Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 129) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to speak on the resolution before its immediate adoption.

Mr. Speaker, we will not take, certainly, the hour that is allotted; but I first of all want to say something about the two individuals who have just resigned their appointments as Clerk and as Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve from 1987 to 2000 on the House Administration Committee and worked with my friend, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Thomas, and others. I was a member of the House Administration Committee on which Vic Fazio, our former colleague from California, was the ranking member. He and Mr. Thomas came together and selected Jay Eagen to be the Chief Administrative Officer.

I think it would be inappropriate if I did not rise and congratulate Mr. Eagen on the job that he has done. I believe that Jay Eagen has brought a degree of professional management to this House of Representatives, which has been a credit to the institution and a credit to all of the Members, and a credit, I might say, to my colleagues on the Republican side, to the Republican leadership on this issue, and I congratulate them for that.

Mr. Eagen is someone who has worked on this Hill for many years. He will be leaving the Hill and leaving this city and moving his family to the west, and we wish him the very, very best.

Mr. Speaker, Karen Haas, who has been the Clerk and who submitted her resignation is, as well, someone who has worked for this institution, cares deeply about the House, and has comported herself, although for a relatively short period of time as the Clerk of our House, in a way that brought honor to the Office of Clerk and brought credit to the House of Representatives.

I know from my perspective personally and from Speaker Pelosi, and I both want to, on behalf of our caucus, extend to them our deepest thanks and gratitude for the service that they have rendered to the House of Representatives and to our country. Both of them, I know, have very exciting things to come. They are both young, they both have much to offer, and we wish them the very best.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my comments on Ms. Miller and Mr. Beard and would certainly yield now to Mr. Ehlers, who may also want to say something.

I will tell my friend, I don't have any other speakers on this side. Do you have a speaker?

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

I appreciate the comments. I appreciated my comments when I made them. I still want you to know that I appreciate them, and I think that is a good practice.

I had the opportunity of sitting down with Mr. Beard just a few days ago, essentially, almost verbatim, in terms of how I believe he ought to operate his office in the sense that this is a business office, this is not a partisan office. Hopefully, he will respond to doing what is in the best business management practice, best practices as well as his own judgment without respect to party or partisanship. I would hope that that would happen. I expect it to happen.

But I appreciate the comments that have been made.

I want to say that, also, I am strongly in support of Lorraine Miller. This is a historic appointment, first African American to serve as an officer of the House, not just as Clerk of the House but as an officer of the House.

Lorraine Miller has served for three Speakers now. She served President Clinton in the White House. She is president of the NAACP in Washington, D.C. She is an extraordinarily knowledgeable, able individual; and she will be a tremendous asset to this institution and I think will send a very strong and powerful message to all of America about inclusion, as the election of our Speaker did.

Mr. Beard, as some of you know, has more than three decades of experience in policy and executive management, including senior positions in the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the White House and the Interior Department, as well as the Library of Congress. Obviously, he has a long, distinguished career in management and, as such, is a professional appointment.

Again, I appreciate the comments that have been made. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the nomination of both, because I believe both will serve this institution in a professional manner that brings credit on their offices and on this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Clyburn be able to manage the balance of time available to me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Obey, who was the ranking member in the last Congress, and who worked with Mr. Lewis to try to pass our appropriation bills and, in fact, we passed all but one of the appropriation bills. Unfortunately, we reported the Labor Health bill, which is the largest bill, other than the Defense bill, in June, and it failed to ever get to the floor of this House because it included minimum wage, and that was not favored by the majority.

Now that we are in the majority, we are left with unfinished business. The gentlelady from Virginia mentions cutting something. We haven't cut anything. As a matter of fact, we have added $1 billion.

If you had passed your appropriation bills, you may have been able to fund at appropriate levels. But you did not pass your appropriation bills. Yet, we hear on the floor today constant complaining from the other side of the aisle that they don't like the way we fixed their failures.

Well, very frankly, I think the American public will. First of all, the American public will be pleased that we are acting, that we are moving on this legislation, which is, essentially, the funding of 9 appropriation bills that failed to move through the House of Representatives and the Senate and to the President as they should have.

Mr. Obey has worked very hard with Senator Byrd. I know Mr. Lewis' staff has been very engaged in this as well. I know the Senate staff has been engaged in it. And I am hopeful that this bill will not only pass this House with a very handy vote.

There are many people in this House, on the Republican side of the aisle who asked to achieve exactly what Mr. Obey has achieved in this bill. He has taken care of the veterans. He has taken care of veterans health. He has taken care of, for the first time in 4 years, trying to get college students Pell Grants that will give them some additional help to fund their college costs. When we had that vote on the floor of this House, we had 124 Republicans join us in that vote. This is one additional step in trying to get college students a more affordable education.

Mr. Obey has moved in a number of areas to make our investments more productive and a better return for the American people. And this bill will provide for getting last year's business done that was left undone, so that we can move on to have what Mr. Wamp wants, and I want, and Mr. Obey wants and Mr. Lewis wants. That is, full and open discussion of the bills in subcommittee, in the full committee and on this floor. I think that is what we will have.

But ladies and gentlemen of this House, we need to complete last year's undone business. It wasn't our fault that it was not done. But whoever's

fault it was, it is not useful to say that it is your fault or my fault or somebody else's fault. It is useful to say we need to move forward. We need to fund government services. We need to fund the priorities of the American people. That is what this continuing resolution does.

I congratulate Mr. Obey, and I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill so we can finally, one-third of the way into the fiscal year, finally do what we should have done by September 30 of 2006.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, but I want to say, first of all, when he talks about $463 billion, I read in the newspaper today where OMB was very pleased that we stayed within the caps imposed by the Republican-passed budget. We took the Republican-passed budget, we took those numbers, we stayed within those caps. That is exactly what you did, Mr. Lewis, when you were chairman of the committee because that was the direction from the Budget Committee. I am understanding that the White House even said that they were pleased with the fact that we stayed within the numbers when you talk about spending.

Secondly, let me say that you and I both served on the Appropriations Committee for a long period of time. In recent years, of course, we have not passed all the appropriation bills in the calendar year, much less the fiscal year, and we would pass omnibus appropriation bills with hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars larger than this bill. One was passed January 31, the other was passed February 5. They were passed as conference reports with 1 hour of debate and no amendments, in which substantial legislative language had been added in conference and not vetted on this floor or in committee.

I understand the gentleman's representations, but he and I have been here a long time and we have a long history of knowing what has transpired in the past. This is a process that was required by the failure of the last Congress to do its work. It has been done in a way that tries to get it done so that we can get on to do exactly what the gentleman wants for the 2008 bills, give them a full airing, full hearings. And I predict to my distinguished and very close friend, Mr. Lewis, we are going to have a lot more hearings as we did when we were in charge, we had more hearings than we have had.

We are going to have oversight, and we are going to have careful scrutiny of the taxpayers' dollars. And I look forward to joining my friend in that process in the regular order. We are doing this so that we can get on to that process to do exactly what the gentleman suggests because it is the right thing to do. And I look forward to working with him on that process.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension. There will be no votes, however, until 6:30.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour business and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of the suspension bills for the week will be announced later this week.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10. In addition to suspension bills, we will consider H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. Now, because we have come to a point where, as you know, the committees have just recently been fully organized, they are starting to have hearings but because we have not produced as much legislation, we have been dealing with a lot of work so far, I know the gentleman will be upset and my colleagues will be upset that they will have to work at home on Friday.

I want to reiterate that. When Members are home, they are working. They are listening to their constituents. They are having town meetings. They are attending meetings. They are attending the chamber of commerce or the Lion's Club or the Rotary or the PTA.

So that, although we will not be here on Friday, I want to assure the public that I know, I know that Mr. Blunt knows and every Member here knows that when they are not here, they are in their home, they are working on behalf of their constituents. So we will not be here on Friday as scheduled because the flow of work will not be ready for Friday that we can go through the regular order.

As I have told the gentleman and his colleagues, we really do want to get to the regular order so that there are opportunities to consider bills in committees, report them through the Rules Committee, amend them on the floor and proceed as both sides, I think, would like.

I will say to my friend this is such a difficult process on this side of the aisle. We considered last week a piece of legislation, and one of your Members went to the Rules Committee and asked for an amendment. We gave him an amendment, and then he wrote, apparently, and it caused a great deal of controversy, that we allowed the amendment and he really didn't want the amendment.

So then we came to the floor with the amendment still allowed. Of course, he didn't have to offer it. Nobody was forcing him to offer it. But there was great consternation that we had allowed the amendment and, indeed, a substitute, which you apparently didn't want either. So it is very difficult for us. Now we bring a bill that has an open rule and it is so lacking in controversy that it ought to be perhaps a closed rule or a suspension.

We will try to figure out what you really want, and when we do, we will try to do something that pleases you. We are having difficulty so far.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California. Of course, the gentleman to which he refers, as he knows, voted for the rule. In addition, as the gentleman knows, we gave your side the opportunity to have unanimous consent to amend the rule. You chose not to ask for that. We would not have objected to it. It gives us both good talking points, I suppose, but I think the point of this whole discussion is we want to get beyond talking points.

I say to my friend, and everybody in this House knows that Roy Blunt and Steny Hoyer are good friends who spend time together and respect one another, like one another. It is very difficult, I know, having been in your position for 4 years, not to take the opportunity to express grievances about what you believe is not being done that is fair to particularly the minority side. I understand that.

I simply want to say that we intend, as we have said, and one of the reasons we are not meeting Friday is because we have told committees we want them to do the regular order, have hearings, have votes in committee, bring bills to the Rules Committee, allow amendments, and as a result, they have said that is going to take us a little more time. So we do not have work to do. And we are not going to hold Members here, as Roy Blunt and I have discussed, if we don't have work to do. But we are going to try to get to substance.

I will say, for instance, on today's bill, we were very pleased that 57 Members on your side of the aisle voted with us on this. It was not a bipartisan two or three or four or five or six Members. A quarter of your caucus, indeed over a quarter of your caucus, voted for this bill. It was a bill that we needed to get through on substance. We think that speaks well for the substance, and that is what we are really talking about. We want to get to substance in a fair way. And we want to work with you, Mr. Dreier.

Certainly, I want to work with my good friend, the Republican whip, who is, I think, very sincere in his desire to make sure that we have legislation move through this body in a way that all the participants can feel they got a fair shot, whether they win or lose.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Certainly, those dollars which are allocated in contemplation of the administrative officer having an ability after a change, obviously, in management, if you will, to some degree, to have some flexibility, and as they plan, we will have a better idea of how they are going to spend that money, which will obviously have to be approved in the funding resolution out of House Administration, brought to this floor and voted upon by the Members. But certainly, parts of that fund would be available if the House decided to create a committee. You refer to the Select Committee on, I am sure, Energy.

Or other select committees, if the House chose to do that through whatever mechanism it chose to do that. Yes. The answer to your question is a portion of that money would be available for that objective.

Of course, any committee, select committee or otherwise, unless there was a separate bill appropriating money towards that committee, we would expect that to be in the funding resolution for committees out of House Administration.

I don't know that that refers to all the money. That probably would not be accurate. And if I go further than I have already gone, I may be incorrect, and I don't want to misinform either you or the body because I have not talked to either House Administration or to Mr. Obey about the specific allocation of these funds. Obviously, if the CR passes, they are appropriated to this fund for the CAO under the language that you read subject to the Appropriations Committee's approval.

However, in terms of the select committee or committee, my expectation would be that that specific item, not necessarily other items, would be subject to the funding resolution out of House Administration and come to this body.

Well, if it is included in the House Administration funding resolution, and I am not saying that it will be, it may be in some other vehicle. But, if it did, that usually comes middle of March, late March, so that the committees can have a sense of what their funding capabilities are.

I don't think I said a time on Thursday. As you know as well, perhaps better than I do over the last years, particularly as you were the leader, you cannot always predict the time frame. But I would hope on Thursday we would get out at a reasonable hour to facilitate Members returning home.

Yes.

Let me retract that because I don't want to make a rule on that.

I want to have Members be very clear. If we are able to do our work within the time frame of Thursday, it may well be a late Thursday. When I say late, 5, 6, 7 o'clock Thursday, as opposed to 1 or 2 o'clock. So I maybe answered too quickly on the Friday schedule. Because on Friday we very definitely will be trying to get out, as I have said, no later than 2 o'clock and as close to 1 as we can. That gives us 4 hours. As you know, we have agreed that we will go in at 9. So that gives us 4 hours of legislative time to work on Fridays.

Committees, as I might tell my friend, you might be interested, the Government Operations Committee will be having hearings on Friday of next week, notwithstanding the fact that we are not here. So not only are they working at home, but there also will be people working here in Washington, notwithstanding the fact that we are not on the floor.

I don't want to prolong this, but I do want to say that the gentleman is correct in terms of, that is why I answered glibly and quickly. So I think the gentleman may be correct. I don't want to pledge that, but he may be correct because of the factors that he has pointed out.

I would say, in closing, that I know there has been some, joviality is a kind word, about what Mr. Dreier mentioned in the schedule getting out at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.

But I will say with all due respect to my friend, notwithstanding that joviality, we believe that the last 3 weeks in terms of what this House has done in terms of its ethical standards, in terms of dealing with the safety of Americans in the 9/11 bill, in terms of dealing with the minimum wage, energy, dealing with college costs, dealing with prescription drugs and dealing with stem cell research, dealing with passing a CR that has funding for work that sat on the tarmac, if you will, and never got off the ground to the President for approximately 14 months or 13 months. We believe that we have provided a schedule in which we have done very substantial work. We hope the American people are pleased with that, and we continue to try to do that.

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 don't know whether the gentleman who just spoke understands the pain that he inflicts, understands the lack of respect that he shows, understands the denial of democracy that he reflects.

I tell the gentleman that my friend who sits behind you, four aisles back, represents seven times as many people as you and I represent, seven times as many people, who, if they move from the island of Puerto Rico to the State of Maryland, the State of Pennsylvania, have full voting rights. But he inflicts on the gentleman from American Samoa and those Samoans who have fought for this country and died and are serving today who have no vote. And for you on your side to represent that this is a power grab, in my opinion, is absolutely unconscionable, in your words, because it is so inaccurate.

Why did the court of appeals rule this to be constitutional? Because it does not diminish any one of the 435 Members in this body. Why? Because this is symbolism. This is symbolic. The Delegates know it. The Delegates know that this is not full voting rights for them or for the people they represent. But it is an opportunity for them to participate and to reference on the board in the Committee of the Whole their vote, their opinion.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, what we are doing here is we are saying to five people, and I want to say you saw the pain of the representative of the District of Columbia who absolutely ought to have a full vote in this House. I hope that we will address that shortly.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and we are running out of time, I want to say that when I yielded, I was talking about symbolism. All of us believe that symbolism is very important. Our flag is a great symbol. Samoans have died for that flag. Residents of the District of Columbia have died for that flag. Residents of the Virgin Islands have died for that flag. Residents of Guam have died for that flag. And many, many residents of Puerto Rico have died for that flag.

Yes, this is symbolic, which is why the courts said it was appropriate, because it does not constitutionally diminish the vote of any one of the 435 Members of this body one iota. Why? Because if their votes make a difference, we automatically have a vote of the 435 of us. That is why the courts said this is absolutely constitutional.

It is not enough, what we do today. But it would be tragic if we do not do at least this basic step to recognize the inclusion of those who serve with us, who can speak with us, who can vote in committee across the street or in this building, but who have had their vote in the Committee of the Whole taken away from them when the Republicans took power in 1995.

Let us restore that vote today. Vote for this rule, which is a fair rule. And I say to my friend who quoted my comments, you were accorded a right to a substitute. You chose not to take it. You were accorded the right to an amendment. You now want to withdraw that. I will tell you that, on our side, if you want to withdraw that amendment by unanimous consent, we will not object. But my understanding is you don't want to make that request.

We have given you that amendment.

My time is up. The last time you asked me to yield, you gave a speech. And that is fine, but you are going to do it on your time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be joined by House Democratic Whip Clyburn, House Democratic Caucus Chair Emanuel, Vice Chair Larson, and of course the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee in sponsoring House Resolution 78.

This measure will restore voting rights in the Committee of the Whole for the four House Delegates and Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico.

In fact, this measure is identical in substance to the rule that operated successfully--and constitutionally--from 1993 to 1995.

The purpose of this resolution is simple:

To honor democracy in every corner of the United States of America;

To provide that all people who are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States have a voice in their national legislature; and

To give to the elected representatives of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and Puerto Rico-- constituent parts of this country--the ability to register their views and take a stance on issues that are considered in the most important and representative committee of the house: the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

During the 103rd Congress, House Delegates, as well as the Resident Commissioner, were granted the privilege to cast a vote in the Committee of the Whole, a body comprised of all House Members whose function is to expedite consideration of bills and amendments on the House floor while ensuring that debate is fair to both sides of the aisle.

This right is a logical extension of the Delegates' right to serve on and vote in the House committees--a right, I must stress, that was granted in the 1970s and to which no Member of this body whom I know has ever objected.

The measure that we will vote on today is identical to the rule that existed in the 103rd Congress, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in 1994 was constitutional.

To ensure that the provision complies with article I of the United States Constitution, in the event that a matter before the Committee of the Whole is decided by the margin of the Delegates' votes, the measure provides for an automatic re-vote in the full House, where Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may not participate.

Now, I want to address some of the misinformation that has been directed at this measure by opponents whose desire to defeat this resolution is more intense than their fealty to the facts.

I have heard opponents contend that this measure confers ``representation without taxation.''

That is false.

The residents who will benefit from this measure do indeed pay taxes in the form of Medicare and Social Security.

At a time when the President's own economic advisors predict that these two programs will go bust if changes are not made in the next few years, I for one believe residents of the five territories should have a voice in shaping a bipartisan consensus that shores up the financial health of these vital programs.

I have heard opponents contend that the average congressional district is 630,000 and that American Samoa, with a population of roughly 70,000 is too small to deserve even a symbolic vote.

However, opponents making this argument omit the inconvenient case of Puerto Rico, whose population of almost 4 million would entitle it to as many as six seats if it had full representation.

They also omit Wyoming, whose population of only 515,000 puts it well below the average congressional district.

I have heard opponents contend that the five votes will slow down the legislative process and distort outcomes.

According to a 1994 article in the Congressional Quarterly Almanac, ``Of the 404 times that delegates were eligible to vote during the 103rd Congress, only three times--all in 1994--did their vote prove decisive, triggering an automatic revote.'' Twice the outcome was reversed, proving that the rule worked.

My friends, I would submit to each and every one of you that something magical happens when 435 Representatives from the 50 States come to this floor to vote on behalf of their constituents.

Simply put, the genius of deliberative democracy achieves its fullest expression.

We hear each other out on issues of the day.

We get to know one another as something more than Members.

We come to understand the needs and aspirations of one another's districts, whatever our political leanings.

And through this process of personal interaction, we enact laws that, when we are at our best, make our country better.

By granting a limited but important vote to five of our colleagues, we will be honoring the deliberative democratic process.

In doing so, we will improve the legislative process and the degree to which the House of Representatives accurately reflects the views of the 300 million Americans who are subject to laws it passes.

In that sense, every American, as well as our democratic system of government as a whole, stands to benefit from House Resolution 78.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am glad that I am still his good friend. We are going to remain so.

On Monday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of the suspension bills for the week will be announced later this week.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 o'clock. We will consider a long-term continuing resolution. I want Members to hear that because on Wednesday we will consider the long-term continuing resolution. We have a continuing resolution which expires on February 15. The long-term will cover approximately nine appropriation bills that failed to pass in the last Congress and will fund most of government, other than the Defense Department and the Homeland Security Department.

The House will not meet on Thursday and Friday next week in order to accommodate the Democratic Members issues conference. I thank my friend for yielding.

I believe that that is essentially the case. The only reason that I do not answer that absolutely is there are some earmarks I think that are being looked at that have general application to the operations of certain departments; but beyond that, the answer is yes.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There are some problems that are raised because bills failed to pass, military construction being one, the veterans being another, which have put us in a position where if there is not additional language and funding in the bill, and they are, of course, both as a result of the earmarks not being funded and as a result of the caps not being met that was in the Republican budget that passed but did not pass the Congress, and the level of funding in the 2007 bills that did not pass, there need to be some things in there that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey are both aware of. As I understand, they are working together in a bipartisan fashion. The staffs are working together.

So I will tell my friend, although I cannot tell you specifically because they are still working on it, as you know from your past experience that these are works in progress, that my expectation is there will be additional funding for programs that will be very adversely affected if they were required to go forward at 2006 levels or the lower of the House- or Senate-passed bills.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer to that question is we are working closely with the Senate. The CR expires, as you know, on February 15. The Senate has a very difficult challenge. I know that Mr. Reid is trying to work with Mr. McConnell to figure out how they can do it.

What we are really trying to do is trying to see if we can have a Senate and House agreement so that we can meet that February 15 deadline with this CR, which would not necessitate going back to a subsequent CR; in other words, making this a CR through September 30 of this year and take care of the 2007 funding cycle.

As Mr. Obey has indicated, the reason for that is we are now proceeding on the 2008 cycle, and until we put the 2007 cycle behind us, it is difficult to focus on that.

So I frankly don't have the answer to that question at this point in time because those discussions are going on between the House and the Senate.

Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey are involved in what we are doing here, and we are, after all, talking about nine bills, numerous departments and agencies and objects, and frankly, if that bill is open to amendment, CRs, as you know, generally come with closed rules, and they are clean CRs usually, but even some nonclean CRs, and that is for the public's sake, things that have additional items other than simply funding levels at a given level, have been closed rules.

Obviously to try to get through nine different bills on the House floor between now and February 25, much less February 15, if the bill is open to amendment, as appropriation bills generally are, as you know, would be something probably we would not be able to do. So that is being discussed, trying to figure it out.

I don't have a definitive answer for you here on Wednesday, but I want to tell you candidly that I believe there will not be a full opportunity in the sense that there has been, and I am not sure that I can represent to the gentleman that there will be an open rule.

Madam Speaker, if my friend would yield before he asks another question, as my friend knows well, having not passed appropriations bills, and, frankly, leaving in December without passing appropriations bills was, of course, the other body's judgment, we passed the bills through here except for the Labor-Health bill, we are placed in an extraordinarily difficult position. We labored long and hard, and I was then a member of the Appropriations Committee, on our bills. We considered them here on the floor. There was debate. There were amendments offered. They passed.

Frankly, the ideal, as you well know, would have been to have them pass, go to conference and pass them through both Houses. But we are now confronted with a lot of work product over a year on all of these bills out of the Appropriations Committee now sitting, frankly, in limbo with a deadline of February 15 to have a short-term CR, which we are not for. We want to complete this business.

So we have a challenge that I think is relatively unique, given all of this work product, of just not having a simple CR which says we do '06 levels, because all that work product would be, A, down the drain, and B, was responding to needs that the administration wants, that our military wants, that our veterans want, that others need. So that is the challenge confronting Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis.

I know you appreciate that. The failure was not on this side of the Capitol, but the fact of the matter is, wherever the failure was, we are now confronted with trying to solve the problem.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly reassure you we are moving in that direction, and I would hope that would be the case. I hope the gentleman will take this as a very friendly observation that in this case, the gentleman wouldn't take apparently yes for an answer. We were going to give him an amendment.

As you know, the day before we had been bitterly criticized for not giving amendments. I was not there and I did not participate in this decision, but the committee was confronted with wanting to be in a position to give an amendment. Then when they were told the gentleman didn't want the amendment, they in effect took yes for an answer. The gentleman did not.

I understand that. We want to accommodate that. You are absolutely right. If a Member doesn't want to offer the amendment, he didn't have to offer the amendment, he did not offer the amendment. Nobody has been forced to offer an amendment. He was given the opportunity to do so.

But we do understand that Members make decisions that maybe that is not what I want to do, and I would like to withdraw it. Certainly I hope we will accommodate Members in the future.

I want to say, Mr. Leader, we also wanted to give you a substitute, but you didn't want that either, and we didn't give you that substitute, then, I guess.

In any event, your point is well taken, and I don't want to be jocular about the fact. We really do want to make sure that you can come to this floor and think you are being treated fairly and openly and have an opportunity to make your legislative case. That is the way this body ought to work.

I know the first 2\1/2\ weeks now we have been moving on an agenda, rules changes and others, that we wanted to get done. As you know, some of these have involved rules changes, as this particular bill did.

As you know, although Mr. Dreier talked about having hearings on this, rarely does either side have hearings on the rules it presents. The rules package is put together by the majority party and there aren't hearings on it. It is offered on the floor and it is voted up or down. In this case we offered your rules, as you know, as they were in being in the 109th Congress. There were some additions we wanted to make.

But your point is well taken. I share your view that we want to make sure, whether we disagree, that you feel you got the opportunity on your side of the aisle to make your case.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the points of order being made are debate and comment, not points of order. And I am going to object to the continuation of a process that theoretically raises points of order which is debate and not a point of order.

It is tough to be in the minority, isn't it? I feel your pain. I want you to know that.

Of course, that perfect bill of which all of you speak could have been passed in 1995 or 1996 or even 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000, or even 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes, 2006 when you were in charge, and we had no say as to what you passed or what you didn't pass. But you didn't pass this bill. You passed this bill through the House; it is not law. It is not law. And you had the President, you had the Senate, and you had the House.

There is now a claim that we have heard now for 2 weeks: The energy bill could have been better. Yes, but many of you voted for it. You indicated, many of you, that the minimum wage bill could have been perhaps better by adding some things on, but 82 of you voted for it.

This bill could be better, but it is timely. It is timely to do the right thing.

Mr. Kirk has a number of suggestions. I think they are pretty good suggestions. I don't mind them. He asked about income tax. Now, we all pay income taxes. All Americans pay income taxes, or some have preference items they avoid, assuming they are doing it legally. But that is not part of our duties as a Member of Congress; it is part of our duties as a citizen.

What this bill seeks to say is when you raise your right hand and swear that you will serve your constituents faithfully and honestly, that you do that; that you don't do it for some outside lobbyist or interest group. And that if you do, we are not going to pay your pension. That is all this bill says.

It is late in coming, but it is never too late to do the right thing, and I

would hope that every Member of this House when the roll is called on this bill will say to their constituents that I am going to take pensions away from those who abuse their power and responsibility given to them by the American people as Members of this House and undermine the faith and trust that the American people have in Members and in this House.

I agree with Mr. Terry, it could be better. We could add things to it. Perhaps we will. As a matter of fact, we just added something, as you have pointed out, because we thought that not only is lying bad, but asking people to lie is bad. It is called a fancy word, subornation of perjury. But what it is, is asking your staffer to say, don't tell the grand jury I did that. That is essentially what that says. So you can't tell your staff to go to the grand jury, when the grand jury says, does Member A, B or C take money or lie or do something or take money to vote on something, if you ask them to do that, and, after all, they work for you, you have control of their salary, you are also going to be subject to loss of pension.

So I agree with those that say this bill is not perfect. They are right, but a lot of the bills that we have passed, as a matter of fact probably no bill that we have passed has been perfect, but this is a good bill. As my friend, the former Congressman from Kentucky would say, ``And I tell you that frankly.''

My expectation is we are going to have almost every Member, I would hope 100 percent of the House say to the American people we will not allow Members who misuse and fail your trust to get your taxpayers' dollars paid to them in pensions. Vote for this bill. It is a good bill.

I want to congratulate Nancy Boyda for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, vote to say to the American people, we won't take your pensions if we do wrong by you, and we won't let others do as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

First of all, let me say that I do not think this is the best procedure that we could have followed.

No. I thought I was recognized. I was speaking.

Point of Order

I think we are beyond that point, but let me say I don't believe the gentleman is disingenuous. As a matter of fact----

Mr. Speaker, I move to table.

Parliamentary inquiry. Did you recognize the appeal of the ruling of the Chair?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could dissipate, first of all, any implication that anybody was disingenuous. There are obviously disagreements on issues. I know that the gentlelady, the Chair of the committee, and Mr. Shadegg have spoken. I think that is a good thing.

I wanted to say to Mr. Shadegg, I certainly did not believe he was anything but stating his opinion, and I think that is certainly appropriate to do. I want to make that very, very clear, that we do not and I do not nor did the chairwoman intend to put anybody's motivation in question. We should not do that. Hopefully, we will all try not to do that.

Secondly, let me say that in terms of notice, I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Boehner on Friday. This bill was scheduled, as you know, for consideration on Friday.

There was concern that perhaps people hadn't seen it for sufficient time, although this bill, in substance, has, in fact, been passed by the House before with your leadership. So Mr. Boehner and I have discussed it. Mr. Blunt and I had a colloquy, in which time I said that this would be on suspension tonight.

The bill was amended, the gentleman is correct, within the last few hours. The date was changed at the request of Mr. Boehner. I happen to agree with Mr. Boehner that the date of 2009, which was in the bill, and I know Mrs. Boyda, I talked to Mrs. Boyda about it, she agreed with the change as well. The change was made because it was Mr. Boehner's feeling, and I think the minority's feeling, that the bill ought to go into effect immediately.

The reason the date was put in as 2009 because that is what the Senate bill does under the constitutional provision of the 27th amendment, where compensation of a Member may not be changed during the course of their term. So it was made effective at the next term.

But my observation, and I think Mr. Boehner's, I don't know whether he is on the floor, were the same; that if that question would be raised, let a defendant who is convicted of falling short of his duties and responsibilities, or hers, to their constituents and to this institution, let them raise that. I agreed with that. So that change was made mutually.

There was an additional subornation of perjury which we think is appropriate. But I want to say to Members on both sides, I am an institutionalist. I believe in this institution, I believe in the Members, and I believe the Members need to have careful and thoughtful consideration.

This bill is straightforward and, as I say, for all intents and purposes has been passed. I want to tell everybody, I think we are going to roll the vote on this bill because we don't want anybody to miss it. There are 11 Members on each side absent because of planes that have not flown on schedule because of weather. And it is an equal number on each side, so we are going to wait.

But I hope when this bill comes to a vote that all of us vote for it, notwithstanding our differences on process, which ought to be better. We are going to strive to make it better.

I want you to know that I feel strongly. When I said I feel your pain, I do. I don't think it is disingenuous pain. I think you are accurate on that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could conclude the debate on this. I think we are all going to agree on this.

I see my friend Mr. Boehner coming to the podium. But I would hope that we could move this bill and give to the American public the understanding that we believe this is a very serious matter, and we are going to address it, and we are going to address it soon.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. And as we had a good discussion on this particular bill last week, but I understand the gentleman's position. I don't think it is an unreasonable position. I think our perception is that this is a bill that has passed. It is of deep interest to the American public, and we wanted to make a statement as early as possible. We are not going to affect anybody, obviously, in the past, but going forward we wanted the public to be very assured what our position was. And that is the purpose of this.

I know that the fact that it is on suspension means that it is not open to amendment. We understand that that may cause some consternation, and others will think that that is a procedure under which this kind of a bill probably should be concerned, in any event. But I appreciate the gentleman's view.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are going to meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour on Monday and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including, and every Member ought to pay attention closely to this announcement, to the important bill, I think frankly it is going to pass with every Member's vote; we will consider several bills under suspension, but including legislation regarding Members' pension accountability.

I think everybody in this House believes that we ought to have legislation, we have had it; when the minority was the majority they pushed for this legislation, we agreed with them, we are pushing it as well. We think there will be agreement on making sure that if you commit a crime while a Member of Congress that is contrary to your duties that you are going to lose your pension. We think the American public believes that is fair.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 for morning hour and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those suspension bills, as is the practice, will be available by the end of today.

On Tuesday, obviously we will receive the President for the delivery of the State of the Union message. So we will vacate the Chamber about 5 o'clock to give the opportunity for the security forces to make sure the Chamber is secure.

On Wednesday, we will meet at 10. We will consider a resolution to restore to the Delegates and Resident Commissioner their ability to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole. This rule was in place prior to January 1995, and we believe it is a good rule and will try to adopt that amendment to the rules. We will finish business in time--I have discussed with Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt--we are trying to accommodate our schedule so that the minority is able to leave in a timely fashion to go to their meeting in Cambridge.

This is exactly the same rule that was put in place by the Democrats when we were in the majority to give to our five Delegates the opportunity to come to the floor to express their opinion in the Committee of the Whole. That rule, however, provides that in the event that the votes of the Delegates make a difference in the outcome, that immediately the Committee would rise, go into the House, and it would be revoted in the full House without the ability of the Delegates to vote.

The reason I articulate that, Mr. Whip, is to point out that, as you know, that was taken to court to see whether or not that was appropriate under the Constitution. The Court ruled that it was appropriate under the Constitution, with that caveat that I have just referenced. I have discussed this with all five Delegates. They are all supportive of this rule.

We believed, as you know, when you adopted your rules in January of 1995 and dropped the Delegates, we believed that that was unfortunate, because we have five people here sent by their constituents to the House but do not have an opportunity to express their view in a public way, their position in a public way on behalf of their constituents. This will do that, although under the Constitution we are constrained to write it as we did, which has been confirmed by the court. And I thank the gentleman for that question.

Would the gentleman yield?

There are five, believe me. There are obviously the representative of the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The purpose is to honor democracy. We are fighting in Iraq to honor democracy and allowing people to vote. I thought it was unfortunate, personally, that we did not continue the rule in place that we adopted in 1993 in the rules package. And this rule will of course extend to the Republican delegate, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, as well as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I personally believe very strongly she ought to have a full vote in this House. She represents 680,000, thereabouts, Americans who, if they moved across the river to Virginia or across the line to Maryland, would have a full vote. I think it is inappropriate, wrong, and frankly inconsistent with our commitment to democracy that she does not have a full vote on the floor of the House.

But I say to the gentleman the purpose is to give to these elected representatives of constituent parts of this country, not States, but constituent parts of this country the ability to express their views on this floor. Under the Constitution, obviously, if they make a difference, there would be a constitutional question; make a difference in the sense that the margin is so close that they would make the difference between winning and losing a proposition. So we provided then and are providing now what the Court has sanctioned as the way to give to the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, a Republican, as well as the four Democrats who represent those four areas of our country that I indicated, the District of Columbia, clearly a part of our country, and the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam, the ability to come to this floor and express their opinion. We believe that is consistent with the democratic principles of this country, and that is why we are doing it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Of course, we are not very worried about that, we have been getting so many Republicans to vote with our propositions, 124 on one of our bills, 82 on another one of our bills, our margins are so big that is not a big concern to us at this point in time, I tell my friend.

Frankly, Guam is in no different position than some of our States. Some of our States have one Member, and they are guaranteed a Member no matter what their size is. So Wyoming, Montana and other States who have either more or less, Montana now represents more than most of us, Wyoming less than most of us. I am not sure what the population of Alaska is. But to that extent, Guam, American Samoa are not in any different position than a State that is guaranteed a vote.

Now under the Constitution, and I will say again to my friend that it wasn't the courts that imposed this, in our efforts in 1992 and 1993 when we adopted the rule to extend to our colleagues who vote in every committee in this House, they vote in the Ways and Means Committee if they are there, I don't know that there is a Delegate member, but they vote in the Natural Resources Committee, the Science Committee, other committees on which they are members they vote. They are in line to chair or not chair subcommittees, depending upon their seniority. It is only in the Committee of the Whole that they cannot vote. So they cannot express their views for their constituents on an issue.

The Constitution is such, which is why we drafted the rule, you are correct, to have them make a difference would be, we believed, inconsistent with the Constitution. We need a constitutional amendment to do that. We are not offering a constitutional amendment. We don't think that is necessary.

But I want to tell my friend honestly, I have been the chief proponent of this and feel strongly about it, I believe passionately that Ms. Norton ought to have a full vote, number one.

Number two, I believe the four Delegates, whether they be from Puerto Rico, whether from Guam, American Samoa or the Virgin Islands, ought to have the opportunity to come to this floor and express their views. So we are offering that rule. We thought it was a good rule.

You are right, in the final analysis it is not going to skew the difference between the minority and the majority parties because ultimately if they make a difference, it is not that their vote will not count, their vote will count. Their constituents will see their vote up and other Americans will see their vote up, and they are going to say the gentlelady from Guam or the gentleman from American Samoa or the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands or the gentleman from Puerto Rico believed X, Y or Z on a vote. We think that is consistent with our view that we ought to be extending opportunities for democracy, not limiting them.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, let me say he and I agree. I was at dinner last night and Secretary Paulson was there. Secretary Paulson, as everybody knows, was the managing partner of Goldman Sachs. Obviously he worked very hard and is a very successful individual. He has been in his job now for a few months.

He said to me he was surprised how hard Members of Congress worked, how complex were the challenges confronting them, and how much of an education, frankly, over the last months he has had in dealing with Members of Congress, working on both sides of the aisle, how hard they had to work to come to grips with solving our Nation's problems.

I want to make it very clear that Members of Congress do in fact work 6, 7 days a week, and that is the rule, not the exception. And when they are at home in their districts, they are doing what the Founding Fathers expected them to do, particularly in this House, the people's House. They are going home and listening to their public and having town meetings, they are visiting business enterprises that are creating jobs and visiting schools. They are talking to their constituents. They are meeting people with problems with the Federal Government in their district offices where, as the minority whip has pointed out, they have offices, district offices, to serve their public. That is our job.

I tell my public that this job really is a two-fold job. Fifty percent of it is coming to the House and voting yea or nay on policy. Fifty percent of it is making sure that our districts are represented well in their interface with the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has an impact on our States, on our municipalities, on our jurisdictions and on our people, on our veterans and on our seniors in particular, but many, almost everybody. It is our job to be in close communication with them. As a matter of fact, the reason we are elected every 2 years, by the Founding Fathers' device, was to specifically keep us in close touch.

So I agree 100 percent with the minority whip when he indicates that our Members are working, whether they are here on this floor or they are at home. Period. Having said that, we are going to be considering a CR pretty soon because nine of the 11 appropriation bills that we were supposed to pass into law are still not passed. They weren't passed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30 of 2006. They have not been passed as of January 19, and we are going to try to get at least a CR passed so that we can fund last year's responsibility.

And I want Members to know that the committees have had essentially 2 days to work in this place, Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and the committees have been complaining that they aren't able to get their work done. I want everybody to know, Mr. Blunt and I are close friends. We are not close Democratic friends and Republican friends; we are close friends. We see one another a lot, we talk to one another a lot, but what I have said, and the whip knows I have said this, we are going to come in Monday nights. Now, why are we going to come in on Monday nights? Because if we do not come in Monday nights and we come in Tuesday night at 6:30, the committees cannot meet because they can't get quorums.

Woodrow Wilson said that the work of Congress is done in its committees. If committees can't work, the Congress can't work. America sent us here to work, to get its work done, to make a difference, to take us in a new direction, and that is on our side.

I am prepared, as the leader, to take some of the flack when sometimes, as we wanted to do today, as the whip knows, we wanted to do the pension bill today. Mr. Dreier objected, it wasn't in the regular order, we understand that, we are going to accommodate that, so we are going to do it Monday. We think it is going to be an overwhelming vote on that. That could have been done today. We could have done that and moved it on, but we will be here on Monday. And committees will have Tuesday and Wednesday. Next week is a short week, the week after is a short week, so we won't be meeting on Fridays. So we are not on an onerous schedule.

But I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this leader wants to accommodate the interest of Members. Why? Because I know you work hard, because I have been here for 26 years and I work very hard, and my colleagues work hard. I want you to also know that I think it is our responsibility and duty to the American people to be here in sufficient time to allow us to do the people's business.

And I want the people to know that when we are not on the floor on a Friday and only doing a half an hour or an hour's work, as the gentleman indicated, that our committees have 4 hours, from 9 to 1, to try to do their work.

Now, we are early in the session, so they may not have needed today. And, yes, I could, as practice has been, when we get to Thursday conclude, well, we can get this out of the way and go home. I know Members like to do that.

I want Members to be informed on a regular basis it is my intention, as the leader, as the person responsible for scheduling, to talk to our committee chairmen and committee ranking members that they will have the opportunity to get their work done, and I am hopeful that they will report that work to the floor.

My friend and I have discussed getting work for the floor is sometimes difficult; but I say to my friend, I think it is more difficult if the committees don't have the opportunity to work. We are trying to provide that, while at the same time, I say to my friend, provide for Members' schedules, not only at home to work, but Members to be at home to see their children and their families and their wives and their husbands. We think that is important as well.

So scheduling, as my friend, Mr. Blunt, has observed, is tough; but we are going to try to provide a schedule which provides the opportunity to do our business here and at home and to make sure that we stay in close touch with our families.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer to your question is it will go to the Rules Committee; the Rules Committee will consider it. I have not talked to the Rules Committee, nor have I talked to you or to Mr. Boehner about what you might want to do on that, but we will do that.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would like to yield to Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.

I just knew that you would be delighted to have that information.

Mr. Speaker, I asked to speak because the whip yielded back his time.

I understand the gentleman's contention. Very frankly, we did our business in a timely fashion and got a lot done these last 2 weeks, in our opinion. We may differ on that. We got, we think, a lot done in a bipartisan fashion, really, in terms of the votes.

I will tell you, the Foreign Affairs Committee had a hearing today; it is going on now. Lee Hamilton is testifying on Iraq. We believe that is timely and important. So that committee is meeting. I just got the notice of what committees are meeting.

I only state that because I believe my friend is correct, that early on we don't have as many committee meetings. We believe that having the time available for our committees to get work done is going to facilitate having meaningful work on the floor, and we hope that we can do our meaningful work on the floor in hours where it will provide for Members not having to work until 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock at night, even though it may save them 2 or 3 hours on a Friday. But we are going to work with you. We have worked together; we are going to continue to work together. We will have differences.

I am going to work with Mr. Boehner, the leader, to accommodate our Members. You are my friend. The fact that we are in session or not in session is not an indication of whether Members are working. That representation was never made, nor was it ever intended to be made. It is a misrepresentation, certainly in my view, that that is any contention of mine or implication that ought to be drawn. I think the gentleman agrees with that. Members work hard whether we are in session or not in session.

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

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