to make a decision to vote on this without telling us what the number is. so when we ask what the number was, they said, we're waiting for the congressional budget office. when will the congressional budget office have its numbers? tomorrow. 24 hours from now. then we can do the right thing, we can see what the cuts will be and we can make a decision as a body, taking responsibility for this decision. why is it we're not waiting 24 hours? it's pretty obvious. a little later today the president of the united states will be here to deliver the state of the union address and instead of being serious about this number, they want to deliver a press release. that is what this is about without a number. otherwise we would wake wait 24 hours and our friends could tell white house that number would be. you're asking this body to buy a pig in a poke and the reason it is so serious is that -- if i could have an additional 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: and my friend

from massachusetts talked about this earlier, whether it's $100 billion or $80 billion or $20 billion, those all have consequences because on the other side of the aisle when we say, well, are you going to be cutting research to find cures and treatments for cancer or diabetes? no, we're not going to cut that. are you going to cut the f.b.i. agents involved in antiterrorism efforts? no, we would never want to cut that. . the magnitude and the negative impact will be determined by what, the number in this bill, a number we don't vote on that you're giving the chairman of the budget committee the sole authority to pick out of a hat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. plo mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend. unfortunately the gun by -- begun by generating the debate to the sky is falling mentality, we're going to be scutting n.i.h. funding, gutting f.b.i. agents.

we're beginning the process of putting our fiscal house in order. both my terms used the term "press release." this will be a statement from the united states house of representatives that we are today, before the president at 9:00 this evening stands here in this chamber and delivers his state of the union message, that we are committed ourselves to reduce the level of spending. with that i'd be happy to yield four minutes at this point -- i will in just a moment. i will in just a moment but at this point i'd like to yield four minutes to my good friend and classmate, the distinguish new chair of the committee on appropriations, the gentleman from somersot, connecticut, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: thank you for our service to our country over the time we've served together, classmates of 1980, we were a part of the reagan crop. madam speaker, this is the first step in the effort to reduce

screng to fiscal 08 levels or below and show the american people that we are serious about reducing the out-of-control government spending that's hampering our economic growth. now, the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle clains he doesn't see a number. he had a chance last year along with his colleagues in the majority then at that time, to pass a budget resolution with specific numbers in it and refused. and has refused until they lost control of the house. the number will be coming in due course of time. the message from the american people is crystal clear in the last election, they want government to spend less, stop undue interference in american lives and businesses, and take action to create jobs and get

our economy moving once again. to do this, we must dramatically cut the massive spending that has dominated discretionary budgets in the past years. in order to put our economy on the fast track to recovery, we have to shorten the reach of uncle sam, cut up his credit cards and allow american businesses the opportunity to grow and ploy people and make the economy grow. starting with a continuing resolution, the c.r., my committee will begin to make the largest series of spending cuts in history, madam speaker. members and staff are working diligently on this as we speak. going line by line to find specific areas and programs to cut. we hope and expect this legislation will soon be brought to the floor in a fair, open, and transparent manner giving

all members from both sides of the aisle the opportunity for amendments. let there be no mistake -- the cuts that are coming will not be easy to make. they will not represent low-hanging fruits. these cuts will go deep and wide and will hit virtually every agency and every congressional district in the country, including my own. every dollar that we cut will have a constituency, an industry, an association, individual citizens who will disagree, and every dollar that we don't cut will also be put into question. but the fact remains that we are in a national fiscal crisis. we must get our budgets, both discretionary and mandatory, under control. to this end, my committee will put forward appropriations bills this year that will fulfill our

pledge to cut spending to the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels of 2008. and this will be the beginning, not the end, of the effort. i've issued instructions to all 12 of our subcommittees to conduct strenuous oversight, including investigations and hundreds of hearings to weed out duplicative, wasteful, and unnecessary spending and prior ties federal programs so that we can make the most out of every precious tax dollar. madam speaker, it's clear that cutting spending will require toughness and resolve. this will not be easy. it will not be quick. and it won't be without pain. but the success of our economy and future prosperity depend on it. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i have great respect for the chairman of the appropriations committee and i appreciate the

fact we're going to have to make tough choices, but he as well failed to tell was the number is. or what those tough choices are going to be. are we going to cut medical research? food safety? job training programs? lie liheap, what -- mr. dreier will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. mcgovern: members on both sides of the aisle deserve to know what the number is so we can figure out what the pain is going to be. for the life of me, i can't understand and i don't think the american people can understand why members of this house will not be given an opportunity to vote on that number. we ought to have that right. i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: we just heard there was no ceiling for 2011 in place. i'm going to make a copy and ask the pages to distribute this. this is the budget enforcement act for last year for fiscal year 2011 and there you have the budget ceilings. what you're proposing is a piece

of paper that doesn't contain any of the numbers in it and i would just ask the chairman of the rules committee this -- during the hearing he said we're going to wait for could be,, c.b.o. tomorrow will have you a number for us? mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: my time has expired. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield to me to respond? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield 10 seconds. mr. dreier: i thank the gentleman for yielding. clearly the budget that expired the end of the congress, we know that very well and look forward to numbers coming out from both your new committee, the budget committee and the appropriations committee. mr. mcgovern: 24 hours. will you have a number tomorrow? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, with that i'm very happy to yield one minute to my good friend from the harrison township of michigan, ms. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. ms. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, this past election was certainly a historic pivot for our nation. the american people demanded both the president of the united states as well as the congress chart a new course. because they understand that the growth of federal spending that we have seen the last several years is completely unsustainable. they understand that this crushing burden, this debt we are selfishly placing on our children and our grandchildren is limiting their opportunities and they also understand very clearly that this irresponsible, out-of-control federal spending is limiting our ability for job creation and for economic growth. today this resolution clearly speaks to the house republicans' pledge to america by demonstrating our commitment to reduce spending, to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels

to a level of 2008. many would say this doesn't go far enough and that debate will continue this year as we debate the c.r., the budget resolution and the vote for raising the debt ceiling. today i would urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution and let the american people know that we heard them loud and clear in november. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i think what the american people are interested in is serious legislating and serious discussion about how to get this budget under control and not political posturing. at this point i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: i thank the gentleman for yielding. all those who care for and think about the 15 million unemployed people in this country on sbothe sides of the aisle want the congress to work together to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for

americans. but the new majority right out of the gate has ignored that obligation. the first week they ignored the deficit. and passed a set of rules that says they can pretend it doesn't exist when they want to do something. then they increased the deficit by repealing the health care bill, the congressional budget office says that adds $230 billion over 10 years to the deficit, more than a trillion dollars over 20 years. this week they are hiding the deficit. they brought to the floor a bill that once the american people -- wants the american people to guess what the numbers will be under which we'll live in the future. this is not the way to create jobs, either generally or specifically. here's one fact the members ought to take into consideration. last year the departments subject to a 25% spending cut under this bill made a million contracts with small businesses that gave $60 billion worth of

work to caterers, electricians, other small businesses. what will happen to the jobs created by those small businesses if this 25% cut goes through? i say 25% cut advisedly because i do think we want to take one more attempt at finding out and i would yield to the chairman of the rules committee, will the spending bill that eventually gets here cut by 25% the 2006 levels or 22% the 2008 levels and i would yield to anyone on the other side who can answer that question for us. what will the number be in the bill that eventually gets here? mr. dreier: i'm sorry, i was talking to mr. mulvaney. if the gentleman was yielding to me, i apologize and ask him to repeat the question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. andrews: thank you, madam

speaker. to the gentleman, the question that i asked, will the bill that eventually has numbers in it have a 25% cut by going back to 2006 or 22% by going back to 2008? mr. dreier: if the gentleman will yield, i'm happy to answer my friend by saying the house will work its will. it's one of the things speaker boehner has made very clear -- mr. andrews: reclaiming mytime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reclaims his time. mr. andrews: i would ask what the bill that the leadership brings to the floor will ask for, a 25% cut that goes back to 2006 or a 22% back to 2008? mr. dreier: i thank the gentleman for yielding. speaker boehner, who is the leader of this house both republicans and democrats alike and obviously the leader of republicans said this morning in a meeting as he said repeatedly the house is going to work its will. we'll do something that hasn't been done especially on the appropriations process in the last two years. we're going to have a gate to

allow the majority of this institution to determine what those numbers are. i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. andrews: that sounds awfully familiar. we were promised an open process on health care, it was a closed process on this bill, that sounds like a promise we've heard before that hasn't been honored thus far in this congress. i would urge a no vote. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say as we talk about an open process, my rules committee colleagues know for the first time in four long years the rules committee reported out a modified open rule that will allow a free flowing debate tomorrow on this house floor. i should say, madam speaker, that h.res. 38 is literally one sentence which says that this institution is committed to getting our level of spending to 2008 levels or less, or less,

madam speaker. i think it's important for to us note that and we have the chairman of the budget committee as i started to say in response to my intend, the appropriations committee chairman and we are determined to get a process. with that i'm happy to yield two minutes to my new you new friend from south carolina from indian hills, south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. mulvaney: thank you. i rise in favor of the resolution. i'm just happy to be able to have this debate this year. i can tell you, madam speaker, that we were campaigning last year during 2010 as freshmen, we never expected to have the ability to come into this chamber this year and talk about the f.y. 2011 spending. we thought that that would be done long before we had gotten here. i thank my colleagues from across the way for failing to pass a budget last year so we have the opportunity to have this debate with this new congress. for me, and i know, madam speaker, for many of my colleagues, the key language in this resolution is 2008 levels or less.

it's that "or less" that i think has a lot of the attention of the freshmen. in a world where discretionary spending is up 88% in the last two years, in a world where we borrowed $3 trillion in the last two fo two years, where we borrowed more money in one day, borrowed more money on june 30 of 2010 than we borrowed in all of 2006, in that world those two words "or less" are what speak to me an and so many members of the freshman class. i thank the rules committee and especially the chairman for making sure that language is in there and look forward to exploring that when this bill comes to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanyields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i enjoyed the pretty much speaker. i would simply say what is the problem with telling us what the number is and what you're going to cut? the number is important because that does determine what you're going to cut. it determines what the allocations will be to the veterans' affairs appropriations committees. and they have real consequences and the notion that we're doing something bold by coming up with

this arbitrary statement that 2008 or less levels are going to be to without any detail or numbers, without anything of anything, this is political posturing at its worst. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this destructive resolution. the american people have charged us with creating jobs and strengthening our economy. my colleagues in the majority appear more focused on getting in a good sound bite before tonight's state of the union. procedurally this resolution empowers a single person to decree the entire nation's budget for the rest of the year. no hearings, no markups, no votes. and this plan is nothing more than a gimmick that will destroy jobs. for example, referring -- reverting to 2008 budget levels

will cut more than $17 million from the national health service corps. this program trains and employs health care providers, all while caring for millions of americans . moreover it will cut both nurse faculty loan programs and nurse training programs by nearly 70%. these cuts will decimate our health care work force now and long into the future. madam speaker, in 2008 over 27,000 qualified applicants to our nation's nursing schools were turned away because we didn't have enough faculty to train them. countless others couldn't even afford to go. this budgetless resolution will do nothing more than exacerbate a real growing problem. members from both sides of the aisle know that we desperately need to increase our health care work force, not cut it. instead of cutting jobs we should be creating them. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this budgetless resolution. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself to say to my friend from santa barbara that creating jobs and gelting our economy back on track is what this resolution is all about. we all know that on the sidelines, all across this country, and around the world, there is capital, there are resources that are waiting to be invested and once we get our economy, our fiscal house in order, the signal that that sends the job creators out there is a very important one. with that i'm happy to yield one minute to my friend from richmond, virginia, the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from california, the chairman of the rules committee. madam speaker, november 2 marked the culmination of a long, arduous and ultimately clarifying debate over the kind of role government should play in the economy. by overwhelming margin voters rejected an approach that spends money we don't have and concentrates too much control and power in washington.

instead they voted for a better way. republicans are determined to deliver results by instilling a culture of opportunity, responsibility and success. madam speaker, our majority is dedicated to cut and growth. cut spending and job-destroying regulations, grow private sector jobs in the economy. today we have the opportunity to take a significant step toward repairing america's deteriorating fiscal condition. this resolution directs the budget committee chairman to spending levels so we return nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels or below. if you think the government didn't spend enough money in 2008, then oppose this resolution. go on record for more spending, more borrowing and more debt. but, madam speaker, if you

believe we are spending too much money, then i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. it represents a clean break with the past and an end to the unchecked growth of federal spending and government and it is worthy of our support. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm still waiting to hear the number and how much we're going to cut. i'm waiting to see this transparency and accountability. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. dicks: the house remains committed -- committed to fiscal responsibility. we have two major concerns at this point that should be stated as we consider this resolution at the outset of the 112th congress. first, we must recognize that the highest priority at this point is to get our economy moving again, supporting initiatives that help create jobs and that continue to bring us out of the recession. our economy is still fragile and

although unemployment is heading downward, it remains too high. in this regard i believe we must be concerned about a per sip tus and substantial drop in spending if it's going to result in increasing unemployment and increasing the deficit. it's going to have exactly the opposite effect of what is intended on the republican side. it would truly be counterproductive if we added to the ranks of the unemployed workers in america, reducing revenues coming into the treasury and requiring additional expenditures for unemployment insurance. and welfare. and, second, the resolution we are considering today specifically exempts defense. the largest element of our federal budget. even though i have always supported a strong national defense, i cannot imagine why we would hold the pentagon harmless in the attempt to achieve greater fiscal accountability. even the republican majority leader this week agreed that

defense spending should be on the table. and secretary gates himself has proposed a series of reasonable reductions that could be accomplished in his department's budget. in f.y. 2011 bill, the defense appropriations subcommittee which i had chaired with mr. young of florida, adopted last july, we included a reduction of $7 billion from the obama budget request and the senate appropriation committee had a similar number. i think we could even do more than that and i was glad to see that mr. boehner, mr. cantor and others have all said that defense should be part of the solution. i think we could cut up to $13 billion out of the defense budget without doing any damage to the national security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my very good friend from seattle that i'm in complete agreement with the notion of ensuring that we focus time, energy and effort on pearing back waste, fraud and abuse, especially within the pentagon. we all know that it's there and

i'm glad that my friend from wofter raised that issue in his opening remarks. he somehow was arguing that we have left it sank sant -- sack row sant. we don't. as my friend knows, in his great position on the appropriations committee -- i'm happy to yield my friend 15 seconds, madam speaker. mr. dicks: i ought to say, we ought to do it now. this gives us a bargaining chip with the president and with the senate. we can make some reductions in defense. mr. dreier: if i can reclaim my time, madam speaker, i would say to my friend, he knows very well, we've gone without a budget so far, we are going to go through the standard budget process and i yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say i'd like to see complete reform of the 1974 budget act. i want a joint, bicameral party to do that. with the structure we have today, we're going to proceed with the appropriations process so we'll be able to do exactly what my friend said. with that, madam speaker, i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, the bill makes defense spending sank sant and so it says nothing about going after fraud and waste and defense contracts. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. stark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. stark: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to oppose the budgetless resolution. it has no numbers, no specifics, it gives no serious plan to reduce the deficit. the republicans want to decrease the deficit and they'll try to cut nondefense discretionary spending back to 2008 levels but they still would save $100 billion in discretionary spending if we put defense spending in the same level. i'm giving you a chance to put your money where your mouths are, introduce h.r. 413, it would reduce defense spending to 2008 levels. they can't be serious about getting our house in order if we

are exempting 60% of discretionary spending cuts. so my legislation would save $182 billion over the next five years, that's $182 billion from planes the pentagon doesn't even want. we spend seven times what china does. how about just cutting back to only spending five or six times as much as china does? i urge support of h.r. 413. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. great to see you on the chair there. don't look quite as good as your predecessor up there. with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. skelton: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today as someone willing to work toward reforms that will create jobs, strengthen our middle class and pay down our debt. i'm in favor of comprehensive tax reform with lower rates, i'm in favor of removing regulations that hurt our competitiveness, i'm ready to make the hard cuts we need to pay down our deficit. i think we can all agree on those principles, we might have to change some of the policies. but we agree on the principles. but what we have here today contains no policies, no ideas and very few principles. this is a budgetless resolution. it calls for a reduction in spending, pre-2008 levels, but provides no specifics. what family in america would sit down at the kitchen table, set up a budget without a bottom line? we could be here discussing mr. ryan's ideas to replace medicaid with vouchers, we could be here

discussing the plan to cut public education, spending 50%, and could eliminate amtrak and public broadcasting. let's discuss those things. or we could be debating the plan majority leader cantor hailed which would result in the absence of 4,000 f.b.i. agents and 1,500 d.e.a. agents. we may disagree with those policies, but i'm here to work to solve problems. to say we will drop spending levels up to 30% but provide no specifics is being less than genuine. colin powell recently said this, i'm very put off when people just say, let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago. tell me what you're going to cut and nobody there yet is being very, very candid about what they are going to cut to fix the problem. the public has been very clear, job creation should be our top

priority. so far we've abandoned the principles of pay-as-you-go and added $230 billion to the deficit by repealing, you voted for it, health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 20 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. and before us is yet another piece of legislation being used as a political gimmick. instead of an honest conversation to seek out compromise with the purpose aiding the economy. as a new member of the budget committee i am willing and eager to work hard to find comprehensive bipartisan solutions to strengthening our economy. please let me know when you're ready to sit down and talk and work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. may i inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. hoyer and then myself at this moment.

do you have other speakers? mr. dreier: i'm going to sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation of mr. hoyer's very thoughtful remarks. i look forward to it, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the minority whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and mr. dreier's put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful remarks. let me say that there's nobody on this floor who doesn't believe that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us. and i would hope that there's nobody on the floor who believes it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion, to bring this deficit under control. but i fear that there is too much simplistic, not simple, simplistic receipt wick with with reference to this -- rhetoric with reference to this

budget. our friends on the republican side tell us they are now taking the deficit seriously. awful you heard my comments how clinton administration the budget was balanced budget amendment and under the reagan and bush one and bush two mngs it was not. if our republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the deficit as anything other than a political issue, they actually use their house majority to back up their words with action, then no one in my opinion would be happier than me and our party, the democratic party. our deficit i think all of us should agree is too big for partisan politics. it cripples our children's opportunities, it makes it harder for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business. i want my republican friends to take the deficit seriously. i want my democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously. to join president obama in

making the hard choices it will take to get out of debt. but frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up the words of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment. a rules package, i tell my friend, the chairman of the rules committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years. $5 trillion. a vote to repeal health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit, pledge to cut spending by $100 billion which has taken them less than a month to break. today a one-page resolution with no numbers and no specifics. i think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years i've been here which gives the one person out of the 435 the opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in this house. i don't think that's precedented, i don't think it's

democratic, it's not transparent, it's not an open process. colin powell has already been quoted, we're still waiting for the answer of what is going to be cut. the time when getting out of debt, growing the economy and creating jobs our country's defining bipartisan challenges. we need hard choices, not more political theater. now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. i think that's perhaps correct. mr. mcgovern: an additional minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding an additional minute. but in that budget enforcement resolution we had a number and when you voted on the rule you knew the number you were voting on as a house of representatives. here you have no idea what you're voting on. you could be voting for 2008 numbers or anything less than that thunder resolution. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? i'll yield my friend additional

time. let me just say to my friend, mr. speaker, that this is the beginning of a process. this is a one sentence resolution that will allow this house to go on record making a strong commitment to reducing the level of spending. my friend was absolutely right in his opening remarks when he said that everyone wants to us reduce the deficit, and he's right. this may be unprecedented but we're in unprecedented times. i yield my friend an additional 15 seconds. i'll yield him 30 seconds, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his generosity. let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times, but does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy this this house in setting what is probably the most critical question that confronts government, how much you going to pay for it. i think we all agree on that. that's what is at issue here and this resolution does not allow members of congress to engage on

that. it simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. it is not only unprecedented, it is in my opinion undemocratic with a small d. it does not provide the transparency and the openness of which the gentleman has correctly spoken and which i hope we pursue. i hope we oppose this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? the gentleman sailed mr. hoyer was going to speak, have things changed? mr. mcgovern: it has changed. there is great interest in this. i yield one and a half minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 1 and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts and

i consider the gentleman from california a colleague that i've known for a good while and i know that there are certainly good intentions. but i always believe that when you're elected to this powerful body that represents over 300 million americans as the census has given us new numbers, of how many americans we have the privilege of representing, you do have to speak about the future. when you begin to talk about generic numbers going back to 2008 levels, you are speaking generally without substance. because it is our commitment to be able to move america forward, and i hope the president will say stay in the blue column because you can see in the red column in the past administrations there was no job creation. when you talk about reducing the deficit it must be with a plan, with substance, because you can

repeal with no substance and i would just raise the question do we want a nation that does not invest in education, do we want a nation that does not help our businesses invest to create jobs, and do we want a nation that says that security, the f.b.i., the d.e.a., someone called in today and talked about how important it was to ensure that we have the right kind of law enforcement, or do we want to tell those on social security who have worked literally worked or are disabled that there are no more dollars for them because we have just without any guidance gone back to 2008 levels? i would just ask that we move this country forward, mr. president, and is ask that we invest in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: we have a speaker on the way but looks like you may have additional speakers. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? i thank my friend for yielding

and say in our capacity as majority i'm simply going to yield to my friend from north carolina so that she can file the rule. would the gentleman like me to do that? okay, i guess we're not doing that right now. i'll reserve the balance of my time then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 1 3/4 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized. mr. mcgovern: the problem with this resolution is has been said over and over again is that it is a press release. it contains no number. people on the other side talked about tough choices, it doesn't talk about any tough choices. it exempts defense spending from any cuts. so fraudulent defense contractors is somehow okay whereas it's not better than waste and abuse in domestic spending programs. everything should be on the table. when we're talking about getting

this deficit under control. the reason why the number is so important is because that number determines -- that number determines how much we're going to allocate to the various appropriations committees. and that in turn determines really the severity of a lot of the cuts that will have to be made. cuts in medical research, research to try to find a cure to cancer, cuts in programs to help feed hungry children, cuts in programs that provide emergency fuel assistance to low-income people during the winter months, cuts in small business loans that can help small business get the capital they need to grow and create jobs. we should be talking about jobs. in this -- in this opening session. instead what we've talked about are the old ideological battles of the past, last week we repealed the entire health care bill, this year we're passing a

lg resolution with no number in it. this is a first. this is unprecedented and i think the american people who are watching are wondering why in the world can't you tell was the number is? why in the world can't you give us a sense of where you're going to cut? why in the world can't you even vote on it? there are 435 members of this house. only one member is going to be able to determine what that budget number is. mr. speaker --, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: one minute remaining. mr. mcgovern: i give myself the remaining one minimum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we're engaged in political theater today. we know the c.b.o. will come out with numbers today but the republicans feel it's important to do this today because somehow the press will pay attention and have a countermessage to the president's state of the union address. they are blowing a major opportunity. there is bipartisan concern about the budget, a bipartisan consensus we need to find cuts.

rather than working in a bipartisan way we have a bill that comes to the floor under a closed rule. we are told that the chairman of the budget committee can unilaterally come up with a number, the rest are irrelevant irrelevant this to this process. that's not the way it's supposed to be. and the republican majority owes it not only to members of this congress but to the american people to tell was the number is and where they're going to cut, how deeply they're going to cut, who will be impacted. i'll tell you this, who is going to be impacted are real people and they'll feel the real pain of some of these cuts. so with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided resolution, this press release and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentlemanis recognized for the balance of the time. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we have bipartisan consensus around here. we need to get our economy back on track, and we need to do

everything that we can to cut federal spending. the distinguished minority whip just said as much. and so there is a consensus, and i think that's wonderful. in a few hours, 9:00 this evening, democrats will be sitting with republicans, republicans will be sitting with democrats, it's going to be unprecedented. and i will say that mr. hoyer referred to this simple, one-sentence resolution as unprecedented. and i believe that it probably is unprecedented. what it says -- i've almost memorized the one sentence, mr. speaker, it says we need to make sure that the budget committee and the appropriations committee work to get us to 2008 spending levels or less. i personally believe that we should be substantially below 2008 levels. i believe that we need to take

that kind of action and it's true, we want this institution to have an opportunity before the president stands right over my shoulder at 9:00 this evening and delivers this state of the union message, we want this institution to have a chance to go on record saying that we are committed to doing everything that we can to get the spending levels to 2008 or less. mr. speaker, we're in the position we are and that itself is unprecedented. and that's why unprecedented action is necessary. now, i began my remarks by talking about the fact that probably one of the most enduring and powerful memories of 2010 was what took place in athens, greece. we saw the riots take place in

the streets, some public service employees, in the wake of the government facing the responsibility of imposing austerity standards on the people of greece. and what happened? we saw this huge outcry come because they were arguing they couldn't in fact bring about cuts in spending. and i juxtapose that to what we saw in the last year here. we saw tens of thousands of americans taking to the streets carrying this message -- taxed enough already. they came together to petition their government, to petition their government to bring about spending reductions, not complaining that the government was making cuts, complaining that the government wasn't making enough cuts. and that's exactly what we're

doing. in fact, mr. speaker, i believe that this may be the first time in human history that we have witnessed what it was that we saw take place last year and led to the outcome in the november 2 election. we know that the greatest change in 3/4 of a century took place in this institution. 63 members of the democratic party were defeated. we now have 87 new republicans and nine new democrats who joined with us, and they have carried this message to us that we need to rein spending. mr. speaker, it's important to note that our real goal is above that. it is job creation and economic growth. getting our economy back on track. so that people out there who are trying to get on the first rung of the economic ladder are able to do just that. we have a painfully high unemployment rate, and people across this country are hurting

now, mr. speaker, what steps can we take to create jobs? i personally believe that we need to, i look forward to having the president talk about this tonight, open up new markets around the world so that union and nonunion workers in the united states of america can have the opportunity to sell goods and provide services into countries like columbia and panama -- colombia and panama and south korea where these pending agreements exist. i believe that since japan has brought about a reduction in its top corporate rate, the rate of those job creators, we can reduce, we can reduce the top corporate rate, the highest rate of any country in the world now, from 35% to 25%, i understand the president may be proposing that this evening, that will go a long way toward creating jobs. but, mr. speaker, what we're doing with house res. 39 -- 38 is we are getting ourselves on a path towards fiscal responsibility and i believe that that is one of the most important things that we can do

as we seek this shared goal of job creation and economic growth. so if we can let this institution go on record in support of getting to 2008 levels or less i'm convinced that that will be a strong step towards our goal, our shared goal of creating jobs and establishing economic growth. this is the beginning of a process, mr. speaker, the beginning of a process, again, a one-sentence resolution that this house will be voting on in just a few minutes. but the process itself is one that is broken. it's broken because for the first time since the 1974 budget act was put into place we've not had a budget, we've not had a budget. we're five, almost five months into the new fiscal year and we are in the process of cleaning up the mess that was handed to

us. so how is it we plan to do it? well speaker boehner has made it very clear and that is we need to make sure that we have an open, free-flowing debate as we proceed with the budget and i'm con -- convinced that our rules committee will make alternatives in order when we proceed with the work the budget committee will have done, and i'm convinced that we will get back to the kind of regular order that i think today democrats and republicans alike would want to see and that is a chance for democrats and republicans to stand up and offer amendments to the appropriations bill. so, mr. speaker, i'll say again that it's a simple one-sentence resolution. are we going to let this institution get onto a path towards reducing the size, scope, reach and control of the federal government or are we not? and so, mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very important resolution and with that, out of respect to my

friend from worcester who is swinging his hands in anticipation of my close, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 43, the previous question is ordered on the resolution as amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the resolution? >> indeed i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of new york moves to recommit the resolution, house resolution 38, to the committee on rules with instructions to report the same to the house for the with the following amendment -- forth with the following amendment. insert 1 after that. pages 2, line 2 insert the following before the period, and, two, no spending for any contract entered into by the united states government with a company that has been determined by the secretary of labor to have offshored or outsourced

american jobs overseas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, may i request a recorded vote? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. bishop: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their slow thes -- votes by electronic device.

gentlewoman from north carolina rise? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the

committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 54 providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 359 to reduce federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 114-b of the john c. stennis center for public service and development act, i hereby appoint the honorable terry a. sewell of alabama to the borte of trustees for the john c. stennis center for a term of six years. signed sin sincerely, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

after consultation among the speaker and the majority and minority leaders, and with their consent the chair announces when the two houses meet tonight in joint session to hear an address by the president of the united states only the doors immediately opposite the speaker and those immediately to her left, to his left and right will be open. no one will be allowed on the floor of the house who does not have the privileges of the floor of the house. due to the large attendance that is anticipated the rule regarding the privilege of the floor must be strictly enforced. children of members will not be permitted on the floor. the cooperation of all members is requested. the practice of reserving seats prior to the joint session by placard will not be allowed. members may reserve seats only by physical presence following the security swep of the chamber. -- sweep of the chamber. the chair lays before the house if following personal requests.

the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. duncan of south carolina for january 24. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 8:35 p.m. for the purpose of receiving in joint session the president of the united states.

i think that the aisle that divides us has become as high as a mountain and it's time to climb that mountain. and look out upon america all together. in colorado we have literally a continental divide and most effective leaders in colorado bridge that divide and that's what we want to do tonight. i think we are all moved by the terrible events in tucson, we want to turn tonight into something to build on that in a positive way. i would bet that these three colleagues standing behind me in their own professional and

elective leadership position ms. the past have found ways to step across that divide. i certainly did that in the colorado state house, and there were a lot of ways in which the structure promoted working together. and i think we all agree if we can't sit together at an important night like this, how can we face the real challenges that the country has? how are we going to pay down the debt debt, fix the broken immigration system, or develop a 21st century energy policy much less focus on jobs, it's job one is if we can't sit together. we can continue to build on this symbolic gesture by emphasizing unity over division. i know that can have a real effect on the way we work together. so stay tuned. we'll propose additional ideas as we move forward as to how we can work in a bipartisan fashion. i'm really honored and proud and humbled to stand here with my three colleagues and i want to turn the podium over to my good

friend from the far west. >> thank you, mark. senator udall has mentioned that this is symbolic gesture and some might say well, why do you need to focus on the symbolism of it? it is a symbolic gesture. but why not start with a symbolic gesture? why not start off this new 112th congress with a gesture, an effort to try to come together? if even just for a couple hours as we show not only respect for the elected leader of our nation when he comes to address us in this joint session but respect to the institution. and as senator udall has mentioned, oftentimes at the state of the union it becomes more a situation where the attention is not focused on the president's words but who is standing up, who is sitting

down, who is sitting there with their arms across their chest. who is engaged in the theatrics. that's not what the state of the union should be about. so let's come together for an hour or two, and if for nothing else, sit together with a colleague that perhaps we don't know as well, and be part of a process that i think is good for all of us. it's interesting because when senator udall first mentioned this to me, i said to myself, boy, this is a symbolic act. why would i want to participate in doing this? and i bounced it off a couple others in my office, and i'll be honest with you, they were all folks that had been around for a while. i said i'm going to go out to the front desk. and out there i had a couple young people that are pretty

brand-new to capitol hill, there was actually a former intern of mine who is attending college at the university of alaska, and i said what do you think about this? what would you say think if we were to come out on the state of the union and mix it up a little bit, and instantly the response was yes. one of them said that would be wild. and i said wild in a good way? and without question, yeah, you should. you should do this. so maybe we do need to get out of our conventional skins every now and again and come out and do something that indicates to the rest of the country that we're not afraid to sit next to one another. there are no cooties to be had, republican between democrats, that together we can join together in this very important speech that the president will deliver to us tonight. i'm pleased to be with these gentlemen and all the others that will be joining us tonight.

>> lisa, thank you. what incredible leadership we have in the senate both lisa and mark have done an incredible job. mark reached out to the house members and asked for us to consider sitting with a colleague across the aisle. as being a blau dog member that's usually pretty easy for us because we do that quite frequently. but in the state of the union when not only america is watching but the whole world is watching, how we conduct ourselves and what is this institution about, i've only been -- this is starting my fifth year, and one of the most discouraging things that i was able to recognize in the first four years is the partisanship. it's an us versus them approach. and i said this before. it's time that the congress

together as one becomes a team. in order for our country to move forward, we have to unite together and far too often it happens when tragedies, just after a tragedy, after 9/11, as i wasn't here but i heard and watched how members of congress stood on the capitol steps and sang "god bless america." after this horrible tragedy in arizona, with one of my blue dog colleagues, gabby giffords. this needs to be a constant reminder to all of us. let's put the political rhetoric aside, understand the entertainment news is there for one reason, for ratings, but the most important thing we can do is be americans. unite together to move our

country forward. that's what we have to do to accomplish and have progress in this country. and we can remain on top. we can't have a divided congress. we can't have a divided nation and to continue progress the u.s. has been so strong economically and been the economic giant of this world. the world is watching tonight, and they also will watch how we conduct business going forward. at this time i'll have my colleague, paul, come forward and give his remarks. the great thing that paul is going to be able to see tonight is unity in his first state of the union. paul, thank you. >> thank you, senators udall and murkowski and representative shuler for leading the way on this effort and i'm proud to stand with you today. i'm here because i believe it is time to work together to solve

the problems at hand. at the end of the day, we all came to congress with the same goal, to represent the people we serve and to continue to ensure that our future generations would have the same opportunities all of us had. while we may disagree how we get there, we can do so respectively and work hand in hand to find the best solutions for the problems we face in this country. sitting together this evening is a step in the right direction. we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner throughout the 112th congress so that we best can gather everyone's ideas and put the best solutions forward. tonight, i will be sitting with representative elijah cummings and joining the rest of the arizona delegation in honoring gabby giffords. i am excited about those who are joining us in this effort and looking forward to what lies ahead. thank you so very much. >> thank you, dr. gosar.

weed be happy to enter any and all questions. yes. >> senator, if someone were to go back and review the c-span video of last year's state of the union address, would they see you, senator udall and congressman shuler when president obama made his unprecedented attack on the supreme court justice for their decisions? >> i don't know. i don't remember. i do know i had concerns about that case and that's a whole other topic, of course. but we're turning the page. this is a new start. this is a reset. we're not only going to reset our economy, those of us here and many others tonight want to reset the way we work together. what partisanship at its best is about promoting ideas that particular political party believes will enhance the country's prospects. the partnership for its own sake has been detrimental and not constructive, and as we all

believe and i think the three of my colleagues here would say what happened in tucson setting aside any blame because i think this is a very troubled young man in tucson, was a wake-up call. we've all said, republicans and democrats, democrats to republicans, democrats to democrats, republicans to republicans, the rhetoric is getting out of control and i could have an effect. sticks and stones can break my bones but words can do real damage is the old axiom. we're committed to having the kind of debates around here where you can disagree without being disagreeable. >> to what extent do you think the media is responsible for this corrosive partnership and what areas of the media do you think are most responsible? >> those of us public figures use words that may incite or --

"incite" is probably a more inflammatory word than i want to use. when we don't choose our words carefully and then the media chooses to perhaps take them out of context, build them up, pass them around in a way that the individual that spoke the words clearly didn't intend them, i don't think that helps. you've got a situation where as a leader we all have an obligation to be careful with our words. listen to senator udall's maximum imthere in terms of sticks and stones that break your bones but the words really hurt. but also i think the media does share some of the blame as they use to just kind of further that tension that is caused by those words. so i think there is a responsibility for all. we need to be careful with what we say and the media needs to be careful in how they choose to portray it further. >> do you think the media

overlooking a lot of substance that goes on around here in favor of the partisan drama? >> absolutely. it's far more interesting to focus on some of the partisan drama rather than those efforts that demonstrate that we really are working together. i'll use what senator bing ham -- bingaman and i have managed to build as we worked together as a chairman and ranking member. pretty good relationship, worked to build some pretty good policy, and yet that doesn't generate near the same level of interest as a chairman and a ranking member that don't seem to get on quite well. what's the story there? that there's tension, there's partisanship, there's a difference in issues? shouldn't the story be that individuals from different parties, different parts of the country can come together to build good policy?

i don't think we see near enough of the good news stories that come out of the working relationships that we all work very hard to build. >> can you give a sense of what your expectations are going forward of what behavior in the state of the union should be for members? and is as the speaker, the president, whichever party holds the responsibility, normally you talk about partisanship as being part of the ideology, there are going to be some things that the president that you're going to disagree with. how should members behave and does the hold accountability as far as the tone of the state of the union message? >> lisa and i don't have a master seating chart. it's been very organic. we lisa and i talked we both figured w50ed walk down that center aisle and i would sit on the republican side and she'd sit on the democratic side, make a statement with our own behavior and actions. i think that's where this starts and ends. that's what the call is.

and often if you want to change a culture you look at how an institution is structured. there is an old saying the function follows form and if we're sitting together mixing like the homeland security committee does under the leadership of senators lieberman and collins, that leads to a sense we're in this together. certainly the president, it's his night. he has a responsibility for the tone that sets, the gentlemen asked about the comments about the supreme court last year. maybe those weren't appropriate given the new tone that we're trying to set. but the idea is to move forward here and build on the relationships that senator murkowski mentioned that we already have. >> presumably when the president says something the democrats like tonight they will stand and cheer. >> sure. >> whether they're sitting next to plaun or not and republicans will likely sit quietly, whatever they choose to do. or do you have a different

expectation with everyone sitting together like this, do you think it will actually behave differently and the country will see a -- >> i think they'll see a mix and i again, i don't have any set expectation of the behavior of my colleagues. you might see a few more standing ovations that include the whole chamber where because sitting together we realize that this -- these are ideas that the president is presenting that are good for the country. >> far too often if you watch, members of congress will actually watch their own leadership to see if they should stand or not. i think this is a perfect example of what true leadership is about. i mean far too often if you watch c-span, that you see members of congress trying to get their oscar awards. i don't think any member yet has received their oscar awards from c-span. not one. and until we get to the point that we lead as one, one congress and one nation, it's going to take time, it's not

going to happen just today, it's going to be day after day after day. i stay off c-span unless there's something real important for my district's sake or represent someone from my district, because there's too much rhetoric going on. way too much rhetoric going on. let's get our business and conduct at this time way it should be and we can lead by example, not just by standing up and giving a speech that hopefully someday gets someone an oscar. >> i would like to comment, i'm in the nuclear bomby here. maybe what it will orchestrate is the true meaning of when you stand for an important point. what we've gotten here is a point where we exemplify everything said in a speech. it's past that point. the american people want to have some concise language and maybe we'll have have a little less standing ovation and really mean it when we actually stand.

>> do you think the american public november 2 said focus on the economy, focus on reducing the country's debt and work together, dog gone it. i think that's what they were saying. >> did speaker boehner instruct your conference on how to behave tonight? did he give you any sort of instructions and maybe for all of you you know, congressman bachmann will be giving the tea party response which i think we can expect to be quite partisan. i wonder if you have a reaction to that. >> first of all, no special instructions. we've always been believing it's about personal accountability, personal responsibility and you best be on your best behavior. i think that's exactly what the american public has asked us to do. >> it's a free country and a free congress. we all have our constituencies. >> you've been working on a

filibuster reform package. is this effort an acknowledgment that filibuster is not going to be rolled back as far as some democrats were asking, it's going to be tougher and you're looking for more comity as a way to break down the way the senate -- i put that to senator murkowski as well. >> yes. >> as i mentioned and senator udall mentioned i think all of us believe that this is a good first step. and i think it's important when you use the word "comity" which i have been using it's important to emphasize correctly the word that we're speaking about. it's comity, not comedy. >> i think we've all -- there is some general support for ending the practice of secret holds. there is a general sense we

should expedite nominations from the executive branch and district court judges and i know the minority has legitimate case to be made about the amendment tree being filled. and i have a set of proposals that i think will meet some of the concerns of the minority. but this certainly stands on its own, this effort tonight. as we've all said we hope it will ripple through the way we do our business. >> have you put any concrete moments or actions that will come out of this? this should this sort -- should this go out to the chambers on a regular daily basis? or should the seating arrangements are changed? can you give us some idea -- >> i think senator lieberman and senator collins have instituted something that works well in their committee. i know there are many of us who would like to find a way perhaps for the whole -- the entire senate to lunch together once a month, discuss policy, have a chance to rub shoulderers. what we're really trying to do

is not go back to the good old days, sometimes the good old days weren't so good, they were only old but there was more time to interact personally. the good news is you can get home quickly and be available to your constituents. but that demand often means that we're here, we work really hard and don't get to know each other personally. i think what lisa and i and paul and pete see this doing is finding a way in our very compressed, intense workweeks to get to know each other better and therefore work better together. it works in small communities, it works in families, and that really is the intent here. and i was thinking, america is one big family, and unlike other families, i should focus on the udall family, there are times when there are people who want to disinherit, disown, disenfranchise members of the family. we can't afford to to do that in america. we're all one big family and our prospects are linked and the congress reflects that family.

we have to do a better job of being a family. >> can you just clarify how many members you think will be participating tonight? i think you said you had almost 60 members sign this letter. >> i think you'll see tens of additional -- additional members team up quietly and in some cases publicly. >> i think there is a lot going around, several folks in the house gym said we're sitting with our delegation, trying to sit together. i think you're seeing that throughout the entire house side for sure and i'm sure the senate will be the same way. i'm trying to figure out how to get closer to the front. bicameral, sitting in it. >> for example, the colorado delegation will be sitting together including senator bennett. i have a mystery seatmate tonight and stay tuned who i'm going to sit with. but i think you're going to see the chamber very differently configured than it has been the years i've been in.

>> an example of one step toward unity of the congress. and it has -- so much of that is going to have to start with the president. it's going to have to filtrate through the congress but also up to leadership on both sides. and both chambers. the whole thing about power and control and power and control is really i see the focus as opposed to the real focus being the american people and moving our country forward. we've got to get to the point where -- that it's not about that rhetoric, it's truly about the progress of this country. >> i do hope that we don't -- you all, as those that are covering the president's comments, don't spend the whole evening focusing on who is sitting next to who. it's like going to the prom and who is wearing what dress, and to a certain extent it been a little bit of a dating show. who you going with, reminds me

of eighth grade, i have a double date. and we'll see how that works out. but i do hope that it's not so much a focus on who is sitting next to who, but really allowing those of us that are in the chambers and are focused on the president's words, as we should be, it should be the don't of the speech and not necessarily where everybody ends up sitting. so hopefully that will be the general outcome. >> on that note. thank you all. >> thank you very much. >> there are reports that house majority leader eric cantor invieded nancy pelosi to sit next to him but the former house speaker said she is already committed. we have word six of the nine supreme court justices will be at tonight's state of the union address. president obama meanwhile at the

white house much of the day today, preparing for the speech tonight, news reports indicate that he's going to call for a five-year discretionary spending freeze, the president also today called russian president after the suicide bombing at the russian airport which killed nearly three dozen and injured almost 200. president obama earlier today at the white house. just to let you know too about our coverage plans here on c-span and c-span 2, on c-span our coverage gets underway at 8:00 eastern with our preview program and the state of the union address at 9:00. on c-span 2 we'll show you not only the president's speech but also see some of the reaction of members of congress following the speech. again the speech is tonight at 9:00 and lots of ways to follow it. c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio and ontline at c-span.org. earlier today the house oversight and government reform committee met to reconsider some of the rules and adopt new rules

for the 112th congress, attending all of the members including the new ranking democrat, that would be elijah cummings of maryland. the meeting is about an hour and 35 minutes. >> the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. i want to welcome you all here. timing is everything. would chairman towns please come to the center of the dais, a place he finds, i'm sure, comfortable? finds comfortable.

>> if you'll all bear with us for a moment. if you'll all bear with us for a moment, i've asked chairman townes, who is an ordained minister, to do the opening prayer for this congress. would you please all rise? >> let us bow our heads. because we need prayer here. our creator and our god, we gather in your presence to begin our work on behalf of the american people. let the will to do what is right supersede the titles of democrat or republican. help us to understand that we are one nation under god. let us realize how important it

is that we work together, understanding that there is no big "i" and little you. help us almighty to use this opportunity to lift people up. give us the wisdom and guide an to better stewards for our fellow citizens. help to correct the mistakes we have made in the past and when we are not able to agree, help us not to be disagreeable, because we know that the bigger we make your name, the smaller our problems will become. so we come today lifting up your name, knowing the world will never be what it ought to be until we are what we should be. oh, father, as we close, bless gabby giffords and her staff and her family and bless the staff this committee. help them to stay focused and

realize that many are depending on us to get rid of waste and fraud. in your name, we pray. >> chairman, before we begin and while there will be no doubt you are still the chairman and always will be when i address you, the committee would very much like to give you this ceremonial, very big, very heavy gavel with your name for your service to the committee. thank you. >> thank you very, very much. thank you. thank you. >> and mr. chairman, before

you -- before we begin the official work, i would like to remind you that you are now only one artist rendering away from having your portrait in our committee room, which is being painted as we speak. so let us all work together to make sure you can make that happen at the soonest possible time. >> i'm so anxious to hang it, i might hang it in here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a quorum being present the committee meets to consider a resolution adopting the rules of the committee for the 112th congress and to announce subcommittee assignments. ranking member cummings and my fellow committee members, i am proud to introduce the republican members of the committee on oversight and

government reform of 112th congress. mr. connie mack of florida has been a valued member of congress and is vice chair -- or i'm sorry the chair of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere at the foreign affairs committee. notwithstanding those duties, i look forward to working with him on the government oversight and reform committee and have asked him to take a vice chair role. mr. walberg has returned to the congress an we welcome him to the committee. i know he'll be a strong voice on restraining government spending. i'm glad that he joins us from south central michigan. mr. langford, as a new member, is prepared to solve complex problems. he will represent oklahoma well and has managed more people that are probably more difficult to manage than even members of

congress. mr. amash brings another perspective from michigan. he understands how to engage fellow citizens as a representative truly should. congresswoman burkle adds perspective from upstate new york to the committee, something we welcome here. additionally, she is a former assistant new york state attorney general and a licensed nurse. i look forward to working with her on multiple issues that obviously she has gleaned over her career. mr. gosar of arizona brings his experience in dealing with the nation's health care system to this committee and we welcome him to the committee and have asked him to be the vice chair of the subcommittee on health. mr. meehan of pennsylvania brings his skills as a u.s. attorney and district attorney to the committee.

we need to ask questions and get to the heart of issues, and i believe he has uniquely that talent for a freshman -- rephrase that. a unique talent from his district and a talent that we are adding to this committee on several of our new members. mr. labriando is a former state legislator in ohio. his experience will serve us well as we go after waste, fraud and abuse. we look forward to having him back in a seat that previously was held by another member of this committee. mr. walsh of illinois brings his dedication to service to the committee. he is an advocate to control government spending and innovative solutions for the problems which our nation faces

and welcome. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, is new to the committee. he brings to all of us a perspective, as i said, not unique but unique from his district as a prosecutor. he came to this committee by asking first to come to this committee because he believed that his background and ability to look for the truth would benefit all of us and i agree. mr. ross is a skilled former state legislator and attorney. he is ready to get to work for the people of florida and america and, again, has the kind of experience that will help us get to the truth. mr. guinta is a former mayor of manchester and was picked by his community by a fairly large mar margin from a large number of people that wanted to come and

join this committee. i was thrilled to have him join us. dr. desjarlais has practiced medicine tennessee for almost two decades, and i believe his common sense solutions and understanding of what is likely to be the most complex issue faced in this congress will add greatly to this committee's work as we try to find ways, as some say, to bend the cost curve of health care. mr. farrenhope of texas also joins the 112th congress. i look forward to working with limb to make sure the government lives within its means, something that texans understand, but perhaps is lost on many other states and certainly on this body in the past. a fellow job creator, mr. kelly, of pennsylvania. has answered the call for public

service. he is not young. he is not inexperienced, and he does not lack from a history of signing the front of a paycheck not just looking forward to the back. with that, i would recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings, for the purpose of introducing the democratic members. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and first of all, let me congratulate you on your chairmanship. i also thank you, mr. chairman, for having chairman towns to open up with a prayer. as a son of two pentecostal ministers, a really appreciate prayer, i appreciate it all my life and i want to thank chairman towns. let me welcome back all of the members. our old members and new members. and mr. chairman, we, on the democratic side, have all but two of us have served on the committee in the last congress. and i also want to welcome back two new members, and i say "new"

in quote, bruce braillely who represents the first district of iowa. and john yommic who represents the third district of kentucky. that he both previously served on this committee. they are great members and we are happy to have them. and i know they will bring a lot to our discussion, as we all join together addressing issues of waste and abuse and the seeking of the truth. and so those are our new members and we're excited to be here, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the committee will now consider the resolution for adopting the rules. the purpose of the rules before us today -- the proposed rules before us today were distributed to each office last friday. in addition, the drafts of the proposed rules have been shared with the ranking member,

mr. cummings, and his staff for at least the last two weeks. mr. cummings' staff raised a number of concerns with proposed changes to the rules and would work in good faith to address those concerns. it is my hope that throughout the congress, we will be able to work together in the same way. however, the most significant and welcome changes to the committee procedures in this congress are not made here today, but in fact, were done january 5th, with the adoption of the house rules. the new house rules require three days public notice of committee markups. the legislation to be marked up must be on the committee website 24 hours before the markup. the amendments are now required to be posted online within 24 hours of their adoption. role call votes are now required to be posted online written 48 hours of the vote.

and witnesses' truth in testimony disclosures must be posted online the day after they testify. i think we can all agree that these worthy and overdue reforms not only give the minority more notice in excess, but also make the committee more open to the public. and after all, if we're going to open government, it should begin here. in addition, with the cooperation of the speaker's office, we have made video of all the committees' hearings available online. as a first step in what i view as a gesture of goodwill to the previous majority, we are putting all of the hearings held in last congress by chairman towns and his democratic subcommittee chairman online. as to subcommittees, the most significant changes in the

committee rules is the creation, or if i will, the re-creation of seven subcommittees. prior to the change four years ago, we had seven subcommittees. however, they've been reorganized as we've re-expanded to do more work at the subcommittee level. the subcommittee on the federal workforce and u.s. post service and labor policy will have jurisdiction over federal civil service and u.s. postal service, as well as labor policy in general. this subcommittee will be led by chairman ross and ranking member lynch and will have vice chairman amish online. the subcommittee on organization efficiency and financial management will have jurisdiction over the economy, efficiency and management of the government operations and activities, federal property and reorganization of executive

branch. this subcommittee will be chaired by mr. platts who has previously chaired subcommittees here and has returned to the committee. i'm informed that mr. towns will work as a partner in this, as the ranching member, and connie mack, who i mentioned earlier, will be vice chair of the subcommittee. the subcommittee on health care, the district of columbia, census and national archives, will have jurisdiction over policy, the district of columbia, the census bureau, federal records in addition to oversight of federal health care and food and drug safety, something that we began in the last congress on a buy partisan basis. this will be led by chairman

gowdy and have been vice-chaired by vice-chair gosar. it will have oversight over national security, homeland security, foreign operations. this subcommittee will be led by chairman javes, mr. cheernny will be the ranking member and vice chair will be mr. labrador. the subcommittee on regulatory affair, stimulus oversight and government spending will have jurisdiction over regulatory procedures, as well as oversight over the stimulus policy, federal spending generally, the subcommittee will be led by chairman jordan, ranking members kucinich and vice chairwoman ann marie burckle. the subcommittee on t.a.r.p., financial services and bailouts of public and private programs will have oversight over financial and monetary policy,

banking, housing and insurance regulations. as well as financial crisis and rescues. this subcommittee will be led by chairman mchenry, mr. quigley will be the ranking and vice chairman, mr. giunta. the subcommittee on technology information policy, intergovernment relations and procurement reform will have jurisdiction over public information, federal information technology, data standards, procurement and grant reform and unfunded mandate reform. this subcommittee will be led by chairman lankford, the ranking member and the vice chairman might be there are kelly. and i might note this subcommittee is the one that we spent so much time in a bipartisan basis trying at the

full commit to get data standards and transparency imbedded into government. i look forward to being very personally involved in the subcommittee activities because i personally think that this is the legacy that chairman towns and i leave behind, if we can make government more transparent through the kind of interoperable and transparent data basis that we envision. the background memo distributed to all members on friday describes all of the changes in the subcommittee rules and without objection, it will be included in the written record. hearing none. before yielding to the ranking member, i want to address two issues that the ranking member has raised proactively. with regard to subpoenas, the committee rule allows the chairman to authorize and issue subpoenas, and it has not been changed. the same rule has been in place since the creation of this

committee in 1995, throughout both democratic and republican chairman. four other house committees also enjoy the same standard of the chairman, being able to authorize subpoenas. additionally, other committees allow recess and other cases in which the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena. however, let us understand, we were the first to have this, and it has seldom been abused. education and workforce also has it, foreign affairs has it, ways and means has it, the select intelligence committee, in addition to our committee. energy and the commerce, rules, science, homeland security, natural resources and small business have slightly different but in some cases the ability to

have a chairman issue a subpoena without a vote of the committee. in a letter to me, the ranking member said that my predecessors had an agreement that in fact would change that. i have seen a kol colloquy that indicates an additional process behind consultation, however, during the very good two years that chairman towns and i enjoyed, we had no such agreement, and yet, subpoenas were issued after consultation in most cases. and i am not here today to complain about any differences that may have occurred. i understand that the chairman had a responsibility. he met his responsibility, and both sides worked with it. as you know, again, consultation

is not required by the committee, or by -- for myself or for my predecessors. however, i believe it is a worthwhile practice. and it is my intention to consult prior to a subpoena being issued. the ranking member has also raised concerns about minority access to committee records. as many of you know, this is a recurring and contentious issue for all committees. the house rule on committee records are very general, and of little help in crafting a practical policy on sharing committee records. it is up to the chairman and ranking members together to strike an appropriate balance for sharing records. on this committee, in particular, with its broad oversight powers to investigate any matter at anytime, it is

especially important the committee records not be indiscriminately released to the public without proper vetting and fact checking. while ranking member cummings and i have -- sorry, while ranking member cummings and i have more to work on to do -- more work to do in the coming to understand proper sharing of committee records, i am prepared to clarify the policy as much as possible today. documents received pursuant to committee, formal document request, by myself, a subcommittee chairman or ranking members, should be shared with the other party. i repeat, documents received by a committee pursuant to a formal document request shall be shared with the other party. however, the ranking members ask for copies of correspondence between myself, actually issued

while i was a ranking member, and a growing number of private entities and individuals regarding regulatory barriers to job creation. while it is and has been my stated intention to share this correspondence with the minority and the public shortly, i cannot agree to a policy that required i share a copy of every letter i receive with the ranking member, nor do i think the ranking member is prepared to share with all of us correspondence between the now minority and the white house in a realtime basis. similarly, the work product of the committee staff, confidential disclosures by whistle-blowers and other sensitive investigative materials should not always be shared. nor do i believe the ranking member desires to share

everything his staff writes -- desires everything he writes with me. certainly, whistle-blower's contact both of us. in the other order, there is fact checking and confirmation before that, and ultimately, the committee is always joined in granting whistle-blower status. i will continue to work in good faith with the ranking member on a reasonable and workable policy regarding committee records and hope that we will come to a mutually agreeable understanding. and now i yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want to thank you for recognizing me. let me start again by congratulating you and without a doubt, mr. chairman, you're one of the hardest working members of congress, and i really mean that. i've seen that already in the month that we've been working together. and every one of us wishes you

well in making our government more effective and efficient. i can say for every single one of our members, we are very much concerned about waste, fraud and abuse. we are very concerned about government working properly. and so we look forward to working with you as we address these major issues. mr. chairman, you are now our chairman. you're not the chairman of the republicans. you're the chairman of the democrats and the republicans, and we're very pleased about that. you are this committee's leader. and in fact, mr. chairman, you are our chief spokesman. your words carry the official imprint of the committee, and your actions carry great weight and authority. i know we all have our disagreements, in fact, we'll discuss some serious concerns i have today regarding subpoenas and access to documents. but i just wanted to remind the

chairman of something that my two pentecostal minister parents used to say all the time. they said, you can go -- you can go -- you can go far, if you go together. you can go fast, if you go alone. before i took this position as ranking member, i served as the chairman of the subcommittee on the coast guard. as a matter of fact, i just left that position a month ago, where i conducted strong bipartisan oversight. as a matter of fact, mr. chairman, the number one thing that i wouldcy to the coast guard over and over again is that i refused to allow them to be caught up in a culture of mediocrity and they know that. we held them to a very, very high standard. and we plan to hold this administration to a very high standard. for example, with regard to the coast guard, i worked with the chairman and the ranking member on the committee on as well as

to hold substantial hearings and investigations into the deep water acquisition which sadly had been marred by millions of dollars in failed acquisitions. together, we also offered the coast guard our authorization act of 2010. the first authorization act to be passed by congress in four years. i note that several portions were considered individually in the house and passed in a bipartisan manner and without one single vote in opposition. the overall authorization act passed the house by a vote 335-11 on the floor. and the final version on the senate passed house by unanimous consent. it didn't matter to me who was in the white house. i sought out solutions. and i achieved them working in close consent by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both chambers. so i was especially humbled when

the coast guard told me they were honoring me with the highest award. we brought them kicking and screaming but they made a difference. they present this award to a member of congress who demonstrates long-term vision and leadership and who makes substantial contributions to the men and women of the united states coast guard. i often call them our femme blue line at sea. i hope that you and i can work together in the same bipartisan and constructive manner. i commit if i do disagree with you, i will do so most respectfully. always with the primary goal of working out a solution that serves both of our interests, but more importantly, the interest and integrity of this committee. and more importantly the interest and integrity and the goodness of the united states of america. i want to thank you, mr. chairman. and at the appropriate time, i'd like to raise a number of specific issues relating to the proposal that i hope we'll be

able to resolve. >> i think the ranking member, for his opening statement. and we will hold the record open until the end of the day for members who would like to submit additional written statements. we will now open the resolution for consideration. without objection, the resolution adopting the rules of the committee will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. the resolution has already been distributed to each of you and is in your folders. the clerk will designate the resolution. >> committee resolution offered by chairman darrell issa, the rules of the committee on government oversight and reform. >> does any member wish to speak on the resolution? >> mr. chairman, i have inquiry. >> of course. >> mr. chairman, let me say i appreciate your willingness to work with us on some of the rule changes you proposed. working with your staff, we were able to resolve many of them,

including the rule on audio visual coverage as you mentioned a little earlier. and we really do appreciate that. staff for working so diligently. but i do have an inquiry about opening statements. earlier versions of the draft committee rules that have prohibited members from making oral opening statements. this rule was derived, i think, and mr. chairman, i know there may be a number of hearings that we may want to limit opening statements, because it takes so much time. i understand that. my question is, whether you commit that the majority and minority will be accorded equitable treatment in being permitted to give opening statements? >> i think the gentleman, pursuant to the rules, at anytime, we will ensure that we have an equal and back and forth opening statements. it's the intention of the chairman, when we have hearings

which are time sensitive or limited time or which there are guests, particularly administration guests, have limited time, remembering although it changes back and forth, there's always one side who would like to have a long statement bashing administration. and another side who would like to have a long statement defending and say how bad it was that the other guy's opening statement bashed. so for that reason it will be the ordinary and customary procedure to ensure that the chairman makes an opening statement, or the subcommittee chairman. his or her counterpart would make an opening statement. and then it would generally be mutually agreed, written the time, whether they went farther. if it is an absolute constraint, i will empower the subcommittee chairman under the rules or myself to not go further. and it has been the practice of this committee, and i think all of us who are returning know, it is a common practice when there

is a constraint to limit it to just the chairman and ranking member. i have the about the within the rules and house rules the ability to deny myself an opening statement. as you know, mr. cummings that is rare that any chairman does that. but i will pledge to you if i deny myself one, thus denying you one it will be because the importance of the individual speech is so critical that i forego the good work of my staff and your staff and we present it for the record. it is my intention, though, to try to have as much listening to people and then asking the questions as possible, notwithstanding that, i believe that if we go beyond the chairman and ranking member that is on a mutually agreed basis and we'll alternate. lastly, because i want to be thorough, at anytime in which a subcommittee has done work, and it comes to the full committee, it will be the ordinary practice to have at least four opening

statements. the chairman and subcommittee chairman who have worked on it. the ranking and subcommittee ranking that have worked on it. because i believe that if the work of the subcommittee has been done properly, if anyone's going to forego an opening statement, it should be us. so i think you're going to find there's no real change in the practical execution. we don't intend on somehow denying people. but we will always announce the start time and the anticipated finish time of the first panel, and that will probably drive the consideration. additionally, if i may, every committee has to deal with how people are received from the standpoint of when they will speak, when they will ask questions. it will be the policy of this chair, subject to your deciding on your side of the aisle, which has been normally the policy, and mr. towns and i worked this out, i will consider that people are present at the gavel, and a

list will be brought to me from both sides. i will call them in that order. if you need to change that order, that will be your decision for your side of the aisle. i will always allow you to decide who speaks in which order but we will initially start with the order of there being present at the gavel. on my side of the aisle, i might note that i do not plan on having very many exceptions. so those who were here first, especially the junior members down there, you arrive on time, senior members do not, i do not intend to have a senior member arriving late immediately preempt you after you've been waiting for an hour. but again, i respect the fact that the ranking member will make that decision on his side of the aisle. we will try to stick very strictly to that because i want to award the members who picked this as their first committee and will be here promptly as

always. the gentleman yields. >> of course, i do. >> first, of all i want to express my appreciation for what you said about the subcommittee and ranking members have a chance to speak. one thing quickly, will mare khan will you give me notice when you and i are not going to speak. the staff, i don't want them to spend all night preparing a memorable opening statement and we not give it? >> i will commit to you, although when they're put in the record, sometimes, they look even better. i will commit out if we believe a hearing has a limited time, we will notice what as quickly as we notice the committee because the point that we notice the committee, i would expect we'd be able to tell you an anticipated start time and finish time for our witness. i would ask if you have a similar situation on witnesses that you've asked to come, that you also let us know, so that we

do not find your witness expecting to stay longer or leaf shorter. >> i'd be happy to do that. >> thank you very much. does any member have an amendment to the resolution before us. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment to the rules of the committee on oversight and government reform offered by representative cummings. amend rule 12-d by inserting at the beginning the following. >> without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. and the gentleman from maryland is recognizes on his amendment for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for all of the discussions we've had, mr. chairman, with regard to the issue at hand. the amendment, mr. chairman, would require the chairman to seek agreement of a ranking member before issuing a subpoena. if the ranking member objects, this amendment would require the chairman to call a vote of the committee. the standard, seeking the

concurrence of the ranking member on committee vote has been the approach of all committee chairmen since the mccarthy era, with one exception. and from 1997 to 2002, when representative burton served as chairman, he issued more than 1,000 lateral subpoenas -- 1,200, i'm sorry. i apologize, mr. burton, 1,200. not gone, not forgotten. once chairman, always chairman. anyway, he issued more than 1,200 unilateral subpoenas in the clinton administration without the on occurrence of the ranking member or vote of the committee. as widely reported, this report led to serious abuses and was abandoned by representative tom davis, a republican who became chairman in 2002. it's true at that rules provide the chairman with authority to

issue unilateral subpoenas. representative davis understood that issuing a subpoena is such an extreme exercise of congressional power that it should be undertaken only with agreement of chairman and ranking member or the backing of the full committee. i notice that many of your members -- some of your members are former u.s. attorneys and attorneys, and they can fully, i know, appreciate the significance of a subpoena. when representative davis handed over his gavel to representative waxman in 2007, exactly like we're doing here today, he asked mr. waxman to follow the same approach. and mr. waxman did. let me make something clear. i did not want to offer this amendment, but it was my impression that the chairman would not be submitting these subpoenas for consideration of the full committee. it's my understanding, in our conversation just prior that you

have a response to that. and so anyway, back then, chairman davis said to chairman waxman, representative davis and waxman did, word for word with no changes, this is what they said. he said they would never, under any circumstances ask this committee to vote on any subpoena he issued, even if it was extremely controversial. i think this is a mistake because it prevents an open, honest debate. let me read what chairman davis said in 2007. he said, concurrence or a vote of the committee would ensure that the issues are fully aired so that our members and the public can fully understand that the committee -- what the committee is doing. i completely agree, mr. chairman. and the only reason not to adopt this approach is to avoid a full hearing before the committee in the public. this is exactly what leads to abuses of authority, therefore, i ask the members to vote in

favor of the amendment. mr. chairman, let me be real clear, you know, all of us certainly come here from our various districts we are representing in most instances over 700,000 people. and i think if there is -- and all of us want to be included. and inclusion does not mean obstruction. it means being a part of a process. and you will hear me consistently talk, mr. chairman, and i know this is something that you're very concerned about because we talked about it, is the integrity of this committee. and i would think that if there is disagreement between the chairman and most respectfully, the ranking member, that those matters would be brought before the full committee. and to be frank with you, i think it's a good idea to have the backing of the full committee when subpoena is issued. and with that, i would ask the

members to vote in favor of the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize to speak in opposition to the amendment, not in opposition to the principles you mentioned. first, for our esteemed former chairman, i will try to deliver some of the words that he may be too shy to deliver. abraham lincoln suspended habeas, and my understanding, stopped the post office from delivering during an insurrection. no one looks at abraham lincoln and says, my goodness, he was a terrible president. they considered the times. now chairman burton probably made mistakes. i understand that there were incorrect people on a couple occasions who received subpoenas and it had to be corrected. at the same time, i will not judge the time when i did not serve in congress or what he faced. i know that a great many people

left the country to evade subpoenas. went to jail, over the crimes they'd committed. there were real things that happened. perhaps not 1,200, but many. in those ensuing years since i watched that as a civilian, if you will, and i watched his successors with successor presidents in many cases, find other ways to do discovery, other ways to get most of these things done, i think for different times, a different procedure is appropriate. we are in different times today. we are not investigating the white house. i have no intention at this point. i have no reason to investigate the white house. we are requiring and insisting that government agencies be held accountable. and we expect them to come us before voluntarily. i do not expect to have the first exclusion to an agency or an individual working for the

government or formerly working for the government to have a subpoena. i do not expect to subpoena people to hearings. having said that, every chairman faces a subpoena every now and then. some of them are because individuals say i can't speak unless you give me the immunity that the subpoena effectively gives me so that i can't be sued for coming and speaking about matters that others may find somehow private or not to be disclosed. i have viewed the records, and i find that it has not been the pose, specifically, in spite of that colloquy to do required votes for even when a ranking member objects. having said that, it is my intention to consult and get your concurrence on most, if not all, subpoenas, additionally, i take seriously your statement which is, that if we cannot come to an agreement, a vote of the

committee may very well be the most legitimate way to resolve a difference of opinion between us. i don't see any of those here today. i don't think you're going to like every one i'm going to ask to come. quite frankly, and we've had this conversation privately in the past, there is a possibility you're going to want somebody subpoenaed, and i may not want it. this happened with my predecessor. we resolved it. it was contentious. it was difficult, and a threat of the full committee was part of the process. chairman towns did the right thing, and he did it on his own, and he did it written the way he thought it should be written. he did it to protect the integrity of this body. the subpoenas have borne a lot of fruit. from that lesson that ed towns and i have learned together, i expect that if you want a subpoena, i better take it seriously. and if i want a subpoena and you

really object, i'm going to take your thoughts on why you object seriously. to be honest, i will ask other members of my committee, am i doing right thing and seek their guidance, and by the way, not just former chairman. i will also undoubtedly talk to other members on your side and say, am i nuts? am i wrong? is this somehow a subpoena that's outside the mainstream? so i don't intend on simply writing subpoenas endsly. having said that, there will be times, times during recesses in which consultation would be over the phone and a vote would not be practical or even possible. so i do intend and believe that we should maintain the rules as they are. work together and bear in mind that if this doesn't work, it will be very public, and each of us would pay a price for being unreasonable. in this case, i believe it is reasonable to maintain the

rules. it's reasonable to pledge to you that i expect to consult with you more even than chairman towns did, because i intend on notifying you personally. if we intend to send a subpoena out and not through a staff correspondence. and with that, are there any other further -- mr. burton? >> real briefly, real briefly, mr. chairman. i would like to say that i agree with everything that you said. i would just like to make one brief comment about the period within which i was chairman. we had severe questions about illegal campaign contributions coming from all over the world, and the reason i issued the number of subpoenas that i did was because we were trying to get to the bottom of that. as a matter of fact, we had over 100 people either take the fifth amendment or flee the country because they didn't want to testify. so it was a very difficult time. these are different times, and i appreciate what you just said. and i yield back.

>> i think the gentleman -- gentle lady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i would like to speak in support of the ranking member's amendment. and really place it in the context of what is happening in our country. americans across this country are calling for a more civil political discourse. they are calling for a more bipartisan approach, which is results-oriented. not bickering and partisan attacks. and i compliment you on a lot of your public rhetoric has been very bipartisan inclusive. you stated on fox news that you hope this committee will operate in a, quote, less partisan manner. and i congratulate you on that. but your actions today are very different. they are not bipartisan at all. you stated, with this proposal and in a meeting yesterday with ranking member cummings, that

you will not seek democratic concurrence for subpoenas. and will you not allow the committee to vote on subpoenas. and so, my question is, how is this bipartisan? and it also is very opposite to the tradition of this committee. the representative chairman cling gore in a letter to collins expressed his approach. i'd like to put his letter in the record. and i quote, i shall not authorize such subpoenas without your concurrence or the vote of the committee. i believe that this new rule memome memorializes the subpoena. end quote. i would like to say in recent history two of the most contentious committees that reviewed and went into depth on

issues is the 9/11 bipartisan commission and the iran-contra bipartisan commission. they had an agreement that they would do everything together. subpoenas, meetings, everything was inconclusive. and i truly believe that the meets of these two was they came forward with how to make us safer and move our government forward in a way that is positive. so i would speak strongly in support of ranking member cummings' amendment and urge a bipartisan vote in support of it. and respectfully call upon the chairman to turn his rhetoric into the reality of the rules of this committee, of making them truly bipartisan, incluonclusii and in the tradition of clinger and davis and towns, and choosive of the way they went

forward of issues subpoenas and working in a bipartisan way. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> i will certainly yield. >> thank you. what i said was to clear up a misunderstanding that the ranking member apparently had in the meeting yesterday. i did not intend and do not believe that i said i would never seek. just the opposite, i would consider seeking full committee votes. as a matter of fact, i'd consider seeking that even if the ranking member and i agreed on a subpoena. because i believe there's a high chance that a very significant subpoena will happen during the next two or four years, in which it will be better to have the entire committee consider the subpoena and stand united. i think the gentle lady's point about bipartisan, that is something that we will seek. we simply will not ask to be compelled to do it. thank the gentle lady for yielding. >> will the gentlemen yield? i will in a second.

i respect the gentleman's statement. but the reality of a law or a rule is far stronger than seeking. and if you truly believed in being inclusive and bipartisan, you would let the rules stand and not take away the respect that the minority has in terms of this tremendously important power of the subpoena. i yield to my good colleague and friend from new york. >> thank you very much for yielding. let me say that, you know, we also have a lot of prosecutors here that a subpoena is a very serious thing. and sometimes, you're subpoenaing people who are making $60,000, $50,000 a year. they have to get a lawyer. so we to be very concerned about using subpoenas. and also, i want to say one other thing. this is not a super ethics committee. and i want to make that very clear. and so the fact that we don't get involved in terms of, you know, subpoenaing in that area,

and let's look at it very seriously, have dialogue. and i will say to you that in my days as chair, you know, the gentleman yield two minutes? will the gentleman yield two minutes? >> i'd yield the distinguished former chairman an additional two minutes. >> thank you very much. let me say that sometimes, i know it's difficult. but the point is, i think there's no problem conferring with a subpoena. it might delay it a couple of hours, but the point is, what difference does it make when you look at a person who might have to get a lawyer who is making $60,000 a year, $50,000 a year or to come in and take time from his or her job and spend a day. you know it would take a day here, regardless if you're coming from maryland, virginia and washington, d.c. once they come in and we have all of these opening statements. and then there's a vote, we vote for the next hour and a half or

two hours. of course, the person is just sitting there. so we need to make certain that we take this very, very seriously and not just do it because we can. on that note, i yield back. >> thank you the gentleman. anyone else that needs to be recognized.the gentle lady from d.c. >> yes, mr. chairman, i really seek some clarification based on your own opening remarks. you cite in your letter a case or two involves prior chairs, mr. towns and mr. waxman. where the committee rules on getting the concurrence of the ranking member on a vote were in fact not followed. at the same time, you use the words rare exceptions. you indicated that a vote might

not be practical or possible. or we might be in recess. so my question is very straightforward. do you intend, as a general practice, barring rare exceptions, to seek the concurrence of the ranking member and a vote? as a general practice, which would, of course, not bind you to the exceptions that you specifically cited. >> if the gentle lady would yield. >> i'd be happy to yield. >> understand that the rules have not changed since 1995. these have been the same rules for the committee on both sides. the rules do not call for concurrence. however, there is a long tradition of consultation. i intend on continuing consultation, although it has not always occurred, as we said,

i intend to do so. chairman towns and i consulted a lot about subpoenas, people coming before the committee and so on. it is always, in my estimation, preferable to do it by a concurrence of the chairman and ranking member, whether we come to a vote of the committee or not. it is my recognition that 11 committees in some way, shape or form in the congress have the authority of the chairman to write a subpoena. that authority is no different than administrative law judges and all kinds of other people in government. it should be taken seriously and done only when necessary. that's my expectation. i know that -- >> mr. chairman, if i may, as we open this session, it does seem to me, if that is the case, that some accommodations could have been found before today's meeting, so that there would be an understanding that the

general practice of the committee was not sought to be changed. so that we would not be divided on this very first session. because i believe i see some real possibility of accommodation. be glad to yield to the chairman on that. >> of course. that's exactly what i'm trying to concur with the lady on. is that we intend on continuing, within the parameters of the history of this committee. i will not be exactly mr. burton. i will not be exactly mr. waxman. i will not be exactly mr. towns. but overall, over the many years that this committee has existed since 1995, there has been a tradition of the chairman has the authority to write a subpoena. the chairman most commonly informs in advance and has consultation with the ranking member. and i expect to do that. i would also say there has been

an ever-declining number of subpoenas from this committee. i would very much hope that we could continue that tradition. my predecessor issued less than his predecessor. and his predecessor less -- no, rem rephrase that. my predecessor less than this predecessor. mr. waxman exceeded mr. davis. however, certainly, all of them were less than mr. burton's time. it's my hope that we will find tools other than subpoenas to get people to be before us. and i might note, if i could, for the gentle lady, that we've also made deposition reform that we insisted that the full house provide anyone who's being asked to be deposed, which is, in effect, more common for this committee to have an absolute right to have members of congress present, unless they waif those right. that we're trying to ask everybody to make sworn testimony before this committee

that they do it in a more fair way. i suggest that we do in the way mr. towns did, less subpoenas, more accommodation. we set a good example in the last congress. i hope we continue it. the gentle lady's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. i'm sorry, do we have someone on this side? the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i may ask the chairman, is this section of the rules regarding subpoenas the exact same as the last congress? >> it's identical. >> well, it's fascinating, absolutely fascinating that the now minority didn't see to change the rules when they actually had the votes to do it and had the majority to do it. so i would just ask my colleagues to be aware of the history here. this is the same operation of the rule, same exact language, as the rule in the last congress. with the democrat chairman and a

majority of democrats in the house. and so accepting that same language i think was reasonable. i certainly appreciate the chairman's change to the deposition authority. i think it's important to note for the committee and for the public to know, that that is a substantial change. given witnesses more rights in this congress than they had in previous congresses. and with that, i would -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> i might note, the gentleman makes a good point, but i might note that on september 11th, 2009, during time of great cooperation with the chairman that we all respect, jennifer savavan who was the lead counsel received at 4:30 p.m. the following. this afternoon, we are going to serve subpoena on media ratings counsel for documents per training to arbitron's use of

personal people meter. signed john. i ask that be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. the first time i got to do that. of the fact is that that was an exception. i don't know the details but staff sent it through. the chairman obviously had to sign it. it was a friday afternoon. and we received it effectively after the fact and after business hours. it was not an unreasonable subpoena. it was not one in which we screamed and yelled how dare you go after this information. but it was one in which there was no consultation. it is my intent to make sure that we're very careful in light of that, because the only thing that bothered us about this is that we got told after the fact, and we didn't have normal consultation. so as the gentleman from north carolina is acutely aware, it is so much better to have the consultation that i expect to do it always. i yield back. >> and reclaiming my time, i certainly appreciate that.

and i express do my colleagues, that it's my hope what we can get voting here and get moving. with that, i yield back to balance my time. >> thank you, other folks? mr. kucinich. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, i think since we're at the beginning of this process, it's important not just for this committee, but for this congress, to be able to have clarity about the process under which this committee will exercise the power that it's given by the congress. and frankly, with all due respect, i don't believe that up to this point that the chairman's explanations have added clarity to this debate over the cummings amendment which says that with the concurrence of the ranking minority member subpoenas would be issued. now the word "concurrence" is an important word here. because if you look at the letter that comes from march 6th, 1996, written by a republican chairman of the committee on government --

>> would the gentleman suspend. >> no, i want to -- >> if the gentleman would suspend -- >> no, i want to make my point. >> i want you to make your point but i want you to be aware -- the gentleman will suspend -- were you speaking on an amendment. as long as you speak on amendment, that's fine. please consider that you do not speak about general amendments and so on. i've tolerated a great deal and i will tolerate more. >> no. >> the gentleman will suspend. >> my time -- >> your time will be added back. >> under what point is the chairman interrupting? >> i'm making a point of order to the gentleman. the point of order is, please speak to the amendment, not to general agreements. i have allowed myself both sides to talk about general agreements. if you'd like to speak to the amendment, the gentleman is recognized for his full five minutes. >> as the chairman of the committee on government reform and oversight stated in his

letter to members of the committee, on march 6th, 1996, he said the proposed rule requires that if a subpoena is required in a case of an affidavit or deposition or travel office matter, i shall not authorize such subpoena without your concurrence or the vote of the committee. now, the chairman in this debate, has made the following statement. that he would consider -- that he would consider consulting, that it's his intention to consult. and it's preferable to concur and to listen to the chairman's statements, you would think that you would be supporting the cummings amendment. instead, what we have here is, i think, a rather dangerous equivocation on the issue of unilateral subpoenas. this is not a small matter. because this is not about you, mr. chairman. with all due respect, and i do respect you.

this is not about you. this is about the power that this committee has, working through the chair, to be able to issue subpoenas. and to do that, without the concurrence of the ranking member, and i would further say of the committee itself, i think is to sweep aside the concerns that people would have about the constitutional protections of witnesses. because this isn't just about us. this is about the people we would call us before. so i think that this is an issue that members of the committee ought to be exercised about because of the implications that the action that will be taken -- that we will take today will have on the next two years. and on every hearing that follows this. i am not someone who came here to done up for the obama adds station. anybody who knows me knows when i say that, if there's something wrong over there i'll be the

first one to call him on it. but i am someone who believes that this process needs to move in a way that is fair and impartial and doesn't degrade the oversight capacity and responsibilities this congress had. so, you know, we can quote abraham lincoln about his suspension of habeas corpse during an insurrection, but barring an insurrection, mr. chairman, i cannot understand why you would not agree with mr. cummings' amendment. will the gentleman yield? >> i certainly will. >> can i ask the gentleman why you didn't offer this two years ago or four years ago, if it was so important? >> we have a whole new congress here. [ laughter ] and you know what, i appreciate -- >> please. >> because the chairman was ready to cooperate. as a matter of fact, so well,

that this morning's -- or yesterday's politico, it said chairman towns was not only fair, but he lost his job because he was too fair. i don't think, mr. chairman, that you're looking at any change within your caucus at this point. but i do believe that this question that we're raising is one that we've established the precedent that republican chairs have gone along with concurrence. now, i wish you would speak to the fact of why you will not go along with concurrence. because you've cited what's happened in previous congress with respect to mr. towns. but this is about you. this isn't about mr. towns. you're the chairman now. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes mr. mack. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess i'm a new member to this committee and i'm a little confused. so we're arguing about an

amendment from minority side. they want to amend the rules. a rule that was their rule last congress. is that correct? i mean, this is the same exact rule, and now that they're in the minority, they want to change it? is that -- >> the gentleman's correct. >> so it seems to be a little hypocritical of them today then to come in, on the other side of the aisle, and say the rules were good enough for us when we were in the majority. but now that we're in the minority, we want to change them. i hear a lot on the other side about bipartisanship and the intentions of the chairman and the power of the committee. but all i hear is this hypocr y hypocrisy, on one hand, the rules were. >> enough, on this hand, now that we're in the minority, they're not good enough. you know, this is really a shame at this point. i think if you really want a

bipartisan vote, stick with your votes in the past. the bipartisan vote would be to defeat this amendment. and let's move on to doing the people's business. part of reason why i came to this committee is because i'm tired of people in the administration and other people avoiding when we have questions. so, mr. chairman, with all due respect to this committee as a new member, the hypocrisy of the minority now to say, this rule was. >> enough when we were in the majority, but now i want to change it is -- it's disappointing. i think the american people who are watching this, they're asking, what is it that the other side stands for. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to yield. >> thank you very much. we have -- i certainly understand the gentleman's concerns. but we've been pretty much forced into this position because we're not talking about the rule, we're talking about a practice. and the practice of a committee.

and we wanted to read a colloquy back from 2007 between davis and waxman, but that was disallowed. and at that time, there was an agreement between them that it would go to a vote if there was disagreement. and so you've got two things happening here. you have a rule, you also have a practice. and i know as an attorney you can identify with that. nobody is trying to be hypocritical. >> if i may reclaim my time. you can talk about the intent all you want and we can judge the chairman on that as we move on. but you're looking to change the rules. mr. chairman, i think this is now becoming a -- one of those things where one thing doesn't like it, the other side does like it. i don't think we're going to get any me further with any more dewad

debate on this and i think we should call for the vote. >> the call for the vote is not in order. does the gentleman yield back? >> on that, i ask the previous question. move the previous question. however -- >> previous question has been requested. can i ask the gentleman to withhold -- to withdraw his previous question and allow one more from the other side to speak and then we'll close it off and move the previous question if that's okay with the gentleman. >> it is your prerogative, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman withdraws his question. mr. tierney is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. i think it is unfortunate on the first day here we're hearing claims of hypocrisy and closing off the debate. i hope we don't go there. last session mr. flake and i and the subcommittee on national security had a good relationship and a lot of that was because we could accept each other's word and that's pretty much been the history of this committee. and the reason why the motion

was made to amend, is because we haven't heard the words that previous committees have customerly done in practice. i would hope this chairman would consider to do that, tell us it is your intention and you will consult with the ranking minority member and get his consent before the subpoenas are issued or go to a vote of the committee. it has been the long-standing practice of that. we wouldn't need to seek an amendment because we would take the chairman at his word if he adjust as previous members took the chairperson's word whether republican or democrat in the past. one letter late afternoon letter, but i note the chairman didn't object to that and since then is on record on september 13th as saying he worked really closely together, that he, meaning ed towns helped get information time and time again. we're supposed to do it whenever possible. the only other time the climb

made by the chairman in 2005 the case of terri schiavo and mr. waxman did object on that, with unilateral subpoena. what we're saying is we should not be about unilateral subpoenas, we're more than willing to take the chairman's word that he will consult and get the agreement of the ranking member or take it to the full committee for a vote on that without changing the rule. but we have not heard those words of assurance as has been the case in this committee and that's why we move to amend. i yield back. >> the previous question is ordered. are there any further comments? i move the previous question. okay. all those in favor of the cummings amendment, please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed. >> the noes have it. roll call please. >> roll call is being requested. the clerk will call the roll.

>> mr. issa? >> no. >> mr. issa votes no. mr. burton? >> mr. burton votes no. mr. mica in mr. platts. mr. platts votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. mr. mchenry. >> no. >> mr. mchenry votes no. mr. jordan? >> no. >> mr. jordan votes no. mr. chaffetz? >> no. >> mr. chaffetz votes no. >> mr. mack? >> no. >> mr. mack votes no. mr. mr. walberg votes no. miss buerkle votes no. dr. goeaser? >> no. >> dr. gosar votes no. mr. meehan? >> no. >> mr. meehan votes no. dr. desjarlais? >> no. >> dr. desjarlais votes no. mr. walsh? >> no. >> mr. walsh votes no. mr. gowdy. >> no. >> mr. gowdy votes no. >> mr. ross.

>> no. >> mr. ross votes no. mr. giunta votes no. mr. farenthold. >> no. >> mr. farenthold votes no. mr. kelly. >> no mr. kelly votes no. >> mr. cummings. >> yes. >> mr. cummings votes yes. mr. towns. >> yes. >> mr. towns votes yes. >> mrs. maloney. >> yes. >> mrs. maloney votes yes. miss norton. >> miss norton votes yes. mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich votes yes. mr. tierney. >> yes. >> mr. tierney votes yes. mr. clay. >> yes. >> mr. clay votes yes. mr. lynch. >> yes. >> mr. lynch votes yes. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes yes. mr. connolly? >> aye. >> mr. connolly votes yes. mr. quigley votes yes. mr. davis. mr. davis votes yes. mr. bilbray. mr. welch. mr. yarmouth. miss spear votes yes.

>> the clerk will report. >> on that vote, mr. chairman, there were 22 noes, 15 yeses. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the chair would recognize the gentle lady for california for a question. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i would like to have clarification on what the new provision that provides that a member of congress or member of the committee can be at depositions. does that mean participate in the depositions or be present to observe the depositions? >> that's a very -- will the gentle lady yield? that's an extremely good question. there has always been a right for members to attend depositions. the rules of the committee, which we'll be glad to furnish you, have a procedure whether they are staff or members alternating back and forth. we have -- because we are an

investigative committee, we have a long set of procedures in which staff -- and i'll short cut it, we get three days notice of a deposition. the both majority and minority show up and there is a whole procedure for back and forth and time limits. your side, obviously, i suspect your staff would acquiesce to your taking their time if you wanted it. but it would be the back and forth within that if another member arrives from the other side, the same thing would occur. if ten members show up, they do not change the deposition. it is simply a question of whose time are they speaking on alter naturing. so it doesn't really change whether it is staff doing it or members. what the full house did, which i think is critical and i appreciate the gentle lady's asking is they said a member -- a person being deposed must wave the right to have a member present. one or more members present or they will not be deposed by

staff. and this comes from a series of depositions which were done, staff only, under a previous chairman, in which it was believed by then minority, my side, that there was a tendency toward potential abuse because staff have a lot of time, they're not accountable to the voters, they could in fact, if you will, be very tough on a deposition somewhat abusing the fact that that person is paying their own money for their own lawyer and so on. so we felt if the light of day, by being able to have a member of congress there, the congressman's time, on probably both sides being important that this would reduce or eliminate abuse. that was the reason we lobbied the speaker for it and got it into the rules. it will apply to this committee all the time. and it applies to any other committee that may be granted depositional authority at some future time. >> so if -- reclaiming my time. if i understand you correctly, then that means that the time

allotted per side remains the same if a member of the committee chooses to participate, it would come off the time that is set aside for that particular -- >> the gentle lady is correct. >> thank you. >> will the gentle lady yield? first of all, i want to say to the chairman, i think this is a good rule because as you've said, mr. chairman, and to the gentle lady, there has been -- and mr. towns brought this up. in many instances people have been dragged into depositions and as one who has conducted many depositions, i think it is good to have certain limitations, have members present if nothing else to make sure that the process is a fair one. depositions can be very expensive, number one. you have to prepare the witness. number two, you got to appear at the deposition, prepare documents. and then there is follow-up and things of that nature. so a person could easily spend,

just spend $200 an hour, lawyers fees are much higher than that in many instances and that adds up to being a lot of money. so i think trying to respect witnesses and trying to be careful, mr. chairman, about who we're calling into these depositions, i think the chairman has assured me that we would talk about those things and try to make sure that we're not deposing people that don't really need to be deposed. is that a fair statement? i don't want to put words in your mouth? >> that would be a fair statement that we want to limit those just as we will subpoenas. with that, i understand the gentleman has an additional amendment. >> yes. >> ranking member is recognized for his amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> the clerk will report. >> amendment to the rules of the committee on oversight and government reform offered by keptive cummings strikes subsection d of rule 12 and insert the following. d 1 with a concurrence -- >> the amendment will be considered as read and the ranking member is recognized for

five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'll be very brief. i think this is an amendment that we can all agree with. mr. chairman, one of your primary objections to the previous amendment seemed to be that it would not allow you to issue emergency subpoenas. i can certainly understand that. in other words, there could be cases when an individual sought by the committee is a flight risk or about to board an airplane out of the country, and in these cases waiting for the committee to vote on a subpoena could prevent us from obtaining the information we seek. as i've said to the chairman on numerous occasions, we too are seeking the truth and we want the process to work. the amendment addresses this concern directly. it requires a chairman to seek minority concurrence on a committee vote but also includes an exception for emergencies. and in those those cases is requires the chairman to notify committee members within three days after the subpoena is

issued about the nature of the emergency and the efforts to contact the ranking member. it also requires the chairman to explain why waiting for committee vote would prevent us from obtaining the information sought by the subpoena. this is a common sense compromise and i think you should be able to support, mr. chairman. and let me give credit where credit is due. this is the exact proposal you made at this committee's organizational meeting back in 2007 and this is what you said at that time. i quote, i might suggest that other committees on which i serve specifically the select intelligence committee have a procedure which i believe would, if we cannot accept the concurrence, their procedure is a consultation, a full vote of the committee unless the chairman finds it to be extraordinary, meaning that for some reason in this case, the subpoena would have to be issued in a hurry, end of quote. you went on to say, mr. chairman, this approach would not take away from any of the

chairman's power, but would establish the steps he should follow in these cases, given that this was your idea, mr. chairman, i hope that you will accept this amendment. i urge the members to vote for it. >> the chair has no interest in changing the rules as they have been for the previous congress. and would oppose the amendment. are all those in favor of the cummings amendment, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> all those opposed. the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. roll call? clerk will report the roll. >> mr. issa? >> no. >> mr. issa votes no. mr. but be? >> no. >> mr. burton votes no. mr. mica? mr. mica votes no. mr. platts? mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. mr. mchenry. mr. mchenry votes no. mr. jordan? mr. chaffetz. >> no. >> mr. chaffetz votes no.

mr. mack? >> no. >> mr. mack votes no. mr. wahlberg? mr. lankford? >> no. >> mr. lankford votes no. mr. amash? >> no. >> mr. amash votes no. miss buerkle? miss buerkle votes no. dr. gosar. mr. labrador. mr. labrador votes no. mr. meehan. >> no. >> mr. meehan votes no. dr. desjarlais. >> no. >> dr. desjarlais votes no. mr. walsh. >> no. >> mr. walsh votes no. mr. gowdy? >> no. >> mr. gowdy votes no. mr. ross? >> no. >> mr. ross votes no. mr. giunta? >> no. >> mr. giunta votes no. mr. farenthold. >> no. >> mr. farenthold votes no. mr. kelly? >> no. >> mr. kelly votes no. mr. cummings? . mr. cummings votes aye. mr. towns. >> aye. >> mr. towns votes aye. miss norton votes yes. mr. kucinich.

mr. kucinich votes yes. mr. tierney? mr. clay? mr. clay votes yes. mr. lynch. >> yes. >> mr. lynch votes yes. mr. cooper? >> yes. >> mr. cooper votes yes. >> mr. connolly. mr. quigley. >> yes. >> mr. quigley votes yes. mr. davis. >> yes. >> mr. davis votes yes. mr. braley? mr. welch mr. yarmouth. mr. yardmouth votes yes. miss spear? >> y . >> aye. >> miss spear votes aye. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, mr. connolly, i wish to be recorded as voting aye. >> mr. connolly votes aye. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> on that vote, mr. chairman, there were 20 noes, 14 ayes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman.

>> the gentleman from -- >> mr. tierney had an amendment, i don't know whether he'll be back in time, but i want to just go to a final inquiry. >> of course. >> if he gets back, we will address that. mr. chairman, i have an inquiry about how are you are interpreting the rules with regard to committee record. i want to make sure we're clear. >> the gentleman will suspend. don't mind his inquiry. i would like to get to the final vote and we will not adjourn until after this is discussed. hearing no more amendments, the question now occurs on the committee resolution. all those in favor of adopting the resolution please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, resolution is agreed to. ranking member is recognized for his inquiry. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. house rule 10 clause 9g provides that both republican and democratic staff shall be

recorded equitable treatment with respect to accessibility of committee records. that means if one side gets them, the other side gets them as i understand it. that's basic fairness. but certainly that's not what's been happening. on january 14th, you sent a letter to the department of homeland security secretary napolitano requesting information about the department's policies on the freed fre freedom of information request and i want to thank you for getting that information to us about a half an hour before the hearing but you did not provide it to us back then. your letter was based on other documents obtained by the committee according to a press account. on sunday, oversight panel spokesman frederick hill said i sent the letter because the committee has received documents that raise questions about the

voracity of dhs officials on the matter. after reading this story, my staff requested copies of both your letter to the department of homeland security and the additional documents referred to by your spokesman and your st did not reply. hear are my questions regarding to document access rule. first, your letter to dhs signed on january 14th, committee record, and if so, why did -- why did it take so long to get it? is that going to be the practice that we have to wait two weeks to get a letter? second, are the additional documents referred to by your spokesman committee records and if so, why don't we have those? that's my other question. >> i appreciate the gentleman's inquiry in this colloquy. it is our intention to deliver all produced information on a

bipartisan basis, whether it is produced to the minority, the majority. what i mean by that is that if the administration comes and gives you documents, and those documents are pursuant to requests, you must turn them over to the majority also. if i receive such information, i must turn them over. whenever possible, we're going to encourage the administration, as they have done in some cases in the past, to simply deliver duplicate copies, to deliver to both of us so there is no doubt and it is relatively easy to not wait for a clerk to report it. production made to the committee will be delivered to our nonpartisan staff. their job will be, in fact, to determine whether it is a committee record and distribute it. we rely on them. the clerks have been under mr. towns and myself and some of them even his predecessor.

so we're going to try to use that. i look forward to working with you, mr. cummings, on coming up with a standard for correspondence. it has not been the practice of this committee for correspondence to be shared fully, whether from the majority or minority. correspondence today as you know is primarily e-mail. a huge amount of it. e-mail has not been typically cc'd the same way. so i look forward to working with you and both of our staffs during the break to come up with a procedure to designate for all our subcommittee chairman and ranking members how this is going to be worked because there was a vast amount of correspondence that goes on, some of which will probably not be shared, but wasn't to make sure that it is shared equally on a base this is a is agreeable to both of us. so i look forward to working with you on correspondence. when it comes to discoverable material, i fully expect the nonpartisan staff to ensure that either a copy is made for the

minority or that the administration or other body has delivered to both of us the information. >> i thank the gentleman. the other -- i think there is still an issue left here and that is timing. in other words, in we say, for example, have a letter that goes out january 14th, we get it on the 25th, and how soon do -- can we expect to get these documents that you were just talking about? in other words, timing here on the hill can be very significant. if we get something ten, 12 days after the majority gets it, it can certainly be to our disadvantage. our staff wants to prepare. they're working very hard just as yours is and they need to be able to do that. so i was just wondering what you had in mind. >> i appreciate the gentleman not for this colloquy at the moment, but i appreciate the

gentleman's inquiry. and fortunately to your right you have the former chairman of the committee. and i pledge to you that we will work to -- because of the increased amount of digital data we're receiving, in addition to paper, to shave off even some time from what mr. towns was able to do. moreover, as i said, we're going to use our mutually agreed to nonpartisan staff to be the arbiters of making sure these things get copied and distributed in a timely fashion. i think that's the most important thing is that we depoliticize materials which have been ordered through deposition, subpoenas, or other requests. again, i look forward to working with you on resolving a standard f for correspondence. >> when can we expect the documents with the dhs letter. the spokesman referred to some documents that caused you to even write the letter and i was wonderi ining when we could get

those. >> i'm being informed by the staff that the response is due this coming friday. so i would assume that you'll have it, if it arrives before 4:30, you'll have it this coming friday. >> the only reason i is that is because your spokesman said you already had them. that's why i asked. >> you believe what you read in the sflpress? >> i believe your spokesman. >> with that, i want to do a little housekeeping. pursuant to committee rules -- >> mr. chairman, i wasn't finished. >> let me do the housekeeping and we'll come back. pursuant to committee rule 6a, the chairman and ranking member assigned members to the subcommittee, these assignments have been made and are in each of your folders. without objection, we ask that the assignments be included in the record. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, i'm going back to the 160 industry letters and i have one initial inquiry about the rule. in december, you sent the 160

companies, organizations asking for job killing regulations. and i understand you did this as ranking member, the end of december. my staff contacted your staff to request copies of the companies' responses. on the following dates, january 4th, january 6th, january 7th, january 12th, january 14th. our requests were ignored. yesterday you sent me a letter explaining why your letter and your letter stated this, and i quote, as these materials are part of an ongoing oversight effort, i have chosen to have my staff focus on receiving, organizing and analyzing the response to these letters. i expect to be able to make an initial analysis as well as all responses received as today public no later than february 11, 2011. and i want to -- and then we, of course, received the letter today. and if i read the letter that

you wrote to us today, does that mean that we are going to get the actual responses to those letters? i'm just looking for clarification. >> i thank the gentleman. we clearly want to get to a correspondence understanding that is not previously been there so that we can have our staffs know when to share and so on. however, it does mean that the intention is to deliver all of our correspondence, something that has not historically been done, to you at that time. only reason we want to finish the correspondence is quite frankly we believe that it is extremely important that when correspondence is released that it properly be vetted. we're going through to make sure there is not something that if it became public would be inappropriate, like any e-mail or correspondence. i look forward to not only delivering this to you in its original form, but also coming up with an agreement as to future correspondence both the majority and minority. >> i appreciate that.

one reason i ask that is we didn't want to have to rely on the majority's analysis because we have got some pretty good people who can do their own analyzing. so we really appreciate that. finally, mr. chairman, i want to make -- i want to have this right. are you -- with regard to transparency, are you willing to make sure that -- that december was the month -- let me go back. when you -- are these records -- are you claiming that because these records were done, and letters were sent before you became chairman that they are not official records or they are. you follow what i'm saying? >> i think the issues have been resolved. we have a trail of each of our view of this correspondence. i look forward to working with the gentleman on resolving the issue of how in the future correspondence will be shared

and with that the committee stands adjourned. >> a business meeting of the house oversight and government reform committee from earlier today. just a note, their first official hearing of the 112th congress is coming up tomorrow, when they'll look into the troubled asset relief program and the foreclosure crisis. they'll hear from the special inspector general for tarp among others. that's tomorrow at 9:30 eastern, we'll have that for you on c-span3. ahead of today's business meeting, we spoke to a capitol hill reporter about the new leadership under darrell issa. >> joining us to talk about this is susan crabtree, senior with me? caller: i am.

>> why is representative issa refusing to allow access to the committee's records? >> i think this is a matter of he wants to run an aggressive committee, he wants to launch a lot of investigations. he's promised thousands of subpoenas to different administration officials and different c.e.o.'s and executives around the country so i truly believe he really wants to provide strong oversight. >> are there constitutional requirements for doing this? >> it really goes back to the practice of the committee. it's not necessary in the rules package. this is a point that an aide made to me yesterday, he said, this isn't part of the rules package, you don't have to say whether you're going to include the minority in the rules, it's

just a standard practice going back to henry waxman who ran the committee, tom banks owho ran the committee. the last time the other side, the chairman did not control the committee was when dan burton ran it in 1997 to 2002, i believe he ran a very aggressive oversight of the clinton administration. he was actually ridiculed for some of the investigations that he conducted at that time. he even at one point was doing an investigation of the vince foster -- of vince foster, a top aide in the clinton white house that some people believed his death was not a suicide. it was a -- he went in the backyard of his house and shot a pumpkin with basically to see

the forensics involved and so at that point, the "washington post" and other publications editorializing that this is getting silly. the investigation has gone too far, they're witch hunts. to have that type of committee where he's engaged in silly, sort of witch hunt-like investigations. he wants to be taken seriously system of cummings, the ranking democrat on the panel, has said you know, this is a practice that dan burton used, this is not something your predecessor you immediate predecessors did. we would like to be consulted on all the subpoenas that go out. >> during the opening of this congress, republicans talked about transparency in government. how much transparency does congressman issa's proposal allow? >> certainly, this is not providing transparency to the

democrats on this committee, because he also doesn't want to allow them to have access to all the documents that he sends out and that he receives. for instance, he has sent a letter to -- early this year, really early in his chairmanship, he sent a letter to janet napolitano, homeland security department secretary, asking about her practices and policies regarding foia requests, freedom of information act requests. he did not provide that letter to elijah cummings, the democratic ranking member nor did he provide responses he got from them. he also sent out a letter to 160 businesses around the country asking them about which regulations they find too onerous right now that might be

stifling jobs creation and he's been receiving responses from these businesses and elijah cummings did not receive that letter nor has he been receiving the responses and he said yesterday in his letter to issa that he would like to get those responses. he would like to have access to documents going forward. >> congressman issa and ranking member cummings have been at odds over this and apparently they're going to be sitting together at the state of the union address tonight. how did that come about? >> well i heard that issa and cummings are not sitting together. issa is sitting with the prior chairman of the committee. i saw something about that in the blog fear, i asked elijah cummings because they have been sparring so much in the first

weeks of this new congress and he said no, issa is sitting with the former chairman of the committee, elijah cummings' immediate predecessor. >> what do you expect going forward on all of this? what are you looking to see? >> i think the reason democrats chose elijah cummings was to provide a counterpart to issa. they really -- democrats are concerned that these investigations are primarily aimed at embarrassing barack obama as he looks to re-election in 2012 and that issa's main purpose might be, they're concerned to really embarrass the president instead of looking for true accountability and government -- in government waste and abuse and looking out for consumer interests. they feel it's more partisan in nature system of they put elijah cummings in that role to be a strong counterpart, to go toe-to-toe with issa and i

suspect we'll see this throughout issa's chairmanship in the years to come as he starts launching investigations, elijah cummings will be a check on him, saying, is this really in the american taxpayers' best interest to launch this investigation. >> susan crabtree, editor of "the hill," thanks for being with us. you can read her writing at thehill.com. thanks again. >> tonight, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. ian with our preview program, followed by the president's speech at 9:00, then the republican response from paul rhine of wisconsin plus your phone call -- paul ryan of wisconsin, plus your phone calls, on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. you can add your own comments to our facebook page while you

watch live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress live on c-span2. >> there was legislative work ahead of the state of the union speech tonight by a vote of 265-156, the house passed a resolution that sets nonsecurity fiscal 2011 spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or lower. we'll show you some debate from earlier today on the house floor. legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution that is before us the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: madam speaker, one of the indelible and enduring images of 20 was that of violent protesters on the streets of athensollowing the proposal of the government to impose austerity measures. we all remember very vividly

that scene. coming to the brinks brink of collapse and nearly dragging the entire euro zone with it, the greek government had no choice, no choice but to scale back its profligate ways. thousands of public employees took to the streets in anger. now, madam speaker, i contrast that with the image of tens of thousands of peaceful demonstrators across america coming out to express their influences stration with -- sfration with excessive government spending. rather than demanding federal largess, these tax-taxed-enough demonstrators came together to petition their government for greater restraint and discipline. this might actually, madam speaker, have been a first in human history. it was a powerful illustration of the unique nature of amerin

values. was also a testament to just how badly fiscal discipline is needed. this issue is no longer just the per view of budget wonks and economists. the looming crisis of our national debt is a challenge that working americans recognize very clearly. while the magnitude of a $14 trillion debt is simply too massive to truly comprehend, those with a modicum of common common sense can appreciate the crushing whailt that will full on future generation if we do not immediately change course, the damage could quickly become irreversible. today's resolution is a clear signal that we are making that change in course. house resolution 38 is the first step, madam speaker, the first step in what will be a long and

mittedly very difficult process over the next two years as we pursue the goal of living within our means. . this resolution lays down a marker to return to pre-bailout, pre-binge spending, pre-stimulus levels. this resolution provides the framework under which we will finally dispense with the fiscal year 2011 budget which the previous congress unfortunately failed to do. nearly halfway through the fiscal year, we're nearly halfway through the fiscal year, now the imperative is to responbly finish the work that is really very, very urgent for us to approach and deal with at this moment. once we move beyond this task we will immediately pivot to fiscal year 2012. we will craft a budget, we will consider alternatives with a full debate and then this house

will pass a budget. we will then proceed with consideration of appropriations bills. we will return to the traditional open process that always governed our appropriations bills prior to the last couple of years. this will ensure full accountability and true collaboration and restore the deliberative traditions and customs of this body. there will be very tough choices ahead. very tough choices need to be made. there will be -- there's no doubt that we will engage in heated debate and i suspect we will in just a few minutes right here. but we simply cannot afford to put off the hard work any longer. madam speaker, today we take the first step. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. govern governor thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i -- mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in very, very strong opposition to this resolution.

as i said yesterday during the debate on the rules, there are numerous serious problems with this resolution. first, it's meaningless rhetoric. my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk a lot about cutting government spending but the resolution before us doesn't cut a single dollar from thbudget. not a single cent. the republican study committee recently proposed $2.5 trillion in budget cuts and their chairman, mr. jordan from ohio, said the following when he introduced this pl, and i quote, $100 billion is the number the american people heard last fall. it seems to me we should be able to find $100 billion, end quote. yet even after pledging $100 billion cut in funding, the distinguished chairman of the rules committee couldn't come up with a number. we asked yesterday and instead produced what is likely the first budget resolution in history that doesn't contain any budget numbers. that might be because the republican majority can't seem to figure out what the numbers

should be. we've heard all kinds of numbers. we've heard $30 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion and beyond. but i suspect, madam speaker, that's because the republican majority is discovering th it's a lot harder to walk the walk than it is to talk the talk. it is a lot easier to say things a campaign than it is to do things in a legislative body. they're realizing that when you start trying to make those kinds of cuts, you start seriously affecting the american economy and the american people. we are told that the congressional budget office will produce some numbers tomorrow. i wonderhy we couldn't wait until tomorrow to debate this resolution? but the answer is obvious. the president of the united states will be here thisvening for the state of the union address and the republican majority needs a new set of talking points. it's that kind of politics, where a message is more important than substance, that makes the american people cynical about washington. second, the resoluti continues the dangerous precedent of giving one individual, the

chairm of the budget committee, rather than the full membership of this house, the ability to set spending levels for the federal govement. and, third, the resolution is vegas and unjustifies wording that only targets nonsecury spending although everyone from secretary gates to speaker boehner has recognized that waste exists in the department of defense and at the department of homeland security and other security-relat agencies. it says a great deal about the priorities of a new republican majority that they would treat wasteful contracts and redun can't dant weapons system -- redundant weapons systems as sacred but would put food safety, f.b.i., a.t.f. an d.e.a. agents and other vital programs on the chopping block. now, of course, when we democrats have the audacity to talk about t need to protect those important programs, our republican friends grow indignant and head to the fainting couch. oh, no, they say, we would never cut those things. but, madam speaker, the numbers

just don't add up. when you start saying the popular program, the popular program will be protected, you realize that it would take massive cuts in other parts of the budget. when we talk about exempting only security programs, it means that other programs will need be cut by 30% below current levels. that means the department of justice has to cut 4,0 f.b.i. agents, 800 a.t.f. agents, 1,500 d.e.a. agents and 900 u.s. marshals. federal prisons have to cut 5,700 correctional officers and the federal government will lose the capacity to detain 26,000 people because of their immigration status. now of course the distinguished chairman of the rus committee said we're not going to cut the f.b.i., as we said yesterday, so i can only assume that means more a.t.f. agents and d.e.a. agents and u.s. marshals will be fired by the republicans. i can only assume that this means more than 26,000 people in this country illegally won't be in federal custody.

that's the republican agenda? madam speaker, i think former secretary of state colin powell said it best this weekend and i quote, i'm very put off when people just say, let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago. don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. that usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. tell me what you're going to cut. as i urge my colleagues to reject this misguided resolution, i ask my republican colleagues, what's the number and what are you going to cut? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my good friend, again, that this is the beginning of a process. we have been saddled with situation where for the first time since the implementation of the 1974 budget impoundment act we have no budget. and so what is it we've elected to do? nearly halfway through the fiscal year we're faced with this challenge. we're now in a position where we are going begin going through regular order to ensure that we

have a budget which we didn't do last year and have an open, free-flowing debate on the amendments through the appropriations process. and i will say to my friend that defense issue issues are going to be a high priority -- that defense issues are going to be a high priority. with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to my very good friend and colleague, the distinguished chair of the committee on the budget from whom we're going to be hearing later this evening, the gentleman from jamesville, washington, d.c., mr. ryan. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington, d.c. is recognized for three minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the chairman for yielding. madam speaker, i'm enjoying the rhetoric we're hearing today about one person, one committee, one man dictating in all these things. as if it's an unprecedented action. well, this move is not unprecedented. the reason this is necessary is unprecedented. it is unpress debitted since the -- unprecedented since the 1974 budget act passed that congress didn't boggetter to pass or even propose a -- didn't bother to pass or even propose a budget. madam speaker, the reason we're

here today is because the last majority last year didn't even bother trying. that means we have no budget in place. and with no budget in place there's no budget act to enforce. that means government is going and spending unchecked, no limits, no policemen on the beat, nothing. why are we giving this kind of power to the chairman of the budget committee, to put these numbers in? because we don't get the numbers from the congressional budget office until tomorrow. and we've said all along what we aim too, bring the structuring levels down to pre-bailout, pre-stimulus levels. and then for all the authorizing committees, it's put the c.b.o. baseline in place. it doesn't exist right now. it comes tomorrow. so what we're simply trying to do, madam speaker, is get some sense of limits back on spending. get some sense of a budget process back in place. we don't think we should have a system, a spending process, without restrainting, without

limits, without any prioritization. that is exactly why we're doing this. business as usual has to come to an end, madam speaker. and we've got to put limits on spending and that is why we have a budget act, to police the spending process, to make sure that it conforms. but there is no budget act, there is no number to police because they didn't do a budget last year. that is exactly and precisely why this measure is necessary. so all the rhetoric aside, the days are over of unlimited spending, of no prioritization and the days of getting spending under control are just beginning. this is a first step in a long process. this is a minimal, small down payment on a necessary process to go forward so that we can live our -- leave our kids with a better generation, so we can get this debt under control, so the spending spigot can close so, we can do right by our constituents and treat their dollars wisely. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my

me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm glad the chairman of the budget committee finally joined this debate. and i would say two things. one is that last year we passed a budget enforcement act with real numbers in it and we voted on it and it was significantly less than the number that the president had proposednumber e. number two, one of the things that we proposed in the rules committee was an amendment to allow members of the house, on both sides of the aisle, to be able to vote on the number. and that was rejected on party line as somehow a radical idea. and then the chairman of the rules committee talks about this free-flowing debate we're having. we're having this debate today under a closed rule. and so there's no opportunity for amendment. and with that -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. i'd like to point to my colleaguings, madam speaker, h.res. 38.

it's a one-sentence measure, a one-sentence measure which says thatur goal is to get to 2008 levels of spending or less. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time i appreciate the brevity of the bill but that doest mean the bill has a very negati impact. when we tried yesterday to protect the f.b.i. and enforcement agents from cuts, that was voted down. so we're very concerned. we don't know at the number is. and i think the people in this congress on both sides of the aisle, the american people, ought to know what we're talking about. where is it? d where tho are those cuts going to come from when you keep on exempting programs? with that, madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague. here we are a day later, yesterday we asked our colleagues, what's the number going to be? what's going to be the spending ceiling for this congress an r the united states r the united states government?