David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very hard-working Member, who will continue on the Rules Committee, my good friend from the Big D, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to engage in colloquy with my friend. I wonder if the gentleman has had an opportunity to look at what we consider to be the opening-day rules package that we are considering. He has talked about, Mr. Speaker, some very important provisions. I believe that the 24-hour layover idea which was propounded by the then- Members of the minority is an important one. It is not guaranteed here; so it is not provided. Number two, if you look at title V of the measure that is before us, title V provides 5 minutes of debate on five closed rules. The Rules Committee will not even be giving the minority the opportunity to have its amendments defeated in the Rules Committee, and we are not going through the committee process at all. Now, I will acknowledge that the items that we are going to be addressing, a majority of which I support, are very important for us to proceed with, and an argument has been made that this was debated and discussed in the last Congress. Well, look at the tremendous number of new Members of the House that have come in, especially on the majority side. They are denied any opportunity to participate in this process at all. So as I hear my friend talk about, yes, we need to proceed in a civil manner, and I am all for that, I believe we need to proceed with fairness. I believe these things are all very important. It is just unfortunate that the facts are not reflected in the rhetoric that we are getting on the need for civility and openness and debate. If my friend would like to respond, I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just respond. I know his time has expired. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond. We haven't seen any of the items. Maybe you all have those items, but we have not seen those items that we will be voting on. They haven't been submitted to us at all. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. What I would say is that based on the fact that we have never before, in the 230-year history of this republic, we have never had the greatest body known to man come forward with five closed rules in an opening day package denying Members an opportunity to participate in any way. So that is why I would argue this notion that we are beginning with a new tone, we are going to have an openness and all, is, in fact, not reflected in what we are facing in the next few days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I am very enthusiastic about this return to civility, and I am very proud of engaging in civil debate on a regular basis. And I thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for engaging in debate with me on this issue once again. And I would say that as I listened to her prepared statement, I was struck with, once again, how the notion of not keeping votes open for a long period of time is an admirable one. It is a great one. But guess what, Mr. Speaker. There is not one single item in this package that guarantees enforcement. In fact, Speaker Pelosi introduced her legislation, H.R. 4682. I remember very well looking at that legislation. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you exactly what it said. It said that if a vote is kept open beyond a 20-minute period of time, there had to be consultation with the minority. Now, that is not something I proposed. That was the proposal of Speaker Pelosi. Now, the sad thing is that in this measure there is no enforcement mechanism. Now, of course, people are busy. They come over here for a 15-minute vote. They would like to have it take place within 20 minutes. We are hearing that votes won't go beyond that period of time for the sole purpose of changing a Member's vote. But, again, there is no enforcement mechanism. And, again, the enforcement mechanism was not my proposal. It is a proposal that the then-minority offered. But now that they are in the majority, they just decide to say, well, we want to keep this process going and we want to keep doing it, but we are not going to consult with the minority. So, again, those aren't my proposals. Those are their proposals. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Marietta, Georgia, a former member of the Rules Committee, who is very thoughtful on these issues, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I do so to say that I am supportive of this title called civility. We will be having a vote on that. Mr. Sessions was very appropriately raising concern over title V. We only had 5 minutes of debate on that. So he raised concern about the closed rules and shutting down operations of the Rules Committee that would record votes and make them public. My concern about this measure we are going to have, which as I am going to support, because I am not going to oppose civility, is that when we look at the promises that were made by the then minority to do things like have a 24-hour waiting period before measures are brought up, it is denied in this rules package itself, because we got it about 19 hours before, so the spirit of that was denied there. The whole notion of ensuring that we have consultation with the minority when it comes to keeping votes open, when it comes to the issue of ensuring that we will have minority participation conference in committees. As we go down the line and look at these items, Mr. Speaker, it does trouble me. But there is a little bit of hope, and that hope was offered by the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, when she told me there has been such a short period of time between the election and opening day and consideration of this package, that we in the Rules Committee will have an opportunity to do more. So I always hold out, where there is light, there is hope, you know. I will tell you, I would do everything I can to help her maintain that commitment, and we will continue to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reminding my California colleague that yesterday we passed the ethics package about which she spoke, indicating that we would be voting on it later today. We voted on that yesterday. It has already gone into effect, I am very happy to say. And we did it with very strong bipartisan support. I am proud that the ethics reform legislation, of course, was based on and incorporated most of the items that were already passed in the House last year. Again, a year ago this month, Speaker Hastert and I stood in the well and we outlined our call for ethics and lobbying reform, bringing about the kind of accountability and transparency and disclosure, calling for the ban on gifts and dealing with the travel and all of these problems that were out there. We recognize that they are there in a bipartisan way, and yesterday we voted that out in a strong bipartisanship way. I am very pleased to see the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee here, and I will again, as I did yesterday, extend congratulations. And, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of civility that we are pursuing, I think it is very important for us to debate these issues, and I would like to engage my distinguished new Chair in a colloquy, if I might. Mr. Speaker, as I look at the resolution that is before us, the thing that I find most troubling as we focus on the issue of civility is the fact that those items that I outlined that were included in H. Res. 686 that was introduced on February 16, 2005, which called for the litany of items, and I can go through them again quickly: A requirement that conference reports contain an itemized list of any provisions in violation of the scope rule; a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from reporting martial law rules; a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from waiving points of order against a conference report with a serious violation; and it goes on for basically two pages. What I would like to ask my distinguished Chair is why it is that those items that were incorporated in the base of H. Res. 686, the commitment that was made by the then-minority as to what would be done if they were to move to majority, are not included in this title that we are considering here, and not, in any way, included in the opening day rules package. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say I have been supportive of stem cell research, and I have supported the minimum wage increase. That is not what I am talking about here. Mr. Speaker, in terms of our civil debate, which I think is very important, we are talking about the opening day rules package which is going to set forth, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines around which we will consider all of these items. Now I would ask my friend, am I correct from inferring from the statement she just made that there is a commitment, a commitment that as we proceed forward to modify the rules of the House to include those items in H. Res. 686, which were really the cornerstone of the package that was introduced by Mrs. Slaughter and the other then-minority members of the Rules Committee, which guarantee these rights to the minority that they believed were so critically important when they were in the minority; and, unfortunately, are not included in the package. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by, now since I have the first opportunity to formally see my California colleague here on the floor, to congratulate her and all of the members of the new majority. I have congratulated Ms. Slaughter and of course Ms. Pelosi, and now I join in extending congratulations to Ms. Matsui for her move into the majority, and to say as I did yesterday that I anxiously look forward to working in a bipartisan way as was said by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner here yesterday. I believe it is absolutely imperative that we meet the demand that was put forth by the American people in the November election. The message that I received from that election was that they want us to work together, they want us to solve their problems. Clearly, there needs to be a clash of ideas which was envisaged by James Madison, and I believe that that is something that we can't forget, because we are not supposed to pursue what I like to call the Rodney King view of the world: can't we all just get along. The fact of the matter is we do need to recognize that there are disparate views and they need to be voiced on this House floor. Now, the question is, can we in fact do that and at the same time maintain civility? And I think that is what title III is all about here. It is titled ``civility'' and it is something that I have always prided myself on, and I will say that I am saddened that it is something that has been often lacking in this House. Frankly, as I have seen the debate take place even yesterday, I was concerned that some of the statements made would indicate a lack of civility, and that is all I am going to say about it. I hope very much that the title ``civility'' used for this title III is one that is recognized by Members on both sides of the aisle. Let me get into some of the specifics now, Mr. Speaker, if I might. In February of last year, almost a year ago, Ms. Slaughter, the then- ranking minority member of the Rules Committee, and all of the members of the Rules Committee joined in introducing House Resolution 686. It is a resolution which called for virtually all of the things that my colleague, Ms. Matsui, outlined are very important for us to pursue: openness, transparency, disclosure, making sure that we meet our obligation to vote here on the House floor, that we have it done in the light of day. The concern that I have is that what has happened here is we have unfortunately gotten a package which does not have the kind of enforcement mechanisms that were envisaged by H. Res. 686 as introduced by the members of the Rules Committee in the last Congress, and I believe unfortunately it really is not reflective of anything other than sort of the spirit of what it was they were talking about. And the spirit is of things that we all can agree on. I am supportive of those. The fact is when they were in the minority, Resolution 686 calls for consultation and agreement with the minority. Now that they are in the majority, unfortunately, this measure does not in any way reflect the need to have consultation with the minority. For example, on this notion of keeping votes open beyond the 15- minute period of time, when they were in the minority they called for it to only take place if they had consultation with the minority. Well, unfortunately, this measure does not call for that. And what I am reminded of as I look at these items which touch on the issues that were raised in Resolution 686, I am reminded of again the experience that I had in the past on this when I moved from minority status to majority status 12 years ago. We had something known as the Contract With America. Some may remember that. What we said was that there would be 10 items that we would bring to the floor and we would have up or down votes on those items because, frankly, we were denied the chance for many, many years to consider them. They were items that were supported by broad-based backing of the American people. Frankly, at the end of the day, President Clinton, who was President at that time, signed over 60 percent of the measures that were incorporated in the Contract With America. What we did is we outlined in detail what that would consist of. We said it would be considered under an open amendment process, and that is exactly what we did. It is exactly what we did with those measures that came forward. So, Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately with this measure have not seen the same kind of reflection of the goals that were outlined by the then- minority in this measure, and I thought I would take a moment just to go through a few of those items specifically and say that, unfortunately, this package is not what they called for. Now, in the package that we had introduced in 686, it called for a requirement that conference reports contain an itemized list of any provisions in violation of the Scope rule. That is not included in this measure. It said that a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from reporting martial law rules could not be in order. That is not included here. A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from waiving points of order against the conference report were a serious violation of the Scope Rule, or additions or deletions made after final agreement. That is not included here. Another provision in Ms. Slaughter's resolution as introduced in February of last year: a rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from waiving points of order against a conference report where the minority party managers of the House were not allowed to fully participate in the conference. Well, they of course said they want to have this happen, but the kind of specificity and enforcement mechanisms that were outlined in the Slaughter Resolution, H. Res. 686, introduced in February of last year, not included in this measure. A rule permitting consideration of a conference report only if a roll call vote in open meeting was held on its final version and the results included the accompanying joint explanatory statement of managers. Well, sounds great, we are all for that, but that wasn't included in this resolution that we are now considering. A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from calling up a rule within 24 hours of reporting it. Well, everybody talked about that. We know that on the opening-day rules package that we considered, we received it maybe 19 hours before we brought it up or something like that, but it clearly was in the violation of the 24 hours that was insisted upon by the then-minority. A rule requiring the Speaker of the House to publish in the Congressional Record a log of all voting activity occurring after the first 30 minutes of any recorded vote whose maximum time for voting exceeds 30 minutes. That is not included in here at all. A rule prohibiting suspensions costing more than $100 million. I don't see that in here at all. A rule requiring the Speaker of the House to allow an equal number of bills and resolutions sponsored by majority and minority parties under suspension. A repeal of the Gephardt rule. A rule requiring a 24-hour layover of unanimous consent requests. A rule prohibiting the Rules Committee from reporting a rule unless at least one minority party member of the committee is allowed to offer an amendment to it. Now, again, I know that we are hearing words from the new majority that they want to do all these things, but when they introduced House Resolution 686, they made it very clear that they had to have enforcement mechanisms and that they were going to provide guarantees of minority rights. Unfortunately, while the word ``civility'' sounds great, this measure falls way, way short of that. So I again go back to when we went from minority to majority and I looked at the fact that we were able to maintain our promise, we were able to keep our word. And I am very proud of that fact. The thing that troubles me, while I am supportive of what we are trying to do here, is that it does not comply with the promises and the commitments and the vision and the goals that were set forth in February in House Resolution 686 as was introduced by the then-minority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in the spirit of civil debate, let me say that I believe these measures that were authored by Members of the new majority as being critical rights that the minority should have, that those Members in the majority who believed them to be so important should obviously stand by them. All I am asking is that the promise that was made in the 109th Congress by the then-Members of the minority about what they believed minority rights should be should be, in fact, implemented. Because, unfortunately, while we can talk about these great things, when you go down the line seriatim, looking at each individual item, making sure that we do have Members of the minority guaranteed to have a right in conference committees to be there, bringing an end to considering measures without a 24-hour waiting period, these kinds of rights that the then-minority believed were imperative for the minority to have are, unfortunately, not included in this package. This is what I find to be very troubling. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished Chair.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time so I might respond, these were not my proposals, Mr. Speaker. These were not my proposals. These were proposals put forward by Members of the new majority, and they were the commitments, the promises, and the obligations that they made as far as enforcement of minority rights that they believed to be so important. That was the platform on which they ran in November, Mr. Speaker. I believe that what we should do is do all that we can to simply point to the fact that this title III on civility, which is supposed to be reflective of these notions, is in no way emblematic of H. Res. 686 that was introduced by the Members. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative, to authorize water recycling projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. This legislation, which passed the House in the 109th Congress, is an important component of southern California's regional water management. The Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative authorizes $30 million for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District to assist in constructing two water recycling projects. The projects will produce nearly 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually to the area's water supply. This initiative has the support of all member agencies of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, which encompasses 240 square miles in southern California. It also serves a number of cities I represent, including the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland and Montclair. These water agencies are using high quality recycled water in many water intensive applications, like landscape and agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. This allows fresh water to be conserved or used for drinking, which reduces our dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, these agencies ensure that we ring the last drop of use out of water before it is ultimately returned to the environment. It is imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. This recycling initiative will help meet the water needs of the Inland Empire and begin a strategic federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water supply to the region. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation has already recognized the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative as one of the most cost effective water reuse projects. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga Valley Water District), and the Monte Vista Water District. I look forward to working closely with the House Resources Committee, and with the new Water and Power Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, who is a cosponsor of this bill and has been a champion of regional water solutions. I am also pleased to have the continued support of my colleagues, Ken Calvert and Gary Miller.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will continue to provide safe drinking water to Southern California. In 2000, Congress created the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund after the discovery of perchlorate and other harmful contaminants in the basin's groundwater. The fund initially authorized $85 million in federal funding to assist the state and local government agencies as well as the private companies found responsible for the contamination to effectively implement a comprehensive clean up plan that would protect the safety of our region's drinking water supply. After evaluation, it is evident that an increase in this authorization is necessary. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to amend the original authorization by increasing the total amount by $50 million. The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA) has done a tremendous job in administering the clean up program. In 1999, the WQA projected the cost of cleaning up the San Gabriel Basin at a total of $320 million based on the level of contamination of the five original Operable Units of Baldwin Park, El Monte, South El Monte, Whittier Narrows and Puente Valley. Since the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund was authorized by Congress in 2000, dramatically increased contamination levels have been identified in the South El Monte and Puente Valley Operable Units. This discovery has significantly increased both the capitol and operation and maintenance costs of the projects. With the cost of inflation, increased energy costs and the higher contamination levels found, the total cost is now estimated at $1 billion. Significantly, the WQA has a number of treatment plants that are already operating at full capacity with more coming on line in the near future. The San Gabriel Groundwater Basin covers more than 160 square miles in Los Angeles County and is the primary source of drinking water for over 1.2 million people. Furthermore, natural groundwater flows from the San Gabriel Basin are allowing the contamination to spread into the Central Groundwater Basin, a vast 277 square-mile underground aquifer that provides drinking water to over half of Los Angeles County. In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over the past decade on this regional solution, there is no doubt that this increase is warranted and will be utilized in the most effective way to continue to provide safe drinking water. I look forward to working closely with the House Resources Committee, and with the new Water and Power Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, who is a cosponsor of this bill and has been a champion of regional water solutions. I am also pleased to have the support of my colleagues Adam Schiff, Hilda Solis and Gary Miller, who are cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I do congratulate my colleagues. I want to begin by saying as a Californian that I am very proud of the fact that California has provided the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similarly, I have congratulated our colleague, Ms. Slaughter, who will be the first woman to chair the Rules Committee in our Nation's history. This has been a historic day and I believe a very exciting day for us. I am pleased that we have been able to do a number of things already in a bipartisan way, and I think this issue of ethics and lobbying reform, building on the reforms that we passed in the 109th Congress, utilizing those very positive provisions, is exactly what we are about to vote on here in just a few minutes; and I think that it is a time when we can be civil. And I will say to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American people want us to deal with these problems, and I will reaffirm my commitment to my colleagues on the Rules Committee that I will continue to strive to comport myself in the most dignified way possible in dealing with my colleagues, and I urge support of this very important measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to congratulate the gentleman from New Hampshire. We welcome him here. Unfortunately, this package doesn't start today and start now. It starts March 1 of 2007, 2 months from now. I also want to say to my very good friend from Massachusetts once again that if you look at the package that we passed in May of last year, it is a package that enjoyed bipartisan support. It is one of which we are very proud. And I believe that if you look at the fact that we did go beyond preventing registered lobbyists from coming onto the House floor and the gym, we are doing many of those same things here. It has been done before. And that is why we are proud to be here in support of this effort, which, again, some of us believe does not go far enough and there are some problems with it, but we do believe it is a positive step. Why? Because it is a reaffirmation of what Speaker Hastert led us to last year. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just, before yielding to the gentleman from Marietta, say very quickly again, the legislation that passed the House, H.R. 4975, specifically banned the K Street Project. Look at the language. It is virtually identical. We focused on the issue of lobbyist travel and gifts. And I believe that we can come together in a bipartisan way. We want to work in a civil tone, as was outlined by Speaker Pelosi today. Mr. Speaker, with that I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me, again, say that we look forward to supporting this package, much of which, the items that the gentlewoman just outlined, were included in H.R. 4975, which passed this House last May with strong bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? If you will recall, we passed H.R. 4975.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this package. Once again, I think we will have an opportunity for bipartisanship. The issue of ethics and lobbying reform is something that we believe is very, very important. As I sit here today, I am reminded of the fact that 1 year ago this month, Speaker Hastert and I stood right upstairs in the press gallery and unveiled a package for lobbying and ethics reform, which was maligned by many of our colleagues, unfortunately. But I will say that I am very pleased with the fact that we were ultimately able to pass out of the House our measure, which did a number of things that I am happy to see are incorporated in this provision that is coming forward from the new majority. The thing that troubles me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this was done in a unilateral way. We are all very proud of the fact that we have a working, strong, vibrant bipartisan Ethics Committee. It would have been great if we could have had the Ethics Committee come forward with these recommendations. There has been no consultation whatsoever between the majority and the minority, although I will say, again, I congratulate those Members of the new majority for including, including many of the items that were either incorporated in H.R. 4975, which was our lobbying and disclosure act that we passed out of the House last year, and some of the provisions that Speaker Hastert and I outlined a year ago this month: free clearance of travel, a ban on travel and an end to gifts. An end to the K Street Project. These are all very important reforms that I do think are essential. I will say this, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my very good friend from Massachusetts, and I congratulate him on his new position in the majority on the Rules Committee, what happens between today and March 1 of this year? Well, let us see, we have the month of January and the month of February, and, guess what, under this package, the status quo in the 110th Congress, under the Democratic majority, remains in place without any kind of reform or change. So I have got to ask rhetorically, anyone who wants to answer as to why we are waiting until March 1 before we see any kind of implementation here. They want to see guidelines put forward, maybe by the Ethics Committee. If that is what they would like to do, why don't we impose an immediate ban until they come up with recommended guidelines? So I will say that as I listen to these proposals, they are interesting, I am very pleased that they have incorporated them. I don't believe they go far enough. In a few minutes, my colleagues, Mr. Kirk and Mr. Shadegg, will be talking about concern on the pension issue, which unfortunately has been left out of this, but I do believe that by and large this is a measure that is going to be worthy of bipartisan support, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we can, in fact, join in a bipartisan way in supporting implementation of title I of this provision. And I believe that it is great that my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) began heaping praise on the many accomplishments of the 104th Congress when we implemented things like an end to proxy voting, term limits on committee chairmen, and the other items which we have which go on and on and on, increased transparency and accountability and disclosure. I will say that, as I have said, I am very, very troubled and saddened by the inconsistency when it comes to the issue of transparency and disclosure in light of the discussion that Mr. Hastings of Pasco, Washington and I have had about closing down transparency in the Rules Committee now. My friend from Florida mentioned the fact that I may be the champion of closed rules. I will admit that as chairman of the Rules Committee, I did bring more than a few closed rules here, primarily on bills that related to tax issues, which was done under the Democratic majorities of the past and I suspect will be done in the future as well. But I will say this: Never before, never before have I, as chairman of the Rules Committee, prevented the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to deliberate and including in an opening day rules package five closed rules. I am concerned as we move forward with that. We will have that debate later on. But I look forward to urging my colleagues to join in support of title I. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.