly they have pushed these principles

aside to come to the aid of big developers.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to strike from the conference report several last-minute provisions that may compromise chemical plant security.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, these provisions were not in either the House or Senate-passed versions of the Homeland Security bill. They were drafted in secret and slipped into the conference report without the input of any Democrats in the conference. Even worse, these provisions may make chemical facilities more vulnerable to security problems and not less.

When we talk about balance, I think Homeland Security was supposed to be about rules and regulations. The new language weakens the Homeland Security Secretary's ability to enforce chemical facility site security plans. It takes the authority away. It allows the Secretary to preempt tougher State laws to ensure chemical facility security, and it severely restricts the rights of citizens to take any legal action to enforce chemical facility security requirements. Securing our chemical plants is far too important to be compromised by a secretive and inadequate security plan.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference report, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to remove these inadequate and dangerous provisions. Again, please vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, a bill that will tackle one of the most dangerous environmental hazards to our children's health-lead poisoning. America has made an important pledge to eliminate this problem by 2010, and it is critical that Congress give our communities the tools needed to eradicate lead dangers.

Despite the fact that lead poisoning is preventable, it continues to affect 434,000 American children every year, resulting in serious health problems ranging from brain damage and hearing loss to coma and death. We cannot stand by and watch our children continue to be exposed to toxins when we have the knowledge and tools to keep them healthy. In doing so, we rob them, and our communities, of their greatest potential.

Unfortunately, children are often most vulnerable to lead hazards in the places they ought to be the most safe--in their homes and in their childcare facilities. In 2003, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control found that 14 percent of licensed childcare facilities had significant lead hazards. At facilities where the majority of children attending were African American, 30 percent were determined to pose serious risks of lead poisoning.

Our childcare professionals work tirelessly to care for our children and keep them safe. But they desperately need the appropriate resources to protect children from the hidden dangers of lead hazards. Like its companion bill, introduced in the other Chamber by Senator Obama, the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act will establish the Select Group on Lead Exposures which will be comprised of experts from the Secretary of Education, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the Administration for Children and Families, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The Select Group will be charged with conducting a study of current State and local programs intended to prevent lead poisoning at childcare facilities. Within 1 year of enactment, the Select Group will establish lead safety standards and abatement procedures for such facilities. The bill provides for lead testing of child care centers, and directs the Select Group to establish and administer a grant program to defray abatement costs to help facilities comply with the new lead-safety standards. Finally, the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act will require that contractors hired for repair, renovation, or reconstruction of childcare facilities are provided with educational materials about lead hazards and the guidance necessary to avoid imposing additional risks of lead exposure. These initiatives will play an integral role in preventing future incidences of lead poisoning.

America's children deserve to be safe at their childcare facilities. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the week, this Congress will adjourn so that its Members can go home to campaign for their seats. I like to think of a campaign as a long job interview. Everyone in the body will have to convince his or her constituents that they are the best person for the job, that they have spent their time here in Washington doing whatever they can to better the lives of the people back home in their districts.

Madam Speaker, this Republican Congress has not made that task easy. It isn't just what the Congress has done with its time that is so disappointing, for example, yesterday's passage of a military detainee bill that undermines some of our most cherished and fundamental principles. It is also what the Congress has not done. All the challenges it has not addressed. The responsibilities it has not lived up to. It is all going to leave voters wondering what we have been doing these last 2 years.

The American people do not need us to tell them why their country is headed in the wrong direction. Every day that Congress fails to implement the critical recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, they feel less safe. Every day they struggle to get by on real wages that continue to decline, they feel less secure. And every day that seniors and those with disabilities cannot afford their prescription drugs, that students and their families lie awake worrying about how they are going to be able to afford college tuition payments, and that tens of millions of commuters break the bank trying to afford their drive to work in the morning, every day these problems remain unresolved, and people ask themselves why this Congress doesn't seem to care about what really matters to them.

They need it to take their troubles and concerns seriously and for us to spend our time passing meaningful bills that will actually help them live their lives and provide for their families.

So today, my fellow Democrats and I are offering one last opportunity to our Republican colleagues to make the 109th Congress really mean something. This rule will give us the ability to consider numerous important suspension bills today and tomorrow. In that short amount of time, we can pass legislation that will go a long way towards giving our constituents and fellow citizens the help they need to live in safety and security, to achieve their goals and ensure a brighter future for their children.

I want to briefly mention five goals that we should all pledge to reach before we adjourn. Since 9/11, this administration and Republican Congress have tried to convince us that we are in a war for civilization. They used the urgency of that supposed fight to justify reductions in our fundamental liberties and wars that have cost our citizens dearly.

And yet they have largely failed to implement the overwhelming majority of the 41 security recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, recommendations designed to prevent another attack here at home. And as was made clear by the response to Hurricane Katrina, this government is not prepared to respond to disasters. Nor has it adequately addressed weaknesses in our security system that could be exploited at any time, weaknesses in our energy infrastructure, at our ports, and in our intelligence community.

And that is why I call on this Congress to immediately pass legislation putting the commonsense recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into law. We have no reason for inaction, and the American people won't accept any more excuses.

Threats to the security of our citizens do not come from the outside alone, Madam Speaker. They are threats to that security right here at home. Working families cannot hope to feel secure if they are living paycheck to paycheck and deeply in debt. And if those paychecks are not enough to live on, they do not have much cause for hope left. The real wages of America's workers have fallen for years, squeezing the middle class and making it harder for our 7 million minimum wage workers to even get by. One way to alleviate that pressure would be to increase our minimum wage.

The majority leader bragged a few weeks ago that he has spent his entire career in Congress voting against minimum wage increases. And he isn't alone. Under Republican control, Congress has refused to raise the minimum wage for 9 years, not even to adjust it for an increased cost of living. On the other hand, that cost-of-living adjustment has been made to the congressional salaries numerous times.

Well, enough is enough. My Democrat colleagues and I pledge here and now we will not support another congressional pay raise until we give America's minimum wage workers a raise as well. There is an easy way to do it. We can immediately pass Representative George Miller's Fair Minimum Wage Act or a similar amendment that Representative Hoyer authored to the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. Doing so would have an immediate and profound effect on millions of lives.

Madam Speaker, the deeply flawed Medicare part D legislation rammed through Congress last year has already come home to roost. Millions of Americans face prescription drug premiums they cannot afford, a reality that weighs especially heavy on the elderly and the disabled.

This Congress should immediately give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. This would immediately help countless men and women get the lifesaving prescription drugs that they need.

Nor should we focus only on the present. If we hope to secure a strong future for our country, we must make access to higher education a right instead of a privilege. In our increasingly competitive global economy, knowledge is power like never before, and a good education is more priceless than ever. And what a shame it is that so many of our soldiers serving us now have joined the Guard and Reserve simply to be able to get an education.

During this Congress, Republicans responded to this challenge by cutting $12 billion in Federal student aid intended for our Nation's college students. It was a shortsighted and harmful decision, and it should be immediately reversed.

I hope all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join the Democrats in restoring higher-education funding and expanding the size and availability of Pell Grants. We can do it by passing an improved Labor-HHS bill, and Democrats have the legislation to get it done.

Finally, Madam Speaker, while energy costs have compounded the daily

troubles of so many ordinary people, Congress has handed out huge tax breaks to the Nation's largest oil companies and done it while they have made some of the greatest profits ever earned by American corporations. Since Republicans passed an energy bill in 2001, authored in secret by the administration and those same companies, it has been clear whom the Republicans stand with on this issue. But the Democrats always fault for an energy agenda that works for all Americans, not just for the oil industry. We should immediately begin rolling back tax breaks for big oil and using the savings to invest in alternative fuels that would give us true national energy independence and real relief at the pump and force them to pay the royalties they owe this government for their use of public lands.

Madam Speaker, today and tomorrow we will be presenting bills that will accomplish all these goals. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to think about the questions they will be asked when they go home in October. I ask them to think about how they are going to respond to a constituent who asks what they have done to lower tuition prices, to make our ports and mass transit systems more safe, to get prescription drugs into the hands of those who need it, and to increase the quality of life for minimum wage earners. I ask them to no longer ignore these critical questions and these critical needs of our citizens.

In 2 days, with just a few simple bills, this Congress can improve the lives of tens of millions of people. The only real question left to ask is, why would we let such a precious opportunity pass us by?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, let me just point out that the minimum wage bill passed here was buried in a bill that gave billions in tax breaks to the Nation's wealthiest.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to provide that the House will immediately consider five important legislative initiatives that will actually do something to help American workers and their families.

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

Madam Speaker, my amendment would provide for immediate consideration of five bills. The first one would implement the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, something the House should have done years ago.

The next bill would provide for an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. It has been more than 9 years since hardworking Americans have seen a change in the minimum wage, and this increase is long overdue.

The amendment would also allow the House to immediately consider a bill to provide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Last week, megastores like Wal-Mart and Target announced that they were cutting prescription drug prices due in part to their ability to negotiate with drug companies. Why should the government not be allowed to negotiate as well?

Under my amendment, we will also take up a bill to repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance imposed by the Congress and to expand the size and availability of Pell grants.

And finally, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will provide for immediate consideration of the bill to roll back the massive tax breaks for large oil companies and to invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence.

Madam Speaker, these are all measures that will actually do something to help improve the quality of life for all Americans, and will make them safer as well. That is what we were sent here to do.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider these important bills today and show the people of this great Nation that they come first.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this do-less-than-nothing Congress just returned from another recess, and already the Republicans are preparing to adjourn at the end of this week so they can go home and campaign. This is not what people sent us here to do. They expect us to address issues of importance and to do our best to improve their quality of life.

Yet, Republicans in this body seem content to head back home, having had ``dead-horse week'' and bills yesterday that will never see the light of day in the Senate; and they are expecting us at home to do this to improve their quality of life.

Democrats are committed to finding solutions, not ones that involve destroying our natural resources for short-term gains or ones that rely on Middle Eastern potentates to ensure our way of life, and certainly not the so-called solutions that provide tax breaks to oil companies and not to consumers.

Instead, we are committed to cracking down on price gouging, repealing the $8 billion in tax breaks to oil companies, and investing in new energy technologies to really end our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have time to do nothing about the energy crisis. I ask unanimous consent to bring up

H.R. 4479 to repeal the oil company subsidies and give a break to consumers and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the critically important legislation before

us today is being presented as a bipartisan compromise, but nothing could be further from the truth. It was authored by the administration and by the Republican leaders of this Congress.

As Chairman Hunter testified in the Rules Committee yesterday, no Democrats were involved in any way in the negotiations that were conducted over the weekend to produce this bill, nor did the Rules Committee make in order any of the 15 amendments that Democrats offered to address the sections of the bill that most offend our democratic values and violate our most fundamental traditions.

The closed rule governing this bill means this Republican Congress is turning its back on a real debate here today. It is a reality made all the more egregious by the historic importance of this moment. We are at a crossroads today, and I fear we will not be judged kindly by future Americans for what my Republican friends want to do to us today.

The bill sends a clear message to both our friends and our enemies about what kind of people we are. It shows them whether or not we are really willing to practice what we preach about freedom and democracy and human dignity.

It is moments like this one when we reveal our true colors and even our true values. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, those watching today will conclude that when the going gets tough, America's leaders are willing to abandon our values, abandon them in favor of thuggish tactics that they hope might make them safer for a little while.

In his second inaugural address, our President used noble words to describe America's role in the world and its duty as a beacon of hope for all nations. He said, ``From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless values.''

That might be disputed by the generations of persons held in slavery and by the women of America who had no say in anything or standing anywhere, but, nonetheless, it sounds good. They are inspirational words.

But here is the reality: For years, this administration has circumvented our Constitution in the name of security. Its officials have dismissed even the most important of our legal documents, such as the Geneva Convention, as being nothing more than ``quaint.'' It was described that way by the present Attorney General, the chief law officer, I might add.

This administration and Republican Congress have allowed detainees to sit in prison for years without charging them with any crime. They are willing to deprive people of even the most basic due process rights that our country has always afforded those held by the government. They are willing to convict people of crimes without giving them any opportunity to review the evidence the government is using against them. They are willing to try to convict people based on unreliable evidence acquired through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that the rest of the world recognizes as torture.

They are willing to allow government officials to degrade and torment other human beings in ways that civilized nations outlawed 60 years ago. They are even willing to take any new legislation that we pass today and make it retroactive to protect people who have already committed torture, so that past abuses will be forgotten instead of being sincerely addressed.

What this Congress is showing the world today is that they are willing to trade our national birthright for a false and temporary sense of security.

Let me emphasize that, because it is indeed a false sense of security, Mr. Speaker. After 5 years of secret detentions, torture, warrantless surveillance, hyped up stories about weapons of mass destruction, are we any safer today from the threat of terrorism? The answer is no, we are not. In fact, as we learned earlier this week, our country's intelligence agencies informed the President a few months ago that we are actually less safe than we were in 2001.

Mistreating our prisoners and depriving them of the basic due process rights of our legal system is not making us any safer. All it is doing is slowly wearing away at the fabric of our democratic society, undermining the essential nature that made us different from other countries. When we degrade and mistreat our prisoners, we degrade ourselves and the democratic values we have inherited from generations of brave and decent Americans.

We are ceding the moral high ground those who founded this country, and the men and women who served it ever since, won with their blood, sweat and tears.

What is more, legislation like this puts our soldiers at risk. During the course of the national debate on this issue, a number of prominent admirals, generals and other military leaders have spoken out against this bill. They have told us time and time again that ignoring our American values puts our U.S. military personnel deployed overseas in danger. That falls on deaf ears here. They have said that respect for the rules of military engagement and prisoner treatment are more than just important parts of our American heritage. They also protect Americans who are captured and imprisoned by foreign powers.

Mr. Speaker, how is endangering our troops making us any safer? How is undermining our moral standard helping us win allies in the war of ideas that we face?

The answer is simple. It is not. At this very moment, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people held in facilities whose fate will depend on this legislation. I want to take a moment to talk about one of them.

Bilal Hussein is an Iraqi who worked as a photographer for the Associated Press. He is also a Pulitzer Prize winner. He has been held in Iraq by American forces for 5 months. He was accused of aiding and abetting the insurgency, but he has yet to be charged with any crime. He has been given no access to a lawyer or to a court and has not been able to see any evidence against him. The Associated Press has stood by him and repeatedly defended his innocence. We want to make sure he is alive. We will be writing the Secretary of Defense today to give us some information on his case.

But under this bill, Mr. Speaker, Bilal Hussein could be declared to be an enemy combatant, sent to an American detention facility and kept there indefinitely. No charges would ever have to be brought against him. His permanent detention would never have to be defended in a court of law.

Imagine if another nation held an American citizen without charging him of a crime. Imagine if it refused to even let him see the evidence against him. What would we say about such a country?

So, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, what are we supposed to say about our country today? Again, in his inaugural address of 2 years ago, the President had this say about the soul of America: ``When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said it rang as if it meant something. In our time, it means something still.''

This bill gives the lie to that speech and it gives the lie to what should be our Nation's greatest asset, our greatest weapon in the fight against terrorism and oppression, and that is our values.

I ask everyone in the House to reject this bill. I ask everyone here to chart a new course for America. If we reject torture, if we stand up for a legal system and fundamental rights that are the basis for liberty and the only real source of security that we have, then we will have come a long way in our battle against the threats our Nation faces in the world today.

My friends and colleagues, please don't turn your back on the past. It is in its lessons and principles that we will find the key to a safer and more just future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Chair of the Rules Committee that Democrats brought 15 amendments up last night, including amendments by the ranking members of Armed Services and Intelligence, that were not allowed.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time.

You negotiated with yourselves. We were completely shut out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a proven fact that people have been imprisoned for several years without any due process.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who did not have an opportunity to have his amendment made in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this closed rule and allow the House to consider three critical amendments that were rejected by the Rules Committee last evening.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment offered by Representative Meehan would restore habeas corpus, one of the most basic principles in our legal system which allows a person detained by the Government to have a judge review his or her case.

The next amendment, which was offered by Mrs. Tauscher, strikes the provision in the bill that would reinterpret and weaken our commitment to the Geneva Conventions. The last amendment, by Representative Loretta Sanchez, would modify the appeals process by providing that the existing and experienced U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and then the Supreme Court would be used instead of creating a brand new court system that is untested and untried.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we will be considering shortly makes very extraordinary changes to the way we deal with interrogation and treatment of prisoners of war, and those incarcerated from the war on terror.

It is undoubtedly one of the most deadly serious issues we will deal with in this Congress. The impact of this legislation is not just about the effect that it will have on those individuals that our Nation apprehends in wartime and in the War Against Terror.

Every bit as important are the far-reaching implications that it will have for our soldiers and citizens who may be captured. This is about protecting them from torture and other inhumane treatment. The three amendments are critical components in this process. They need to be a part of the process today.

Let's do the right thing and vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we may consider these issues today. The lives of the brave men and women protecting our great Nation depend on it. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been standing on the floor of this House for years talking about this very issue. And thinking about what I have just heard: If a young girl 10 or 12 years old, as I understand it, was victimized by rape or incest, we should not help her to do something not to carry a child but to support her. I wish I had time to elaborate on that further. What kind of support do you give a 10-year-old pregnant girl? What do we do for her?

But I rise today in strong opposition to this bill, because, once again, we are playing politics with women's lives. We could be spending this week before adjournment working to help Americans in real ways by raising the minimum wage, for example, or making higher education more accessible, or reducing the national debt. But, instead of doing that, this Congress could think of nothing better to do than to meddle with one of the most private decisions that women have to make in their lives.

The Child Custody Protection Act is almost exactly the same as the bill we voted on earlier in the year, and I guess it was found to be such a crowd pleaser we would like an encore. That bill, like this one, was an invasion into the private lives of American families as well as an attack on the legal rights afforded to all women in this country. We do have legal rights as women.

Not only will this bill fail to enhance the health of young women in America, it will fail to reduce the number of abortions that take place each year. It will force vulnerable young women to seek out illegal and unsafe venues for terminating pregnancies, and most of us in my generation know women who had to do that.

Now, if we really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies, in Congress, we could pass the Prevention First Act which is just lying around in limbo here. It would reduce the abortions by expanding teen education about preventing pregnancy and approve their access to contraception.

And this bill is not going to do anything to promote healthy families. It will criminalize grandparents. Imagine sending Granny to jail. Other caregivers are also subject to great penalties, while letting the people who committed the real crime, the rapists, the person who committed incest, they go scot free, and they can even sue the girl.

In all the years that I have spent working on behalf of women's health, I have never seen a single drop of evidence that supports this supposed epidemic we are going to talk about here today. There is no evidence that young women are being transported in great numbers across State lines for abortions.

So why are we here? Why are we here? Because this is a crowd pleaser, as I said before. It is not about protecting young women. It is gaining political points. We have a duty in this body to maximize the freedom, the quality, and the rights of our citizens, the strands that form the fabric of our society. But to toss these fundamental rights away simply to score a few points at the polls is indefensible. We can do better. I urge all the Members to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 482 on H. Res. 992, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 456, I was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret why fewer than 30 percent of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. It is not hard to figure out why nearly 75 percent of Americans feel as though the country is headed in the wrong direction, and it is easy to see why so few citizens are confident that this government will turn things around.

Our elected officials routinely abuse the public trust, promising one thing and delivering another. They intentionally disguise business as usual to look like positive reform, and Members of the House have ignored the rules written in the public interest, and have allowed the deliberative process at the heart of our democracy to be captured by special interests.

The result has been a Congress where corrupt lobbyists write the bills, 15-minute votes are held open for 3 hours and entirely new legislation is crammed into acts in the dead of night. The American people know it, and they are tired of the old games. When finally faced with public awareness and anger over just how corrupt our House has become, Republicans promised a great deal.

In fact, they opened 2006 with a flurry of promises. My good friend and colleague, David Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee and Republican ethics reform leader, had this to say on the floor in February, and I quote, ``We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic reforms for this institution,'' he said. Adding the quote, ``the Republican Party has stood for reform ever since I can remember.''

But since then, Mr. Speaker, very little of anything has come from my Republican friends, even though their party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. If they were interested in ethics reform, they would have passed it swiftly. Instead they seem here at the last throes simply determined to merely run out the clock on the issue of passing a few deceptive bills here and there while secretly hoping the whole subject would go away.

We saw this strategy with the first ethics reform act passed by the House in February, which was a minor rules change that simply prevented former Members from using the House gym, as if that is the only place that dishonest business transpires in Washington.

Then in May a broader Republican bill theoretically focused on preventing future lobbyist abuses was lambasted by commentators of all stripes for being what it was, a sham. It has been a history of deliberate inaction, Mr. Speaker, and the same story here today.

As this legislative session comes to a close, it is truly shameful that bills like this one are all the House is going to be able to accomplish. Consider the context in which this bill comes to us.

While my colleagues on the other side spent years railing against the evils of Congressional earmarks, they have been presiding over the greatest earmark explosion in American history. According to the Heritage Foundation, earmarks are appropriations bills that increased tenfold between 1995 and 2005. In the mid-1990s, they accounted for $10 billion in Federal spending. Today it is over $27 billion.

Nonappropriation earmarks have skyrocketed as well. Last year's transportation reauthorization bill, for example, contains 6,371 earmarks, totaling $25 billion, including the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''

We cannot afford to keep spending in such an irresponsible way, Mr. Speaker. One look at our skyrocketing national deficit is proof enough of that. But this is about more than just debt, it is about the future of democracy itself.

Unchecked earmarks, and many of them for relatives of the persons who wrote them, or for businesses that they own, are a cause of the culture of corruption that pervades Washington and undermines our democracy. They are routinely traded for political favors, exchanged for votes and used to benefit family members. They are, in the words of Representative Flake, the currency of corruption in Washington.

Yet, my Republican friends have given us a bill today that is a nonresponse to the crucial issue, a deceptive bill that is riddled with loopholes. Just like the previous legislation, this is, once again, a sham.

This measure is supposed to increase disclosure of which Members are behind which earmarks. But it is intentionally limited. It leaves numerous means by which Members can conceal their earmarks. The rules change proposed to the resolution applies only to reported bills, so a Member who wanted to avoid disclosing earmarks to the public could simply include them in the manager's amendment or bring the bill straight to the House floor without a committee markup, therefore, no identifiable earmarks. That is a loophole you could drive a truck through.

If that is not bad enough, the bill defines many types of earmarks right out of existence. For example, spending on Federal entities can no longer be classified as an earmark under the bill. That would have allowed the infamous $200 million ``Bridge to Nowhere'' earmark that blew up in a scandal last year to avoid disclosure entirely. The $400 million Home Depot ceiling fan giveaway that we heard so much about would not have counted as a earmark either, just because the resolution did not include tariff and duty changes in its definition.

Of course, this entire piece of legislation would expire in January. Let me make that point again. What we are doing here today, when this passes today, it is only good till the end of the year. How serious a bill is that?

This is a deeply flawed solution to a serious problem, a temporary stopgap measure, and I think we won't be writing any more earmarks this year, which is designed to do little more than get the Republicans through the November elections.

As always, there is an alternative. More than 6 months ago my Democrat colleagues and I offered a tough, commonsense report package that would have corrected many of the most rampant abuses plaguing Washington, abuses that have diverted the work being done here away from the good of the people and toward the wants of a few.

Legislation I introduced on behalf of the Democratic leadership in May bans travel on corporate gifts, bans lobbyist gifts, slows down the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, prohibits lobbyists writing the bills, addresses many of the broken procedures and rules here in this House.

It focuses on earmarks, too, in a much more direct and systemic way than the bill before us does now. In fact, it requires Members to publicly disclose all district-specific earmark requests that they make on bills and conference reports. This past May I am proud to say that 16 Republicans joined with the Democrats in support of this bill.

In the end, it failed the House by only two votes. It was deeply encouraging to see rank-and-file Republicans of conscience challenge their Republican Party's leadership, to see them back up their pledge to clean up the House with real action. They will have other chances to do it, too, because Democrats have not given up this fight.

We have always prided ourselves on delivering what we have promised, and we are committed to eliminating the corruption that plagues our Congress today. We won't stop until we get there.

Together, we will give the country a Congress they can be proud of again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of giving a response, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

The world knows who is doing the big spending. We have the worst deficit we have ever seen. And as far as stepping up to the plate, the Democrats never get a chance at bat. We have absolutely nothing we can do, all we can do is vote up or down. We don't know when the bills were written, we have no impact on them at all. As far as the deliberative body, it is all on your side. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

If the gentleman will yield, and I will give him the extra time, but let me make clear that this amendment was submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. The fact that you would not take it up is not the fault of Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity to vote today up or down on a comprehensive reform package.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. That will include the listing of the amendments at the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House has promised for months it would enact comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform legislation in this Congress. We all know that it has not and most likely will not happen before the House adjourns for the mid-term elections in just 2 weeks. But we still have time and opportunity to do something today if we will defeat the previous question.

The amendment provides that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up ethics and lobbying reform legislation that is identical to the motion to recommit that I offered this past May. That motion to recommit, which had bipartisan support, came within three votes of passing.

This legislation, called the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, is a truly comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform initiative. It takes a tough stand on a number of the problems that have led to the culture of corruption that has evolved in the 109th Congress.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation and give Members of this House the right to cast a vote for cleaning up the ethics problems that have plagued this institution for too long. Time is running out for the 109th Congress. If we do not act now, there will be no opportunity to show the American people that we are serious about reform.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule for this piece of legislation that will only live for two more weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.