Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would echo the comments of both Mr. Boehner and Mr. Obey. We were pleased to support and will be offering very shortly that protection. So I say to the gentleman from Kentucky, we expect to do that in the next few days, and his conference report, when it comes back, will be subject to this point of order.

It will be done very soon.

Yes. If the gentleman will yield further, I have indicated to the minority leader that no conference report will be considered on the floor until we adopt that amendment, but I expect to adopt that amendment, frankly, before your bill gets to the Senate.

Yes, it will.

Before you do that, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is going to, I think, outline our understanding of the agreement. But the answer to your question is yes. Every earmark starting with Monday forward, obviously we know that these two bills are moving tonight, our agreement is that every earmark going forward will be included in the bills.

The only complication is both sides have recognized that on the Energy and Water bill, it is going to take a very substantial time, so that the earmarks that would otherwise be included in the Energy and Water bill will be included in a subsequent bill, to then be attached prior to the Energy and Water bill going to the Senate. But that will be open for full debate and amendment to remove those earmarks.

So the answer to your question is yes.

If the gentleman will yield again to me, it is my understanding, as I said earlier, and Mr. Obey, I believe, the Energy and Water earmarks will be attached to a subsequent appropriations bill so that, in fact, it will have its own earmarks and the Energy and Water earmarks, all of which will be subject to review, notice, transparency and action on the floor.

If the gentleman will yield, and I want the gentleman from Wisconsin to correct me, but my understanding is they may not be listed because the problem is that the time to vet those, and both sides agree, is a longer time. But we want to move the Energy and Water bill. It will not move out of this House. All of the earmarks that would be attached to that bill will be attached to another bill, will be listed, will have the author and the assertations and they will be subject to a vote on the House floor as any other.

So prospectively all 10 bills moving forward will have it. It is just that the Energy and Water will be not done together; they will be done separately.

Yes.

That's correct.

Yes.

The minority leader might want to answer that as well.

If the gentleman will yield, I don't want to undermine our full explanation of this event, but when the minority leader says, ``all the time they need,'' neither the minority or the majority have ever thought that other Members needed as much time as the Members think they need. So with that caveat, you can consider it in that context.

It is.

Will the gentleman yield?

No, it was part of the agreement. And we expect to move forward on open rules. But I want to make it clear and don't want to undermine the agreement but I want to make it clear, if we are subjected to what we believe were dilatory tactics, then that would not be consistent with the agreement and, therefore, our provision would be that, in lawyer's terms, the agreement had been breached. But it is part of the agreement.

That is the understanding of the majority. The leader, your leader and I, have spent substantial time together over the last 48 hours discussing this agreement and discussing it with Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis. Clearly we are proceeding in not as a definitive way as we might otherwise have proceeded, and we are proceeding with reliance on the good faith of each to proceed in a manner that we believe accommodates what has been done last year and what we hope will be done this year and, that is, consider these bills with the inclusion of the earmarks in the bills in a manner that facilitates their being passed through this House.

Yes. That is what I represented to Mr. Rogers, and I repeat it to you. Yes.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I want to tell my young friend from North Carolina, that is the representation I have now made three times. I have made it to your leader. I suggest you ask your leader whether he trusts me to do that.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I said ``yes.'' I have said it three or four times. I will say it again. But I want an understanding made clear, and I will reiterate it. We have an agreement. We have an agreement between people who are trying to move America's business forward. That agreement assumes conduct on both sides. There are going to be open rules. But if the conduct that is expected on both sides is not met, I expect both sides will feel the agreement has been breached.

Would the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman knows, the question was asked, has the unanimous consent been modified. It has not. So that whatever agreement, at whatever time it's reached, will have to have the unanimous consent of the body, each and every Member. That part will be the protection against any arbitrary or capricious action. We are pursuing that. As the minority leader said, there's been no change in that.

I thank the gentleman, first, for his comments. Secondly, I thank the gentleman for his question. I happen to believe, I want the gentleman to know, that the rule you were involved with that the minority leader and I have discussed is a good rule. It's a good rule because if something is dropped in conference that nobody knows about it, whatever it may be, I'm not going to mention any specific projects, but we've talked about some during the course of the last 2 days, we will in the rule provide for 10 minutes on each side. So, essentially, what we're doing is expanding under those circumstances by a third the time available for debate on a conference report.

So it is a pretty substantial extension of time. I think to the extent, again, the gentleman was involved, it's an appropriate extension of time so that we do ensure what all want to ensure and that projects that do not justify inclusion in bills and this House or the Senate rejects them or wants to reconsider them, that we have that opportunity. So the debate will be included in the rules recommendation.

Madam Speaker, I have had a discussion with, not directly with the minority leader, but on the representation of the minority leader, I have discussed with the ranking member, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Price and the chairman of the committee.

It will be our intention to roll all votes until tomorrow morning, so that there is no expectation that there will be any more votes tonight for Members. The debate will be concluded.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Nine o'clock.

Probably about 9:10 or so, just about 9 o'clock.

Mr. SHAYS asked me informally when we are getting out. We are working on a unanimous consent agreement between the minority and the majority on the MILCON bill, and that will hopefully facilitate us getting out. I will tell you the minority and majority both believe it ought to be relatively brief, as the MILCON bill has been in the past.

Madam Speaker, on June 9, 1987, Nancy Pelosi was sworn in to represent the people of California's 8th District. This week we recognize and commend her for 20 years of distinguished service in the House of Representatives, where she has served both her constituents and this Nation proudly.

During her 20 years in the House, Nancy has been a true leader on important issues, including promoting human rights, protecting the environment, and expanding health care. She has remained focused on the needs of her district, including preserving the Presidio of San Francisco as the Nation's largest urban national park, fighting for increased funding for HIV/AIDS research, and improving the lives of children.

In the 110th Congress, Nancy has ushered in a new era as the first woman Speaker of the House, setting an agenda that promotes the priorities of the American people and addresses the key challenges present in today's world. Her drive and determination make her a strong leader and legislator, and she has worked tirelessly to represent her constituents and to move our Nation in a new, positive direction.

Nancy has been a devoted public servant, both in California and in the House. She is a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. It is an honor to serve with her in the House, and I am proud to call her my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, and I congratulate the gentlelady for the extraordinary work she has done, not just this year but throughout the years on this very, very important issue which offers hope for literally millions and millions of people, not just in America but throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, again, today the new majority in this House demonstrates its commitment, its commitment to addressing the priorities of the American people. As we consider this legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, let us be clear: This bill, S. 5, has widespread bipartisan support in Congress and certainly among the American people. It passed the Senate in April by a vote of 63-34. And it's nearly identical to legislation the House passed in January by a bipartisan substantial margin of 253-174.

This legislation will pass again today. And thus the real question is will the President heed the will of the

American people as expressed by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and sign this bill.

Or will the President continue to undermine the will of the American people.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation would increase the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research. Current policy limits the use of Federal funds for research only to those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order of August 9, 2001, an executive order which accommodated the research we are talking about but limited it.

This policy severely restricts the potential for lifesaving breakthroughs because only 22 of those 78 stem cell lines are available for research today; and the vast majority of those 22 lines are aged, contaminated, or have been developed through obsolete methods.

It cannot be stressed enough: This legislation only authorizes Federal research funds for stem cell lines generated from the embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. Thus, this legislation does not seek nor does it certainly intend to destroy life. It seeks to preserve life.

Former Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist, who was once an opponent of efforts like this one but now supports them, stated: ``I strongly believe . . . that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.'' That was Dr. Frist, the former Republican majority leader of the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, we have, I think, a moral obligation to provide our scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives, and this legislation accomplishes that objective.

Supporters of this bill understand that there is a difficult issue for many Americans and that it raises many questions that humanity has yet to adequately answer, and that is why this legislation also directs HHS and the National Institutes of Health to issue ethical guidelines that will ensure the highest standards of scientific investigation. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research on stem cells not derived from human embryos.

The truth is, as demonstrated by Gallup polls taken since 2001, the more Americans learn about the potential for stem cell research, the more they support it. Just last month, 65 percent of Americans reported that they supported expanding Federal funding for stem cell research. This legislation represents the hope of millions of Americans who are waiting for us to take action.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, as they have before. It is an opportunity. It is a chance. It is a hope for better health and life for those whom we represent.

I urge the President to reconsider his veto when this bipartisan piece of legislation reaches his desk, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and appreciate his question.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour business and 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m., and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m.

We will consider the following fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills: Homeland Security, Military Construction-Veterans' Affairs, Energy and Water Development, and Interior and Environment.

Members should be advised that the official photo of the 110th Congress will be taken on Tuesday.

In concluding my comments, the appropriation bills that I read, Homeland Security, Military Construction-Veterans' Affairs, Energy and Water Development, and Interior and Environment, will be completed next week.

Let me reiterate that. They will be completed next week. I am hopeful we can complete them by the close of business on Friday, but they will be completed next week.

What the chairman and I have discussed is that we are going to complete these four bills next week. As the gentleman knows, as a result of the supplemental taking up a substantial amount of time of the committee and of the committee's chairman and the committee staff, we are behind in our schedule. It is our intention, as the gentleman knows from my previous statements privately and publicly to him and in the colloquy, that we will complete 11 of the 12 appropriation bills prior to June 29 when we are scheduled to take the July 4 work period break. The Defense bill has been decided to be done mid-July. Other than that, these bills will be done.

In order to accomplish that objective, our schedule will be directed not so much at time as work. And we will complete the work. So I say to my friend, Saturday is a possibility. The chairman has said Saturday is a possibility. I am hopeful that will not be necessary. I am hopeful that the subcommittee chairs and the ranking members will be able to work together, as was done last year in terms of schedule and time, so that we can complete our work by Friday at a relatively early hour. I am hopeful we can do that.

Yes, sir.

That obviously is an average of a little less than four bills per week the 3 weeks that are available to us. We have four bills scheduled next week. We will not have the Defense bill scheduled. Labor and Health may be the biggest bill thereafter that we will consider prior to June 30.

I do anticipate that, and I would look forward to having discussions with the gentleman at the end of next week, Thursday or Friday. Hopefully that is feasible. We hope it will be feasible.

As you know, last year, as I reiterated, there were time agreements between the chairman and the ranking member that allowed us to effect reasonably efficient consideration under the open rules that were then in place.

We anticipate that, and I hope that is the case.

But I want to reiterate what is self-evident. Our commitment has been to pass 11 bills by the end of this month. That gives us three full weeks to do that. We think that is doable.

Again, the defense bill is not in that mix. The defense bill arguably could have taken substantial time, and that will be done in July.

I say to my friend that I contemplate proceeding as we have done in the past and look forward to discussing that with him as we proceed.

I thank my friend for yielding. It gives me an opportunity to respond to two things.

First of all to his specific question, and that is what I contemplate at this point in time. I have not fully discussed it with the chairman, but that is what we contemplate. As far as I know, that is what the rules will provide for next week.

When I said it gave me an opportunity to comment on the general, I know there has been some consternation on your side of the aisle, Mr. Whip, with the pre-printing requirement.

As you know, one of the things we were concerned about was that matters would come to the floor with little notice. My view is an open rule allows somebody to present whatever amendment they choose to present. But requiring that it be preprinted so it gives notice to Members it seems to me not to be contrary to the concept of an open rule. It simply means within the concept of an open rule Members will have notice as to what amendments people intend to offer.

We think that is not undermining of anybody's right to offer any amendment they choose to, while at the same time giving the body notice of what they can contemplate and consider what they might want to do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would reiterate, as I told my friend, my contemplation is we will proceed in the regular order next week. We hope that will go in the regular order.

I further said to my friend that we will discuss that as we go forward during the latter part of the week. We hope, as occurred last year, there was cooperation between both sides to accomplish the work of the Appropriations Committee.

We know we have had a problem. Nine of the appropriations bills, as you know, weren't passed last year. They were passed this year, and they were passed after the fiscal year not only had started but after the Congress in which they were supposed to be passed expired and the new Congress was under way.

But I want to assure the gentleman, as I have said, we contemplate the regular order. What I was referring to in the second part of my response was the issue that has been raised not with respect to appropriations bills over the last 3 or 4 months but with respect to bills that we perceive to be open rules but with a pre-printing requirement. We do not think, and we will be glad to discuss that, that giving Members notice of amendments they may have to be prepared for and to contemplate and to have information about and find out what people might think about that undermines the open-rule concept. The open-rule concept, from my perspective, is that any Member who wants to offer an amendment that is germane can do so. And that requiring them to tell people ahead of time what that amendment is is not undermining of that right.

However, as I said, I understand the gentleman's position with respect to an appropriation bill where moneys may be cut. There may be opportunities to add back in other places or to shift from one object to another. I think you are correct. It may be a more fluid situation that the Members confront at that point in time, and they may not be able to have the ability to pre-print an amendment which they can themselves not contemplate.

I want to explain that I was referring more to the questions that you have raised, not you specifically, but that have been raised with reference to the differences that we have on the fact that we believe we have provided a number of open rules, notwithstanding the pre- printing requirement.

Well, I don't know that the response is necessary. I will say to my friend, I heard him speak a lot in 1991 and 1992 and 1993 about open rules, about openness, and I'm speaking now of Mr. Dreier, and he subsequently became the chair of the Rules Committee. And his response was, when I raised one of his quotes, was, look, we're in authority now and we've found out that we can't get done the work that we need to get done without, in effect, shutting down the rules.

It is very difficult now to hear him tell me that he's going to do everything possible to make sure that the rules are open. He had an opportunity as chairman of the Rules Committee, of course, to do that, and from our perspective, as he well knows, he didn't do that.

As I have said before, we are going to proceed with these four bills in the regular order, and my friend the distinguished whip and I will discuss, along with Mr. Boehner and I, will discuss trying to get our work done within the time frame allotted to us and that is available to us.

He made the observation correctly that 11 of the 12 appropriation bills last year were passed through this House, in the previous year the 12 out of 12. Or 11 out of 11. I guess 10 out of 11 the last year. We've added an appropriations committee. They were passed. However, I would remind and say once again, with the cooperation of Mr. Obey and with time constraints so that they could be done in a timely fashion. I am hopeful that we proceed that way again, and we will look forward to discussing it.

Will my friend yield?

I am confident that you and I can do that.

As someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for a quarter of a century, I can tell you this has been done on a regular basis in the last Congress, the Congress before that and every Congress in which I've served. In every Congress in which I've served.

It's my understanding, staff has just told me, that we have an agreement, I presume Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis and other leadership have agreed, to coordinate the floor and committee work so as to not have conflicts. So that apparently has been contemplated.

I want to agree with you that, generally speaking, you are absolutely correct. The Appropriations Committee does not like to be marking up bills when appropriation bills are on the floor. I agree with that 100 percent. Mr. Obey in particular does not like that because Mr. Obey, either as the ranking member or now the chairman, was very engaged, as we all know, in the floor debates. So he was particularly not happy with that process, and as an appropriator, I can tell you that no appropriator likes to have that happen.

Again, we understand that there has been some work on this so that we can try to accommodate both doing the work on the floor and doing the work in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow, and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, June 11, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I want to say to Mr. Kildee, those of you who have been our pages and have made such an extraordinary contribution to this institution, Mr. Kildee has been on the Page Board for almost, as a matter of fact, maybe as long as I've been a Member of Congress, which is longer than, by almost a factor of two, not quite, all of you have been alive.

You come to this institution with a great responsibility, in my opinion. You are extraordinary young people in high school, learning not only about government but learning about all the other skills that you will need to know to be successful and to help your country be successful.

This program, I think, is an extraordinarily important program because of what it does. It gives to you at a young age while you are learning the opportunity to see firsthand your democracy in action, to see those who have been selected by your parents, by your brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and your neighbors and friends to represent them in the Congress of the United States.

You have been given this unique opportunity that a very, very small segment of your fellow cohorts, your generation, will have had, to come firsthand to see the Members, who are all human beings, who all have ideas, who all have passions and fears and visions and desires like your parents and you have and who come here on behalf of their constituents to try to do good for their country.

As president of the Maryland Senate in the 1970s, I had the opportunity to run the Page Program in the State Senate, and I was always hopeful that those young people, who were your age, 16, 17 years of age, they were seniors, for the most part, you're juniors, would leave their service in this institution and in that institution with a positive perspective, with a thought that this democracy, founded so many centuries ago, still is a viable democracy that, as Winston Churchill said, is the best of all other forms of government tried.

It is, as you have seen, not perfect, but it has created one of the greatest societies that has ever existed, not the only great society but one of the greatest, and you have helped us make it function.

And sometimes you will think to yourself, well, I didn't get on the floor and speak; you're obviously not a Member; and perhaps you didn't write a great treatise on this issue or that issue and will feel from time to time, well, all I did was run this envelope from this office to that office or from the floor of the House to someplace else or, from time to time, get information for a Member who was debating something on the floor. But your service made this institution run better.

John Kennedy was a hero of mine, and, frankly, I got into politics because of John Kennedy. He came to the campus of the University of Maryland, talked about the difference that young people could make. He spoke on this floor at least on three occasions where he gave his State of the Union.

In his inaugural address, he said to all of us that the energy, the faith, the devotion we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it, and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

Pages, I hope you leave from here with a better knowledge of how the people's House works and with a renewed conviction that your democracy works, perhaps, better than you thought or some had told you it did and that you will leave this place with an energy and a faith and a devotion to letting your colleagues know how well their democracy works and with the conviction that if they participate fully in this democracy that it will work even better.

Thank you for your service. Thank you for what you do in your communities, in your schools and in your communities, and thank you for transmitting the knowledge you have learned to literally thousands of your friends and colleagues. Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, forty years ago this week, America's Israeli allies triumphed over the greatest threat to their nation's survival since it was founded in 1948. By emerging from the Six-Day War victorious, Israel demonstrated that a country devoted to liberty, equality and democracy could not only exist, but flourish, in one of the most volatile regions in the world.

In the weeks leading up to June of 1967, Israel's Arab neighbors amassed an immense force along their shared borders with the Jewish state. Their goal--as Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser then put it--was ``the destruction of Israel,'' and they assembled 465,000 troops, 2,800 tanks, and 800 aircraft on Israel's doorstep to achieve this malicious goal.

In the armed conflict that followed, Israel defended itself honorably, courageously, and effectively--winning the war in just six days and taking control of lands previously held by the invading nations. And in an unprecedented act of compromise, Israel offered to give back the captured lands in return for nothing more than a promise that Israel's neighbors would join them in pursuit of peaceful co- existence.

Furthermore, Israel stated that the City of Jerusalem, which was placed under Israel's control as a result of the war, would once again be open to peoples of all faiths and nationalities--a provision that allowed Jews, Christians and Muslims alike to freely worship in the holy city.

These actions in defense of peace and equality--undertaken by Israel just weeks after being attacked--help to demonstrate why the U.S.- Israeli relationship remains so strong to this day. The Israeli people have always worked hard to find common ground with their neighbors, even while facing profound threats to their safety and sovereignty. And just as Israel has never turned its back on the principles and values that all free nations share, America will never turn its back on her.

It gives me great pride to support H. Con. Res. 152, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and recognizing the preceding struggle--and I look forward to many more years of fruitful partnership between the United States and Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 451.

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

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, and I agree with the minority leader. The allegations that have been made are extraordinarily serious. They, if proven true, should lead to the expulsion of the Member in question. They, of course, have not been proved true. They are allegations.

Having said that, I also intend to and have called for a resolution to be considered tonight under suspension. That resolution speaks not only to the Jefferson case, to which the gentleman from Ohio limits his privileged resolution, but also speaks to any allegations of serious criminal conduct that may be made either through indictment or other charging documents; and it calls for action by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in any and all of those cases.

We appreciate the sensitivity of the minority leader to this issue at this time. It is, frankly, the first time I recall such a resolution being offered by the minority. For over a year, the Ethics Committee essentially didn't act, didn't operate. In fact, when it did and it held the former majority leader as having adversely affected the ethics of the House, the chairman was summarily removed from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; and, in fact, two of the members that had the temerity to vote to have a consequence for actions that reflected on the House were removed from that committee.

But I welcome the minority leader and the minority party's interest in pursuing this matter. I presume that the gentleman's resolution will pass unanimously. I also hope that the suspension resolution will also pass unanimously because there are, of course, unfortunately, a number of allegations being made publicly about Members of this House; and irrespective of what party they may fall into or be members of, it is critically important for us to hold accountable those Members and to assure the American public that the Ethics Committee is looking at those allegations, investigating those allegations, and making reports not only to the House of Representatives but to the people.

We swear an oath to not only defend the Constitution, but to uphold the laws of our land. As Members of this House, we have an absolute obligation to conduct ourselves in a way that does not violate the standards of official conduct or bring into disrepute the House of Representatives. Hopefully, we will agree on that proposition.

So I say to my Republican friends, we welcome them to this focus on holding accountable Members who violate the trust of the American public. We certainly intend to support it. I hope they will support the subsequently offered resolution, which says that in every case we will pursue this focus.

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

I can do it shorter than that. I just wanted to make one point, because I checked.

The important issue is going forward. We agree with that. We can argue about what happened in the past, we certainly have our perspective. Your panel was named last month, not at the beginning of the session, not in January or February or March or April, but last month. So we need to move forward on this, and we are going to. We are going to support this resolution.

I welcome your support of the suspension resolution, which will ensure that in these kinds of cases, that we go forward in every instance as we are going forward today.

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

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

Chutzpah is a wonderful word. Chutzpah is the position of a person who has been involving themselves in activities for a long period of time and then accusing somebody else of doing the same and being sanctimonious in the process.

That aside, Mr. Speaker, this House was told in November of last year by the people of this country, clean up your House, get rid of the culture of corruption. That's what they said in 2006, on November 7; and that's what we're doing. We adopted one of the strongest rules packages dealing with ethics in the history of this House, eliminating all meals and gifts from lobbyists. Arm's-length transactions. No travel. We just passed a lobbying disclosure bill 2 weeks ago, which most of us voted for because we want to be in on the effort of cleaning up this House.

My young friend from Florida apparently forgets that in January we passed a pension bill which says that if you're convicted and expelled, you won't get your pension. That was the Boyda bill, Nancy Boyda from Kansas, who came to Congress on a pledge to clean up the Congress. And she was elected to do just that.

Earmarks. Earmarks were quadrupled over the last 14 years. We have now adopted a rule that says they're going to be transparent. You're going to know who made the request for earmarks, that there is going to be some check on those earmarks.

Now, my young friend from Florida says that our resolution, which will be on suspension, was just seen. I will tell him, and there is no way he would know this, I saw the leader's resolution just minutes ago.

But that is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is the American public did indeed send us here to act ethically, honestly and openly and do the people's business, not the special interests'. And that's why they made a change in this House in November of 2006, that's why we unanimously on our

side are going to support this resolution, and that's why we're going to support the suspension bill.

Because not only do we believe it ought to be done in this instance, but there are a lot of Members publicly under investigation in this House whose homes have been raided by Federal officials, but they're not in this resolution. They have not been indicted.

Mr. Speaker, we need to act. The public needs to know we're acting, and we need to hold accountable those who fail to meet their public duty and trust to the American people. This leadership is committed to making sure that we do just that.

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

Well, I don't have a specific answer for that. But let me say this. You gave your list last month. We have given our list this month. The minority leader is correct on that time frame. We heard about this indictment. We determined to take specific action. The minority leader also determined to take specific action. We believe they complement one another, but the real issue is that we need to take decisive action and we intend to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know when Mr. Cunningham was indicted and convicted, but ``a long, long time'' seems not to be my recollection of how long ago it was.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

whether very serious, moderately serious, or extraordinarily serious.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from California yield?

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

How much time do I have?

I yield the gentleman from California 1 minute.

The gentleman is welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as a young man I worked on Capitol Hill for a United States Senator, along with the Speaker, Senator Daniel Brewster.

From time to time, Clarence Mitchell, Jr., one of the giants of American history in civil rights in America, would visit Senator Brewster; and I would have an opportunity to meet him. I was honored and awed to meet him. Many called him the 101st United States Senator. Clarence Mitchell, Jr., was the brother of Parren James Mitchell.

Shortly after I graduated from law school, I was honored by the citizens of my district who elected me to the State Senate. I went to the State Senate as a young man, but there was a young man 6 months younger than I. His name was Clarence Mitchell, III, Clarence Junior's son. We served together.

Over the years, I got to know very well Juanita Mitchell, an extraordinary family, an extraordinary family whose matriarch, Ms. Jackson, was an extraordinary leader in her own right.

Parren J. Mitchell was my friend. In 1981, many years after I met the Mitchell family for the first time, I ran for Congress. Juanita Mitchell and Parren Mitchell and Clarence Mitchell, III, were very helpful to me in that campaign. I represented a large African American population. They have always been very supportive of me and I of them. Parren Mitchell did a radio ad for me during the course of that campaign urging all in Prince George's County to elect me. That was a significant help, in my opinion, to my election.

He has been succeeded when he decided voluntarily to leave the Congress by two extraordinary representatives. One was Kweisi Mfume, who spoke at the funeral today; and the other was my colleague and my friend, the immediate past chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus which was founded by Parren J. Mitchell with Lou Stokes and others.

Elijah Cummings spoke. He spoke powerfully and eloquently about the relationship that he throughout his life had with the Mitchell family and the impact that they made on him as an individual. The Mitchell family and Parren J. Mitchell in particular were extraordinary servants of the people, of our democracy, of our country.

When Parren J. Mitchell was sworn in as the first African American to represent the people of Maryland in Congress, he joined this institution at a landmark moment for equality in America. It was 1971. The Voting Rights Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968 had already been signed into law. African Americans were making strides that once seem unimaginable; and the assassinations of leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X and Robert Kennedy raised questions as to what the future of the civil rights movement would be.

Parren Mitchell. Parren Mitchell, a man who took it upon himself to not only protect the legacy of the civil rights pioneers who had come before but to build upon the progress that made it possible for him to come to Washington in the first place.

Rather than be satisfied with how far the struggle for freedom and equality had come in recent years, Parren took responsibility for moving America even further, dedicating his life to ensuring that American society reflected the values and the principles for which this great country stands.

Parren was a founding member, as I have said, of the Congressional Black Caucus, a body that has transformed the way we approach issues of social and economic justice through an understanding that unity is the key to lasting change here in the United States.

Parren fought for fairness in American workplaces and institutions of higher learning as a staunch advocate of affirmative action programs that opened the doors of opportunity to thousands of minorities. As the Speaker said today in her remarks, he was not only committed to equality but understood that equity, particularly ownership in our society, a piece of the pie, was absolutely essential as well.

Parren helped to enhance the fortunes of America's minority business community by introducing legislation ensuring that minority owned business enterprises have a fair shot at Federal contracts, a provision we see mirrored in local and State government contracting practices all over our Nation today because of the leadership and commitment of Parren Mitchell.

Parren's life was one of historic firsts, from the first African American congressman from Maryland to the first African American to receive a degree from my alma mater, the University of Maryland.

His life was also one of service, serving his country proudly and honorably as an officer in the 92nd Infantry Division during World War II and serving the people of Baltimore and our Nation as a man who would never give up fighting for what he knew to be right and just.

Coretta Scott King once said that struggle is a never-ending process, and freedom never really won; you earn it and win it in every generation.

We are all profoundly fortunate that a leader like Parren Mitchell was here to carry the torch of human progress that was passed down to his generation, and we all are profoundly grateful for his contribution to expanding the reach of civil rights and equal opportunity in America.

Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the life of Parren J. Mitchell, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to his family and loved ones and many friends, to express my deep gratitude for his years of service to this House, the State of Maryland and this great country.

Parren J. Mitchell was short in stature, but he was a giant of a man. He stood tall. He stood with courage, he stood with commitment, and he stood with conviction for the rights of all Americans, not just those who were African Americans but of all Americans, irrespective of who they are, what they were, where they came from, how they worshipped. He knew that equality for one was absolutely essential if there was to be equality for all. America was blessed by the service of Parren J. Mitchell.

Today we heard of the love, the respect, and the honor with which he was held by his community. I am proud to join Speaker Pelosi from his beloved city of Baltimore; Elijah Cummings who represents that city so well today and that district that Parren represented. He would be so proud, Elijah, of the representation you give to the 7th Congressional District. And to John Sarbanes whose father served shoulder to shoulder with Parren Mitchell in this House from 1971 to 1976. He would be so proud of you, John, and the role you play in representing that great city.

I was blessed, Mr. Speaker, to serve with Parren Mitchell for the time that he served and I served together. I learned from him. I am better because of him, and I miss him deeply.