mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume ; and i thank my friend , the gentleman from texas ( mr. sessions ) xz4003670 , for yielding me the time . 
it is a new year , mr. speaker , a new congress and new presidential term . 
we have heard new commitments to work across party lines and calls for civility and camaraderie in the halls of the capitol . 
we have heard the president speak of a more civilized washington and a bipartisan approach to the legislative process . 
then and now congress starts its work . 
the rhetoric starts ; reality sets in . 
we are not even 2 full weeks into the house legislative calendar , and it is starting to sound like the same old song and dance . 
any way we look at it , mr. speaker , process or policy , the house is off to a bad start . 
it is the first day of normal legislative business in the 109th congress , and the house is already considering a restrictive rule for a bill that has not gone through proper house procedures . 
new congress members just coming from parliamentary procedure training session must be doing a double-take . 
they just spent a week in a refresher course on how a bill becomes a law . 
then , all of the sudden , that process has not been followed on one of their first votes . 
i guess i was confused , too , and what i can say to them is , welcome to washington . 
the proponents of the underlying legislation will try to argue that it is not a new bill because it was first introduced in the 108th congress . 
while that might be true , the committee on financial services did not act on the bill in the 108th congress , and it has not acted on it in this year . 
i ask , why is the full house considering a relatively controversial piece of legislation without any committee action ? 
why the rush ? 
why set such a precedent for the 109th congress ' beginning ? 
the committee on financial services , the committee of jurisdiction for the underlying legislation , will not even organize itself until next week , let alone hold a hearing or markup on my good friend 's , and he is my good friend , the gentleman from delaware 's bill . 
think about it this way : the first bill that the house is considering in the 109th congress under normal rules actually makes it harder to pass legislation and create laws honoring our country 's greatest heroes . 
just like social security , some of my republican friends are trying to create a problem where one does not exist . 
as the gentleman from texas already noted , the rule does make in order two amendments offered by my good friend , the gentleman from new york ( mr. crowley ) xz4000870 . 
the first crowley amendment increases the total number of medals of honor to be permitted awarded from four to six per congress . 
the second crowley amendment provides for an equitable distribution of gold medals between the majority and the minority . 
while i intend to support both of these amendments , and certainly appreciate them being made in order , the committee on rules failed to make in order a third crowley amendment which would have maintained the status quo . 
that amendment would have ensured that worthy groups or individuals and organizations remain eligible to receive the congressional medal of honor . 
the committee on rules also rejected along a party-line vote an amendment to the rule which would have made it open to all germane amendments . 
if the underlying legislation were to become law , president and nancy reagan never would have received the medal because they received it as a couple . 
neither would dr . 
martin luther king and coretta scott king , joseph delaine and harry and eliza briggs , billy and ruth graham , president and betty ford , the navajo code talkers or the american red cross , just to name a few . 
can anyone in this body honestly suggest that the individuals aforementioned and organizations are unworthy of this institution 's top award ? 
is there an epidemic of distributing too many congressional medals of honor to unworthy recipients that somehow or another has escaped at least me in knowing about them ? 
mr. speaker , i am not worried about congress going on a spree to award the medal of honor to unworthy recipients . 
the rules applied by the committee on financial services to even consider a bill awarding the congressional medal of honor are so stringent that the integrity and prestige of the award will always be protected . 
on the contrary , if today is any indication , perhaps we ought to be just a bit more concerned about the integrity of procedure in the house of representatives than about the integrity of a system that is dependent upon bipartisan cooperation . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
