[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7-H31]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5)
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of
the One Hundred Eighth Congress, including applicable
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted
rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Eighth
Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, with
amendments to the standing rules as provided in section 2 and
with other orders as provided in section 3.
SEC. 2. CHANGES IN STANDING RULES.
(a) Committee on Homeland Security.--
(1) In clause 1 of rule X, insert after paragraph (h) the
following new paragraph (and redesignate the succeeding
paragraphs accordingly):
``(i) Committee on Homeland Security.
``(1) Overall homeland security policy.
``(2) Organization and administration of the Department of
Homeland Security.
``(3) Functions of the Department of Homeland Security
relating to the following:
``(A) Border and port security (except immigration policy
and non-border enforcement).
``(B) Customs (except customs revenue).
``(C) Integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland
security information.
``(D) Domestic preparedness for and collective response to
terrorism.
``(E) Research and development.
``(F) Transportation security.''.
(2) In clause 1(I) (as redesignated) of rule X--
(A) insert after subparagraph (6) the following new
subparagraph (and redesignate the succeeding subparagraphs
accordingly):
``(7) Criminal law enforcement.''; and (B) amend
subparagraph (9) (as redesignated) to read as follows:
``(9) Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.''.
(3) In clause 1(r) (as redesignated) of rule X--
(A) in subparagraph (18) insert before the period ``(except
the Transportation Security Administration)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (20) after ``automobile safety'' insert
``and transportation security functions of the Department of
Homeland Security''.
(4) In clause 1(t)(1) (as redesignated) of rule X, strike
``Customs'' and insert ``Customs revenue''.
(5) In clause 3 of rule X, insert after paragraph (e) the
following new paragraph (and redesignate the succeeding
paragraphs accordingly):
``(f) The Committee on Homeland Security shall review and
study on a continuing basis all Government activities
relating to homeland security, including the interaction of
all departments and agencies with the Department of Homeland
Security.''.
(6) In clause 10 of rule I, strike ``1(i)(1)'' and insert
``1(j)(1)''.
(7) In clause 1(j)(4) (as redesignated) of rule X, strike
``(q)(11)'' and insert ``(r)(11)''.
(8) In clause 1(j)(5) (as redesignated) of rule X, strike
``(q)(11)'' and insert ``(r)(11)''.
(9) In clause 9(f) of rule X, strike ``1(i)(1)'' and insert
``1(j)(1)''.
(10) In clause 1(c) of rule XI, strike ``1(i)(1)'' and
insert ``1(j)(1)''.
(11) In clause 4(a)(2)(B) of rule XIII, strike ``1(i)(1)''
and insert ``1(j)(1)''.
(12) In clause 5(a)(3) of rule XIII, strike ``1(i)(1)'' and
insert ``1(j)(1)''.
(13) In clause 10 of rule XXIV, strike ``1(i)(1)'' and
insert ``1(j)(1)''.
(b) Committee Oversight Responsibilities.--In clause
2(d)(1) of rule X--
(1) in subdivision (C), strike ``and'';
(2) in subdivision (D), strike the period and insert ``;
and''; and
(3) add at the end the following new subdivision:
``(E) have a view toward insuring against duplication of
Federal programs.''.
(C) Membership of Committees.--
[[Page H8]]
(1) In clause 5(a)(2) of rule X--
(A) amend subdivisions (A)(ii) and (A)(iii) to read as
follows:
``(ii) one Member designated by the elected leadership of
the majority party; and
``(iii) one Member designated by the elected leadership of
the minority party.''; and
(B) amend subdivision (B) by striking ``one from the
elected leadership of a party'' and inserting ``one described
in subdivision (A)(ii) or (A)(iii)''.
(2) In clause 5(c)(2) of rule X, strike ``A member'' and
insert ``Except in the case of the Committee on Rules, a
member''.
(d) Committee Authorities.--
(1) In clause 1 of rule XI, amend paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
``(a)(1)(A) The Rules of the House are the rules of its
committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.
``(B) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is
subject to the authority and direction of that committee and
to its rules, so far as applicable.
``(2)(A) In a committee or subcommittee--
``(i) a motion to recess from day to day, or to recess
subject to the call of the Chair (within 24 hours), shall be
privileged; and
``(ii) a motion to dispense with the first reading (in
full) of a bill or resolution shall be privileged if printed
copies are available.
``(B) A motion accorded privilege under this subparagraph
shall be decided without debate.''.
(2) In clause 2(a) of rule XI, add at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(3) A committee may adopt a rule providing that the
chairman be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule
XXII whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.''.
(e) Motions To Suspend the Rules.--In clause 1 of rule XV--
(1) amend the caption to read: ``Suspensions''; and
(2) in paragraph (a) amend the second sentence to read as
follows: ``The Speaker may not entertain a motion that the
House suspend the rules except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and
Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of
Congress.''.
(f) Repeal of Corrections Calendar.--
(1) In rule XV, strike clause 6 (and redesignate the
succeeding clause accordingly).
(2) In clause 1 of rule XIII, strike paragraph (b) (and
redesignate the succeeding paragraph accordingly).
(3) In clause 4(a)(2) of rule XIII, strike subdivision (C)
(and redesignate succeeding subdivisions accordingly).
(4) In clause 6(c)(1) of rule XIII, strike ``clause 7'' and
insert ``clause 6''.
(5) In clause 2(a) of rule XVIII, strike ``clause 7'' and
insert ``clause 6''.
(6) In clause 8(a)(2) of rule XX--
(A) strike subdivisions (E) and (G) (and redesignate
succeeding subdivisions accordingly); and
(B) amend subdivision (E) (as redesignated) by striking
``(D), or (E)'' and inserting ``or (D)''.
(g) References in Debate to the Senate.--In clause 1 of
rule XVII, amend paragraph (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Remarks in debate (which may include references to
the Senate or its Members) shall be confined to the question
under debate, avoiding personality.''.
(h) Provisional Quorum.--In clause 5 of rule XX,
redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and insert after
paragraph (b) the following new paragraph:
``(c) (1) If the House should be without a quorum due to
catastrophic circumstances, then--
``(A) until there appear in the House a sufficient number
of Representatives to constitute a quorum among the whole
number of the House, a quorum in the House shall be
determined based upon the provisional number of the House;
and
``(B) the provisional number of the House, as of the close
of the call of the House described in subparagraph (3)(C),
shall be the number of Representatives responding to that
call of the House.
``(2) If a Representative counted in determining the
provisional number of the House thereafter ceases to be a
Representative, or if a Representative not counted in
determining the provisional number of the House thereafter
appears in the House, the provisional number of the House
shall be adjusted accordingly.
``(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the House shall
be considered to be without a quorum due to catastrophic
circumstances if, after a motion under clause 5(a) of rule XX
has been disposed of and without intervening adjournment,
each of the following occurs in the stated sequence:
``(A) A call of the House (or a series of calls of the
House) is closed after aggregating a period in excess of 72
hours (excluding time the House is in recess) without
producing a quorum.
``(B) The Speaker--
``(i) with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader,
receives from the Sergeant-at-Arms (or his designee) a
catastrophic quorum failure report, as described in
subparagraph (4);
``(ii) consults with the Majority Leader and the Minority
Leader on the content of that report; and
``(iii) announces the content of that report to the House.
``(C) A further call of the House (or a series of calls of
the House) is closed after aggregating a period in excess of
24 hours (excluding time the House is in recess) without
producing a quorum.
``(4)(A) For purposes of subparagraph (3), a catastrophic
quorum failure report is a report advising that the inability
of the House to establish a quorum is attributable to
catastrophic circumstances involving natural disaster,
attack, contagion, or similar calamity rendering
Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the
House.
``(B) Such report shall specify the following:
``(i) The number of vacancies in the House and the names of
former Representatives whose seats are vacant.
``(ii) The names of Representatives considered
incapacitated.
``(iii) The names of Representatives not incapacitated but
otherwise incapable of attending the proceedings of the
House.
``(iv) The names of Representatives unaccounted for.
``(C) Such report shall be prepared on the basis of the
most authoritative information available after consultation
with the Attending Physician to the Congress and the Clerk
(or their respective designees) and pertinent public health
and law enforcement officials.
``(D) Such report shall be updated every legislative day
for the duration of any proceedings under or in reliance on
this paragraph. The Speaker shall make such updates available
to the House.
``(5) An announcement by the Speaker under subparagraph
(3)(B)(iii) shall not be subject to appeal.
``(6) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to a proposal to
create a vacancy in the representation from any State in
respect of a Representative not incapacitated but otherwise
incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.
``(7) For purposes of this paragraph:
``(A) The term `provisional number of the House' means the
number of Representatives upon which a quorum will be
computed in the House until Representatives sufficient in
number to constitute a quorum among the whole number of the
House appear in the House.
``(B) The term `whole number of the House' means the number
of Representatives chosen, sworn, and living whose membership
in the House has not been terminated by resignation or by the
action of the House.''.
(i) Postponement of Certain Votes.--In clause 8(a)(2) of
rule XX, add at the end the following new subdivisions:
``(G) The question of agreeing to a motion to reconsider or
the question of agreeing to a motion to lay on the table a
motion to reconsider.
``(H) The question of agreeing to an amendment reported
from the Committee of the Whole.''.
(j) Official Conduct.--
(1) In rule XXIV, amend clause 1 to read as follows:
``1. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not maintain, or have
maintained for his use, an unofficial office account. Funds
may not be paid into an unofficial office account.
``(b)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commission may defray official expenses
with funds of his principal campaign committee under the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq).
``(2) The funds specified in subparagraph (1) may not be
used to defray official expenses for mail or other
communications, compensation for services, office space,
furniture, or equipment, and any associated information
technology services (excluding handheld communications
devices).''.
(2) In clause 6 of rule XXIII, amend paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
``(c) except as provided in clause 1(b) of rule XXIV, may
not expend funds from his campaign account that are not
attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.''.
(3) In clause 8 of rule XXIV, strike ``60 days'' and insert
``90 days''.
(4) In clause 5(b)(4)(D) of rule XXV, strike ``either the
spouse or a child of the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee'' and insert ``a relative
of the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee''.
(k) Procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.--
(1) Due Process.--In clause 3 of rule XI--
(A) in paragraph (k), add at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
``(3) The committee shall adopt rules providing that before
a letter described in subparagraph (1)(A) is issued, the
committee shall transmit written notification to the Member,
officer, or employee of the House against whom the complaint
is made of the right of such person to review the contents of
the letter. Such person shall have seven calendar days after
receipt of such notification in which either to accept the
letter (in which case the committee may issue the letter), to
contest the letter by submitting views in writing (which
shall be appended to the letter when issued and made part of
the record), or to contest the letter by requesting in
writing that the committee establish an adjudicatory
subcommittee as if the letter constituted an adopted
statement of alleged violation (in which case the committee
shall establish an adjudicatory subcommittee and shall not
issue the letter).
``(4) The committee shall adopt rules providing that, if a
letter described in subparagraph (1)(A) references the
official conduct of a Member other than one against whom the
complaint is made, the committee shall transmit written
notification to such Member of the right of such Member to
review
[[Page H9]]
the contents of the letter. Such Member shall have seven
calendar days after receipt of notification in which either
to submit views in writing (which shall be made part of the
record and appended to the letter, if issued), or to request
in writing that the committee establish an adjudicatory
subcommittee as if the letter constituted an adopted
statement of alleged violation (in which case the committee
shall establish an adjudicatory subcommittee).'';
(B) in paragraph (p), insert after subparagraph (5) the
following new subparagraphs (and redesignate succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly):
``(6) whenever notification of the committee's decision
either to dismiss a complaint or to create an investigative
subcommittee is transmitted to a respondent, such respondent
shall have seven calendar days after receipt of such
notification in which to submit views in writing, which shall
be appended to the notification and made part of the record;
``(7) whenever notification of the committee's decision
either to dismiss a complaint or to create an investigative
subcommittee is transmitted to a respondent and the
notification references the official conduct of a Member
other than the respondent, the committee also shall send the
notification to such Member, who shall have seven calendar
days after receipt of such notification in which either to
submit views in writing (which shall be appended to the
notification and made part of the record), or to request in
writing that the committee establish an adjudicatory
subcommittee as if the notification constituted an adopted
statement of alleged violation (in which case the committee
shall establish an adjudicatory subcommittee);''; and
(C) in paragraph (q)--
(i) amend subparagraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt
a statement of alleged violation--
``(A) it shall transmit a report to that effect to the
respondent, who shall have seven calendar days after receipt
of such report to submit views in writing, which shall be
appended to the report and made part of the record;
``(B) it shall thereafter transmit the report (together
with views received under subparagraph (2), if any) to the
committee; and
``(C) the committee may by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members transmit such report to the House;''
and
(ii) insert after subparagraph (1) the following new
subparagraph (and redesignate succeeding subparagraphs
accordingly):
``(2) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt
a statement of alleged violation and prepares a report to
that effect, and such report alleges that a Member (other
than one who is the subject of the statement of alleged
violation) has or may have violated the Code of Official
Conduct--
``(A) the subcommittee shall transmit a copy of the report
to such Member; and
``(B) such Member shall have seven calendar days after
receipt of the report (after which the report shall be
transmitted to the committee and handled in the manner
prescribed in subparagraph (1)) to--
``(i) submit views in writing, which shall be appended to
the report and made part of the record; or
``(ii) request in writing that the committee establish an
adjudicatory subcommittee as if the allegations in the report
constituted an adopted statement of alleged violation, in
which case the committee shall establish an adjudicatory
subcommittee;''.
(2) Dismissal of Complaints.--In clause 3 of rule XI--
(A) in paragraph (b), strike the undesignated text
following subparagraph (2)(B);
(B) in paragraph (k)(1)(B), insert after ``subcommittee''
the following: ``(unless, at any time during the applicable
periods of time under this subparagraph, either the chairman
or ranking minority member has placed on the agenda the issue
of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, in
which case an investigative subcommittee may be established
only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of
the committee)''; and
(C) in paragraph (k)(2), strike ``then they shall
establish'' and all that follows and insert ``and an
investigative subcommittee has not been established, then
such complaint shall be dismissed.''.
(3) Choice of counsel by respondents and witnesses.--In
clause 3(p) of rule XI--
(A) amend the caption to read ``Due process rights of
respondents and witnesses'';
(B) amend subparagraph 9 (as redesignated) by striking
``and'' after the semicolon;
(C) amend subparagraph 10 (as redesignated) by striking the
period and inserting a semicolon; and
(D) add at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(11) a respondent shall be informed of the right to be
represented by counsel of his or her choice (even if such
counsel represents another respondent or a witness), to be
provided at his or her own expense; and
``(12) a witness shall be afforded a reasonable period of
time, as determined by the committee or subcommittee, to
prepare for an appearance before an investigative
subcommittee or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain
counsel of his or her choice (even if such counsel represents
a respondent or another witness).''.
(I) Technical and codifying changes.--
(1) In clause 1(s) (as redesignated) of rule X--
(A) in subparagraph (6), strike ``servicemen'' and insert
``servicemembers''; and
(B) in subparagraph (7), strike ``Soldiers'' and sailors'''
and insert ``Servicemembers'''.
(2) In clause 5(b)(2)(B)(iii) of rule X strike ``must'' and
insert ``may''.
(3) In clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII, after ``clause 4''
insert ``or clause 6''.
(4) In clause 6 (as redesignated) of rule XV--
(A) in paragraph (e) strike ``rule'' and insert ``clause'';
and
(B) in paragraph (f) strike ``for a recess'' and insert
``that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess''.
(5) In clause 5(b) of rule XX, strike ``a majority of those
present'' and insert ``a majority described in paragraph
(a)''.
(6) In clause 5(d) (as redesignated) of rule XX, strike
``or removal'' and insert ``removal, or swearing''.
(7) In the second sentence of clause 2(f) of rule XXI,
strike ``is not subject'' and insert ``are not subject''.
(8) In clause 7(c) of rule XXII, amend subparagraph (3) to
read as follows:
``(3) During the last six days of a session of Congress, a
motion under subparagraph (1) shall be privileged after a
conference committee has been appointed for 36 hours without
making a report and the motion meets the notice
requirement in subparagraph (1).''.
SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.
(a) Budget Matters.--
(1) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, references in
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to a
resolution shall be construed in the House of Representatives
as references to a joint resolution.
(2) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, in the case of a
reported bill or joint resolution considered pursuant to a
special order of business, a point of order under section 303
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be determined
on the basis of the text made in order as an original bill or
joint resolution for the purpose of amendment or to the text
on which the previous question is ordered directly to
passage, as the case may be.
(3) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, a provision in a
bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a
conference report thereon, that establishes prospectively for
a Federal office or position a specified or minimum level of
compensation to be funded by annual discretionary
appropriations shall not be considered as providing new
entitlement authority under section 401 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
(4)(A) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, until a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is
adopted by the Congress, the provisions of the conference
report to accompany Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 of the
One Hundred Eighth Congress shall have force and effect in
the House as though the One Hundred Ninth Congress has
adopted such conference report.
(B) The allocations of spending authority included in the
conference report, as adjusted during the 108th Congress,
shall be considered the allocations contemplated by section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Certain Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of
rule X, during the One Hundred Ninth Congress--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services may have not more than
six subcommittees;
(2) the Committee on International Relations may have not
more than seven subcommittees; and
(3) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may
have not more than six subcommittees.
(c) Numbering of Bills.--In the One Hundred Ninth Congress,
the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) shall
be reserved for assignment by the Speaker to such bills as he
may designate.
Mr. DeLAY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Point of Order
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a constitutional point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are preparing to consider,
the proposed rules for the 109th Congress, in my judgment violates the
United States Constitution which we were just sworn to uphold and
defend. It does so by allowing a very limited number of Members,
potentially only a handful, to constitute the House of Representatives.
{time} 1430
Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution states that ``each House
shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its
Members, and a majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do
Business; but a small Number adjourn from day to day, and may be
authorized to compel the attendance of absent Members.''
[[Page H10]]
Unfortunately, H. Res. 5 seeks to allow a small number not just to
adjourn or compel attendance, as the Constitution stipulates, but to
enact laws, declare war, impeach the President, and fulfill all other
article I responsibilities.
The very first act of the very first Congress of the United States
was to recess day after day after day because they lacked a quorum.
Just moments ago everyone in this body took an oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution, and now our first official vote is by rule to
undermine a fundamental principle of that Constitution, i.e., what is a
quorum. It is my understanding that the Speaker is reluctant to judge
on matters of constitutionality. I respect that. But I would reserve
and inform the Speaker it is my intent to ask the question of
consideration to be put.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that the gentleman
is absolutely right when he states that the Chair does not rule on
questions of constitutionality.
I would also like to say that on this question that is being brought
forward by my friend, it is very clear to me based on statements that
have been made by a wide range of constitutional scholars that what we
are doing in the rules package that we are about to consider is in fact
constitutional. In fact, before the Committee on Rules the very
distinguished former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said the
following: ``It is simply inconceivable that a Constitution established
to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare would
leave the Nation unable to act in precisely the moment of greatest
peril. No constitutional amendment is required to enact the proposed
rule change because the Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to
ensure the preservation of government.''
Let me further, Mr. Speaker, say that the Committee on Rules intends
to conduct further examination of the best way for the House to assure
a continuity of government during a national emergency, and it is our
hope that as we proceed with this work that further discussions will
take place with the members of that very distinguished panel, the
Continuity Commission, which included our former colleague, Senator
Simpson, and Speakers Foley and Gingrich and former minority leader Bob
Michel, Leon Panetta, Kwasi Mfume, and I believe we will have a chance
to proceed with this; but I think it would be very appropriate for us
to proceed with consideration of the rules package that we have.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order. The
Constitution defines a quorum to conduct business as the majority of
each House.
The question of course before us in this debate is, a majority of
what? What is the denominator in that equation?
The precedent holds that the total number of the membership of the
House is those Members who are chosen, sworn and living and whose
membership has not been terminated by action of the House. Removal by
action of the House is also a defined term, expulsion by a vote of two-
thirds in article 1, section 5.
The Constitution also gives the House the authority to compel
attendance when Members do not answer the call of the Chair in such
manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. And, in
fact, the Sergeant at Arms has been sent to gather Members by force on
prior occasions.
This amendment before us to the rules gives the Speaker nearly
unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole
House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living but who do
not answer the call of the Chair. This would seem to amount to a
constructive expulsion without a two-thirds vote of the whole House.
For example, suppose the House is at its full complement of 435
Members. A quorum would then be 218. Now, suppose only 400 Members
answer the Speaker's call for whatever reason. They are still living.
They are still chosen. They are still sworn. They have not been
expelled. Now a quorum by order of the Speaker would be 200. The House
may conduct its business with only 200 Members present. If this is
triggered in a time of national emergency, the consequences could be
dire.
Mr. Speaker, we heard the distinguished chair, or maybe he is only
the presumptive chair, of the Committee on Rules, at this point; but in
any event, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said a moment ago
that this proposed rules change is constitutional because the
Constitution could not have contemplated that the House could not
function. But the Constitution did not contemplate that the majority of
the Members of the House might in fact be the victims of an act of mass
terrorism. Those things were not contemplated at the time.
The fact is we do need to amend the Constitution to take care of this
very serious question; but this provision for the reasons stated by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for the reasons that I stated a
moment ago, is clearly unconstitutional. Certainly, before we take such
a measure, it deserves much more extensive debate and hearings and
discussion than it can have by three or four speakers in this context
now.
So I urge that Members take careful consideration to the question of
constitutionality here. This may provoke court action, and we should
not adopt this now in the context of an overall rules change with this
very serious amendment to the Constitution, which is what it amounts
to; it cannot receive adequate consideration in terms of its
constitutionality either in terms of its merit.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this point of
order?
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I realize that September 11
was a tragic day in America, certainly a wake-up call within the
States.
I also remind the Members of this body that in the War of 1812 this
building was occupied by a foreign army. So for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they could not have foreseen these
circumstances taking place, what in the heck is he talking about? This
building was occupied and set on fire by a foreign army. And yet the
Congress at that time did not try to change the rules so that a
minority within a minority could govern.
If we are going to amend the Constitution, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird) is exactly right: someone should offer a
constitutional amendment. If we are going to change the law, then
someone should offer a change to the law; but let us not through the
House rules try to rewrite the Constitution of this Nation.
This Nation has been around for a long time. It is going to be around
for a long time, but only if we continue to do things as the Founding
Fathers would have wanted us to do them and not some backdoor-approach
like this.
The SPEAKER. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order that the
resolution adopting the rules of the House for the 109th Congress is
not in order because it contains a provision that the House does not
have the constitutional authority to propose.
As recorded in section 628 of the House Rules and Manual, citing
numerous precedents including volume 2 of Hinds' Precedents at sections
1318-1320, the Chair does not determine the constitutionality of a
proposition or judge the constitutional competency of the House to take
a proposed action, nor does the Chair submit such a question to the
House as a question of order. Rather, it is for the House to determine
such a question by its disposition of the proposition, such as by
voting on the question of its consideration, as recorded in volume 2 of
Hinds' Precedents of section 1255, or by voting on the question of its
adoption, as recorded in volume 2 of Hinds' Precedents at section 1320.
The Chair would apply these precedents even before the adoption of the
Rules of the House as a matter of general parliamentary law.
As such, the House may decide the issues raised by the gentleman by
way
[[Page H11]]
of the question of consideration of the resolution or the question of
adopting the resolution. The point of order is not cognizable.
Announcement By The Speaker
The SPEAKER. Before the gentleman proceeds, the Chair would like to
announce that any Member-elect who failed to take the oath of office
may present himself or herself in the well of the House prior to any
vote.
Swearing In Of Members-Elect
The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), kindly come to the well of the House and
take the oath of office at this time.
Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Maloney and Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida appeared
at the bar of the House and took the oath of office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and
that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office upon which you are about to enter. So help you God.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the oath of office that I
just took, I would request that the question of consideration be put to
the body.
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 5.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, this will be an electronic vote on
the question of consideration.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 192, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 3]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
PRESENT--1
Rohrabacher
NOT VOTING--11
Barrow
Capps
Cole (OK)
Feeney
Johnson (CT)
Larsen (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pascrell
Serrano
Simmons
Solis
Swearing in of Member-elect
The SPEAKER (during the vote). Will the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) kindly come to the well of the House and take the oath of
office at this time.
Mr. COX appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of office,
as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help you
God.
{time} 1508
Mr. RANGEL, Mr. OWENS and Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RADANOVICH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 3 on consideration
of H. Res. 5, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) or
her designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rules package. I am also
rising in support of the historic legislative agenda it will govern,
for today marks the beginning of what historians will likely look back
upon as the most productive and significant Congress in decades.
[[Page H12]]
The mandate granted the majority, evidenced by our increased
majorities in both Houses of Congress and the first Presidential
majority in 16 years, is clear. The American people have entrusted the
state of their security, prosperity and families to us; and over the
course of the next 2 years, that sacred trust will be honored by
action.
We will continue to defend our homeland and prosecute the war on
terror without retreat, and without excuses. We will provide our
military, and their families, with the resources they need to do their
heroic work on behalf of the Nation they serve.
We will hold rogue regimes accountable for their mischief, and hold
fast to our friends around the world, from defiant democrats in Israel
and Taiwan, to longstanding comrades-in-arms like the British and
Australians, to our resurgent allies in New Europe.
We will work with our ever-expanding coalition of the willing to
secure the fledging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and with every
political, economic, diplomatic and military tool at our disposal, see
the war on terror through to victory.
Domestically, our agenda will be no less audacious. We will continue
the work begun in President Bush's first term to cultivate an
opportunity society of economic choice and independence. We will
continue to break down the walls, erected by 40 years of liberal
policies, between the American people and their dreams. We will
continue to provide seniors with access to affordable, quality health
care while empowering them with unprecedented retirement security.
We will continue to take on the three-headed monster of over-
taxation, over-litigation and over-regulation that cuts the legs out
from every sector of our economy.
And while the 109th Congress helps increase our national security and
prosperity, we will also help American families raise their children in
a society defined by the values that made our Nation secure and
prosperous in the first place. We will continue to better protect and
educate our children, to protect the institution of marriage, to
protect the Constitution from judicial activism, and protect the role
of family and faith in the public square.
This rules package before us now will help us do this important work,
work the American people have hired us to do.
And yet, rather than laying out a positive vision for the next 2
years, or for that matter even discussing the substance of the rules
package itself, some may choose this debate to launch the first of what
I imagine will be countless personal attacks against the integrity of
the majority and, ultimately, the integrity of this institution.
It is a new year, Mr. Speaker, but an old game, and one to which we
cannot afford to stoop. Too much is at stake; too much depends on the
success of this historic 109th Congress.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would remind them all
that I know what it means to be in the minority, to go into contentious
votes certain of defeat, to always react to an agenda set by opponents.
But I must also remind them that when Republicans were in the minority,
we engaged in the battle of ideas. We developed, and specifically
proposed, a substantive vision for the future of our Nation.
In the 10 years since that vision was endorsed by our countrymen, we
have been honored to work with all members of the minority on one issue
or the other to develop successful legislative coalitions.
With our close partisan margins and 24-hour media culture, we
sometimes forget we are opponents, not enemies. We would all do well to
remember that, especially given the stakes, the significance and,
frankly, the sheer weight of the agenda before us.
So I urge all Members to support the rules package before us so we
can immediately get to work on behalf of the men and women who sent us
here.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to once again serve as leader; but even
with all of the gratitude I feel toward you, our conference and toward
this body, the source of the honor I feel today is not all in this
Chamber. The source of the honor each of us rightfully feels today is
our friends and families who have given us their love, the American
people who have given us their trust, the men and women in uniform who
put their lives on the line for us every day, and our heavenly Creator
who knitted us together in the womb.
Mr. Speaker, may God bless the work and workers of the 109th
Congress, may God bless the cause of justice and freedom around the
world, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time
allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his
fine statement and for yielding me the time to discuss this opening-day
rules package.
Mr. Speaker, the House is an institution built upon its rules.
Accordingly, it is very appropriate that one of the first orders of
business for this 109th Congress will be to adopt a rules package which
is both true to the traditions and very forward thinking in its outlook
for the work of this Congress that lies ahead.
The package we have before us represents the work product of many
Members. During the initial stages of compiling this rules package back
in November, the Committee on Rules received 40 different proposals
from both Democrats and Republicans. In addition to that, our committee
staff has actively sought the input of the officers of the House, its
committees and its caucuses to get their perspectives on the kinds of
changes we can make to facilitate the work of the House.
All of the ideas contained in this resolution reflect the considered
judgment of our colleagues and will ultimately improve our ability to
carry out our constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record at this point detail on each of
these changes in a section-by-section analysis.
Section-By-Section Summary of H. Res. 5, Adopting House Rules for the
109th Congress
SECTION 1. RESOLVED CLAUSE.
The rules of the House of Representatives for the 108th
Congress are adopted as the rules of the House for the 99th
Congress with amendments as provided in section 2 and with
other orders as provided in section 3.
SEC. 2. CHANGES IN STANDING RULES.
(a) Committee on Homeland Security. Creates a standing
Committee on Homeland Security, and grants it legislative and
oversight jurisdiction. First, the Committee's jurisdiction
includes overall homeland security policy so that it can
focus on national policies affecting the Federal government.
Second, the jurisdiction includes authority over the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s internal
administration. Third, the Committee would have jurisdiction
over functions of the DHS relating to six specified areas.
These include: (A) Border and port security (except
immigration policy and non-border enforcement); (B) Customs
(except customs revenue); (C) Integration, analysis and
dissemination of homeland security information; (D) Domestic
preparedness for and collective response to terrorism; (E)
Research and development; and (F) Transportation security.
Additionally, the Committee would have broad oversight
authority over government-wide homeland security matters.
Finally, changes are made to the jurisdictions of three
committees. First, the Committee on the Judiciary's
jurisdiction is modified by adding new subparagraphs for
Criminal law enforcement and Immigration policy and non-
border enforcement. Second, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure's jurisdiction is modified to exclude
transportation security by adding exceptions in two
subparagraphs. Third, the Committee on Ways and Means'
jurisdiction is modified by adding the word ``revenue'' to
the clause containing customs. [Rule X]
(b) General oversight responsibilities--insuring against
duplicative programs. Adds to the required list of content
included in each standing committee's adopted oversight plan
as submitted to the Committees on Government Reform and House
Administration a review of Federal programs with a view to
insuring against duplication of such programs. [Rule X,
clause 2(d)(1)]
(c)(1) Membership of Budget Committee. Permits one member
of the Budget committee majority and one member of the
minority to be ``designated'' by the respective elected
leaderships. Current rules require such members to be
``from'' elected leadership. [Rule X, clause 5(a)(2)]
(c)(2) Rules Committee Organization. Authorizes the
chairman of the Committee on Rules to serve as chairman,
notwithstanding the prohibition on serving more than three
consecutive terms. [Rule X, clause 5(c)(2)]
(d)(1) Privileged motions in committee--Recess subject to
the call of the chair. Allows for a privileged motion in
committee to
[[Page H13]]
recess subject to the call of the chair for a period less
than 24 hours. Currently only a motion to recess from day to
day is privileged. [Rule XI, clause 1(a)(1)(B)]
(d)(2) Motion to go to conference. Allows committees to
adopt a rule directing the chairman of the committee to offer
a privileged motion to go to conference at any time the
chairman deems it appropriate during a Congress. Currently a
motion to request or agree to a conference with the Senate is
privileged if the committee authorizes the chairman to make
such a motion. [Rule XI, clause 2(a)]
(e) Motion to suspend the rules. Extends suspension
authority beyond Monday or Tuesday to include Wednesday.
[Rule XV, clause 1(a)]
(f) Repeal of Corrections Calendar. Removes Corrections
Calendar from the Standing Rules of the House. [Rule XV,
clause 6]
(g) Allows references to the Senate. Allows remarks in
debate to include references to the Senate or its Members.
Remarks are to be confined to the question under debate,
avoiding personality. [Rule XVII, clause 1]
(h) Provisional quorum. Provides for continuity of
legislative operations in the House in the event of
catastrophic circumstances. The rule allows for the House to
conduct business with a provisional quorum only after a
motion to compel members attendance, as prescribed under
clause 5(a) of rule XX, has been disposed of and the
following occur in sequence without the House adjourning: (A)
A call of the House or a series of calls of the House
totaling 72 hours without producing a quorum; (B) the
Speaker, with the Minority and Majority Leaders, receive from
the Sergeant-at-Arms (or his designee) a catastrophic quorum
failure report and shall consult with the Minority and
Majority Leaders on the contents of such report and shall
announce the contents of such report to the House; and (C) A
further call of the House or series of calls are conducted
for a total of 24 hours without producing a quorum. A
catastrophic quorum failure report is defined as a report
advising that the inability of the House to establish a
quorum is attributable to catastrophic circumstances
involving natural disaster, attack, contagion, or similar
calamity rendering Members incapable of being present. The
report shall be prepared on the basis of the most
authoritative information available after consultation with
the Attending Physician, the Clerk and pertinent public
health and law enforcement officials. A catastrophic quorum
failure report shall describe the number of vacancies in the
House, the names of Members considered to be inacapacitated,
the names of Members not incapacitated, but otherwise
incapable of being present, and the names of Members
unaccounted for. The report shall be updated every
legislative day and such updates shall be made available to
the House. [Rule XX, clause 5(c)]
(i) Postponement of certain votes. Adds the motion to
reconsider, tabling motions to reconsider and amendments
reported from the Committee of the Whole among those votes
the Speaker may postpone to a designated place in the
legislative schedule within two additional legislative days.
[Rule XX, clause (a)(2)]
(j)(1)-(2) Allowing the use of campaign funds to pay for
certain official expenses. Allows Members to use campaign
funds to pay certain, limited types of official expenses
(e.g., handheld communication devices). This change conforms
House Rules to current law (Sec. 105, P.L. 108-83), and
mirrors Rules that took effect in the Senate in 2002. [Rule
XXIV and Rule XXIII, clause 6(c)]
(j)(3) Use of frank for mass mailings before an election.
Amends the rule to conform to section 3210 of title 39 United
States Code, stating that a mass mailing is not frankable
when it is postmarked less than 90 days before the date of a
primary or general election which he is a candidate for
public office. Currently the rules states 60 days. [Rule
XXIV, clause 8]
(j)(4) Gift rule on officially connected travel. Expands
the category of individuals who may accompany a Member or
staff person on such a trip at the sponsor's expense to
include a relative of the Member or the staff person. Under a
provision of the current gift rule (clause 5(b)(4)(D) of the
House Rule XXV), a Member or staff person may be accompanied
on a privately funded, officially connected trip, at the
sponsor's expense, only by either his or her ``spouse or a
child'', and not by any other relative. [Rule XXV, clause
5(b)(4)(D)]
(k)(1) Due process for Members. Affords Members the
opportunity to be heard in the event the Standards Committee
alleges the Member has violated or may have violated the Code
of Conduct. Members may opt for either an adjudicatory
proceeding or they can submit a response to the Committee
report/letter with their response being made public with
Committee report/letter. Under the current rule, the Chairman
and Ranking Member, or the Committee, may take action against
a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to
be heard. [Rule XI, clause 3]
(k)(2) Restore presumption of innocence. Provides that no
action will be taken on a complaint unless the Chairman and
Ranking Minority member of the Standards Committee, or the
Committee itself, find within 45 days that further
investigation is merited by the facts of the complaint,
maintaining the presumption of innocence. Currently, if the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member take no action on a
properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter
automatically goes to an investigative committee. [Rule XI,
clause 3]
(k)(3) Right to counsel. Provides that Members may select a
counsel of their choice even if that counsel represents other
Members. [Rule XI, clause 3]
(1) Technical and codifying changes. Technical and
grammatical changes are made throughout the rules of the
House.
SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.
(a)(1)-(a)(3) Continuation of budget enforcement mechanisms
from the 108th. Clarifies that section 306 of the Budget Act
(prohibiting consideration of legislation within the Budget
Committee's jurisdiction, unless reported by the Budget
Committee) only applies to bills and joint resolutions and
not to simple or concurrent resolutions. It also makes a
section 303 point of order (requiring adoption of budget
resolution before consideration of budget-related
legislation) applicable to text made in order as an original
bill by a special rule. Specified or minimum levels of
compensation for federal office will not be considered as
providing new entitlement authority.
(a)(4) Continuation of budget ``deeming'' resolution from
the 2nd Session of the 108th Congress. Establishes that the
provisions of the Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 of the
108th Congress, shall have effect in the 109th Congress until
such time as a budget resolution for the fiscal year 2005 is
adopted.
(b) Extra subcommittees for Armed Services, International
Relations, and Transportation & Infrastructure. A waiver of
Rule X, clause 5(d), is granted for Armed Services and
Transportation & Infrastructure for 6 subcommittees, and
International Relations for 7 subcommittees in the 109th
Congress.
(c) Numbering of bills. In the 109th Congress, the first 10
numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) shall be reserved
for assignment by the Speaker to such bills as he may
designate when introduced.
{time} 1515
The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) is the author of
one important provision directing committees to review matters within
their jurisdiction to ferret out duplicative government programs as
part of their oversight planning at the beginning of each Congress.
We are also making the ability to consider suspensions on Wednesdays
permanent in this Congress after the very successful experiment we had
with suspensions on Wednesday in the 108th Congress.
The package includes important provisions to allow us to function in
situations where large numbers of Members are incapacitated. We
discussed that earlier, Mr. Speaker. The provisional quorum language
includes a number of safeguards to ensure that this institution can
continue to operate during times of turmoil and to ensure that
democracy will be preserved. We are living in a post-9/11 world and it
is very important that we continue to expend a lot of time and energy
dealing with the institutional challenges as well as the challenges
that our Nation faces under these circumstances.
I would like to say, also, Mr. Speaker, that we will eliminate the
corrections calendar. This was originally intended to make it easier to
consider legislation making corrections to outright errors that are in
law but it turned out to after a while become more cumbersome than
other procedures that we already have to deal with that, such as the
suspension calendar.
And, yes, Mr. Speaker, in a change guaranteed to draw applause from
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the House rules will now
allow us to make reference to the Senate and its members, so long as
those references are confined to the question under debate and that
they avoid personality. The Senate has long had a similar provision and
this new rule merely conforms our rules to theirs. I know that my
colleagues and I share the desire to maintain our traditions of dignity
and decorum in proceedings, and I believe that we can do that even with
the rules change that I have just discussed.
On another topic, the package makes a series of changes to our ethics
rules. We included two provisions suggested by the chairman and the
ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
number one, clarifying the rule on officially connected travel to allow
a family member other than a spouse or child to travel with the Member
at the sponsor's expense and, two, conforming the rules of the House to
current law which allow the use of campaign funds to pay for certain
official expenses, such as cell phones.
By the way, we also have included a provision suggested by the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut
[[Page H14]]
(Mr. Larson) to conform the rules of the House to current law with
regard to the 90-day preelection limit on franked mail.
The package also includes two other provisions addressing our ethics
rules. The first gives Members the same rights to choose their counsel
before the Ethics Committee that they would enjoy if they were a
respondent in a court case. The second change addresses an inequity in
the Standards Committee process requiring an investigative subcommittee
if the chairman and ranking member do not act within 45 days. This
change restores the presumption of innocence in our process. Let me say
that we are going to be hearing from the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in just a few minutes, Mr.
Speaker.
As important as each of those changes are, perhaps the most important
change in this resolution will be, as the Speaker said in his very
thoughtful opening statement here today, the creation of a new standing
Committee on Homeland Security. It represents a far-reaching and
critically important part of our overall strategic effort to protect
the American people. The 9/11 Commission unanimously called for this
action. They saw the need, and we believe most Members do as well.
Over the past 3 years, the Congress has asked the American people to
accept change in countless ways. We have mandated change at the
Federal, State and local levels. We have asked for change from our
allies and forced change upon our enemies. And we saw the need for
change over 2 years ago, and we responded here, first with the
enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and then with the
formation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Their final
report, a thorough and complete study of homeland security jurisdiction
as it relates to House rules, was transmitted to the Committee on Rules
at the end of last year. This change in House rule X, which governs the
committees and their legislative jurisdictions, is a delicately crafted
architecture. It creates a primary committee while recognizing the
other legitimate oversight roles of existing committees. We envision a
system of purposeful redundancy. By that, we mean more than one level
of oversight and an atmosphere in which the competition of ideas is
encouraged.
With this jurisdiction and the legislative history that I will be
placing in the Record, the Department of Homeland Security will have
more certainty as to which committee has the primary responsibility for
homeland security. At the same time, the American people will live with
the assurance that we are working to prevent anything from falling
through the cracks.
Mr. Speaker, the new committee will have jurisdiction over, first,
overall homeland security policy; second, the organization and
administration of the Department of Homeland Security; and, third,
functions of the Department of Homeland Security relating to border and
port security, except immigration policy and nonborder enforcement;
customs, except customs revenue; the integration, analysis and
dissemination of homeland security information, domestic preparedness
for, and collective response to, terrorism, research and development,
and transportation security as well.
By approving this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the House will do what the
Speaker and the 9/11 Commission as well as the President has asked us
to do, consolidate jurisdiction of the House into one committee. This
committee will be dedicated to setting national homeland security
policy and to effectively overseeing that the Department of Homeland
Security carries out its mission.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we discuss this resolution, I will look
forward to questions from my colleagues about jurisdictional matters,
but I will say that clearly the issue of referral lies solely in the
hands of the Speaker. I will in no way be responding in a manner which
would infringe on that power of the Speaker. Once again I want to say
on all of these issues, and especially the last one, which was a great
challenge in trying to fashion a new Committee on Homeland Security
with jurisdiction that emerged from many other committees was not an
easy task. I want to congratulate Speaker Hastert for the leadership
that he has shown on this and I want to thank all of the committee
chairmen who were involved in this process. I believe that with the
passage of this House rules package, we will be able to create a
stronger and a safer America, which is a priority for every single one
of us who has taken the oath of office today.
I urge support of this package of rules.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, all over Washington and in the country, people are
talking today about the majority's last-minute decision to abandon
rules changes that would have eviscerated longstanding ethical
guidelines in this House, and, with that, the integrity of the
institution. And while in the end the majority was right to withdraw
these provisions, they hardly deserve our congratulations. The
Republicans simply succumbed to tough criticism from every major ethics
group in Washington, several major news organizations and House
Democrats. The rules changes in question were so egregious that rank-
and-file Republicans would not support their leadership's plan. The
proposals were so offensive that the Ethics Committee chairman broke
with his own leadership on the issue.
One of the changes would have permitted Members, indicted by a grand
jury on felony counts, to continue to hold House leadership positions.
The measure was similar to a conference rule the House Republican
Conference passed last fall to protect its leadership in the event that
one of them is indicted. The fact that they ever considered changing
the rules of the House in this disgraceful manner is a sad commentary
on the ethical compass of this body's leadership.
They also planned to eliminate a 30-year standing rule that Members
of Congress could be disciplined for actions that brought dishonor and
discredit on this House, the people's House. This standard is similar
to the one that exists for the men and women serving in our military.
How could they even think about changing the House rules in this regard
when to do so would mean demanding a higher ethical standard from an
18-year-old private in the Army than we who sit in this hallowed
Chamber? How could we ask more from our young people than we ask of
ourselves?
It is hard to believe that there was a time in the not too distant
past when the Republicans touted their high ethical and moral
standards. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this entire episode has
been a violation of the public trust. When Americans enter their voting
booths and cast their ballots for Congress, they give us a very
precious gift, their trust. American voters expect, and rightly so,
that we as Members of Congress will conduct ourselves at the highest
ethical standard and uphold democratic principles such as integrity and
accountability. How can we as the guardians of democracy spread the
values of self-governance across the world if we refuse to govern
ourselves right here in this Chamber?
Mr. Speaker, though we should all be relieved that the Republicans
were shamed into abandoning the most overtly egregious provisions, the
remaining ethics provisions in today's legislation will still destroy
the House ethics process. I cannot say it more plainly than that. The
ethics process will be destroyed. The tactics have changed, but the end
result is the same. The House ethics system will be gutted.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the
only evenly divided committee in the House. As the rule stands today,
if the five Republicans and five Democrats on the committee do not
reach agreement about the merits of an ethics complaint, it is
automatically referred to investigators. This approach was designed to
take the partisan politics out of the equation and to ensure that
meritorious complaints would be investigated regardless of the
political winds of the day. Under the Republican rules package, one-
half of the committee will now have the power to bury complaints, even
the most meritorious ones. Under the rules package before us today, if
the committee is deadlocked,
[[Page H15]]
the ethics complaint dies. This one provision gives the Republicans an
enormous amount of control over who is and who is not investigated by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
In practical terms, the Republicans have granted themselves veto
power over any complaint it does not deem palatable. Mr. Speaker, this
rules package would effectively eliminate the 45-day deadline the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct currently has to act on
complaints. The 45-day requirement was designed to prevent ethics
complaints from being buried away from public view and to ensure that
those Members who should be held accountable for corruption would be.
This provision ensures that no ethics complaint will move forward
against a Republican without their leadership's consent.
Mr. Speaker, we can be sure that if these rules changes had been in
place in the last Congress, no ethics complaints would have seen the
light of day. Under the Republicans, the ethical climate in Washington
has eroded enormously. When I speak to constituents, I find myself
telling them to forget what they learned in school about how a bill
becomes a law. In times past, our laws were written to serve the public
interest. But today the sad reality is that corporations like Enron
write our Nation's policies. The Medicare drug bill that was rammed
through Congress in the dead of night stands as a potent example of the
ethical erosion of the House of Representatives. When the dust settled
on the prescription drug vote, former Representative Billy Tauzin, the
key author and then chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
had himself a $2-million-dollar-a-year job lobbying with the drug
industry. After the ethical circus surrounding the prescription drug
vote, this body should be acting to strengthen the ethics systems in
this House, not to destroy it. We were even unable, Mr. Speaker, to
ascertain from any official of the Federal Government how much the bill
actually cost.
The Republican rules package will reduce this committee to a paper
tiger. The American people deserve much better than to have a ``for
sale'' sign placed on the United States House of Representatives. They
deserve to be able to trust their elected leaders and have faith in the
integrity of this institution. They should be able to expect
accountability from their government. Unfortunately, the lesson we have
here today is if you have the power and you break the rules, you can
just change the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are Members on the other side of the aisle,
because I know them, who care greatly about the integrity of this
Chamber, and I know that there are freshmen Members here today eager to
cast their first vote on behalf of the constituents whose trust they
hold and the Constitution they love. I challenge those new Members, and
any other Republican who values integrity and the sanctity of the
democratic process, to stand up for the values of those who trusted you
to represent them.
Mr. Speaker, at the close of this debate, I will be asking Members to
vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can strike from the rules
package language that would allow the Republicans to run out the clock
on serious ethics complaints. Immediately following that vote, I will
ask for a ``yes'' on a motion to commit the resolution so that we can
add two important rules changes. The first would prohibit Members from
negotiating lucrative job deals that capitalize on their committee
membership. The other would guarantee that Members have at least 3 days
to read a House report before voting on it. When bills are rushed to
the floor, cobbled together at the last minute, warm from the machine,
pages are missing or, worse, outrageous provisions are slipped in by
committee staff.
{time} 1530
Lest we forget, the provision that opened up private taxpayers'
records that was sneaked into last year's omnibus spending bill was by
just such a staff member.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to strike the egregious
ethics changes in this package. We owe it to the constituents we serve,
to this institution, and to the Constitution that we adore and revere
to restore the ethics and integrity to the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms.
Slaughter) that every single Member of this institution, Democrat and
Republican alike, is very concerned and focused on the integrity of
this institution; and I believe that that is something which is an
extraordinarily high priority for all of us. I believe that the package
that we have coming before us is one which addresses many of the
concerns that frankly were raised by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my colleague on the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of the rules package this afternoon. The
different aspects that compose it are very important, and they will
contribute to this House's being able to function in a more efficient
and effective manner in the next 2 years. The due-process-for-Members
aspect of this rules package is extremely important precisely because
of the integrity of the House. The integrity of the House includes the
integrity of Members whose reputation may be impugned or unfairly
attacked, and thus all Members that make up this House deserve due
process. And that is what we are trying to achieve today.
I have worked long and hard in the last 2 years, along with the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the Speaker, and
their staffs, to try to formulate a most difficult proposal for
something that is, despite its difficulty, very necessary, and that is
a standing Select Committee on Homeland Security. Due to the leadership
of the Speaker of this House, that is becoming a reality today. We are
doing it in this rules package. The provisional quorum safeguard is
historic in nature, and it is constitutional. It is a constitutional
means to prevent the possibility that terrorists could paralyze our
representative government.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support and urge the adoption of this
rules package.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, the first day of a new Congress should be a day for
hope. It should be a day when all of us look forward with optimism to
the work ahead. But today is not that kind of day. Instead, the
leadership of this House is beginning the new year in the worst
possible way, by gutting the ethical standards of the United States
House of Representatives. Talk about starting off on the wrong foot.
In the rules package before us today, the Republican leadership is
sending a very clear message. They are admitting that they are so
ethically challenged that they cannot conform to the rules they
previously adopted, so they must now relax those rules. What an awful
example to the Nation and to the rest of the world. We should be
strengthening the ethical standards of this House, not weakening them.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party regained a majority of seats in
this body in 1994, in part by promising greater accountability and a
more honest system in the Nation's capital. Their actions have been
anything but honest; and now with this rules package, their rush to the
bottom continues. Today is just one more example of the ethical lapses
we have seen in this House, a House where major legislation is now
written by industry lobbyists, a House where Members are not even given
the courtesy of being able to read bills before they are voted on, and
a House where bad behavior is not reprimanded, but rewarded.
As Members of Congress, we should be held to the highest possible
ethical standards. That means not breaking the law. That means not
dancing around the law, and that means conducting ourselves in a manner
that reflects credibility on the House at all times.
[[Page H16]]
Facing the possible indictment of a Member of their leadership, the
Republicans attempted in secret to change the rules to protect their
ethically challenged colleagues. However, in the face of mounting
public controversy, the public leadership caved last night and
rescinded the change. They blinked and they buckled. But the Speaker's
spokesman commented on this flip-flop saying that the issue had become
a ``distraction.'' Not wrong, mind you, but just distracting. I am
getting whiplash just watching all this stuff.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that the Republican leadership did
not find religion in this issue. If they believed that what they were
about to do was truly wrong, they would not have proposed these rule
changes in the first place. But while Republicans try to pull a fast
one claiming that the majority leader fell on his sword for the good of
his party, the truth is that the rules package for the 109th Congress
still in a very meaningful way fundamentally weakens the ethics system
here in the House of Representatives.
I strongly urge the American people and members of the press and my
colleagues to closely examine these rule changes, especially those made
to the ethics standards. Under the old rules, a properly filed ethics
complaint is automatically investigated if that complaint is not acted
upon within 45 days.
Remember, as the gentlewoman from New York stated, that the ethics
committee is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans; and to
ensure that partisan politics did not prevail in the ethics process, a
tie vote ensures a formal investigation.
But under this proposed rules package, there must be a majority vote
to investigate a properly filed ethics complaint; and if that complaint
is not acted upon with within 45 days, that ethics complaint dies. In
other words, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, whoever that
may be, could stonewall the process, refuse to call for a vote, and
ultimately kill any ethics complaint without any action. But this also
allows any Member potentially under investigation to run the clock out
by stonewalling investigators until the 45 days are up.
The American people deserve better than this from their elected
representatives. We serve at the pleasure of our constituents, and we
have a responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards. Over the
past decade, the Republican leadership has careened down the pathway of
irresponsibility, and now we are at a crossroads. There are those of us
who truly believe Members of Congress should be held to a higher
standard and who will make a stand and fight for real accountability
from our colleagues, and there will be those who blindly follow their
leadership, who vote to weaken the rules of this institution, first
written by Thomas Jefferson, because they fear the retribution of their
leaders.
This should be a place where honesty and integrity are the standard,
not a place where the rules are changed merely to protect a powerful
few from their own ethical shortcomings.
Mr. Speaker, we can stop this debacle. Let us start over. Let us make
this right. Let us make the House of Representatives an example of high
standards and ethical decency. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this rules package.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say after having heard from two of my Committee on Rules
colleagues that I anxiously look forward to working with them in a
bipartisan way to try to proceed with the deliberations in
consideration of measures of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I am going to support this rules package. I was not. I came here
today fully expecting not to support it; but because of the action
taken last evening where we reconsidered some of the suggestions that
had been made, I think we have a package now that we can live with. I
think some of the recommendations that are in here are ill conceived,
and I would hope to work with the chairman again in a bipartisan way
with him and his committee and with the leadership to make some
additional changes as we go through the process.
But I want to thank him and thank the Speaker and the leadership for
accommodating my concerns about some of the amendments that I thought
were the most difficult and the ones that created the biggest problem
in trying to implement the Code of Official Conduct.
Each of us, in fact all of us, individually and collectively, have a
responsibility to maintain the highest standard of conduct for this
House. And changes in the rules, as was said by the previous speaker,
should strengthen, not weaken, those standards. As it stands now, I
think the previous speaker said we are gutting the ethics committee
standards now. We are not as it stands now. I would not be standing up
here encouraging people to support the rules package if in any way I
thought we were gutting it. We are tweaking it, and as I said earlier,
we are tweaking some of it in a way that I wish we were not tweaking
it, but it does not gut it. It is something that the rules work pretty
well the way they are now, and this does not change that that much.
I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct since 1997 and have had an additional responsibility
as serving as chairman since 2001. And during that time, I have learned
one paramount lesson: ethics must be bipartisan. The ethics process
must be bipartisan. Ethics reform must be bipartisan, and the ethics
committee must be bipartisan. And I can tell the Members the ethics
committee is bipartisan.
I see our ranking member over here. I could not have a better partner
in this ethics process than the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan). The ethics committee is a bipartisan committee that follows
the evidence wherever the evidence leads. Meaningful ethics reform must
be genuinely bipartisan. To have a bipartisan process, any significant
change in the ethics rules must be made only after careful, thorough
bipartisan consideration, as was done in 1989 and 1997.
In 1989 and 1997, ethics reform came only after a broad consensus
developed for change. I have always strongly supported reevaluating the
ethics rules and procedures and making changes wherever a need is
shown. I think a number of the criticisms of the ethics process that
have been made over the past year are well taken and should be looked
at. On the other hand, since I joined the committee, almost every
significant decision, I believe every significant decision, has been
made on a unanimous vote.
Despite the deletion of the amendment that I found the most
objectionable to the Code of Conduct, the rules package includes a
number of provisions that would make major changes in the ethics-
related rules, but as to which neither the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct nor Members outside the rules process were consulted.
While I will not vote against the rules package because of these
provisions, I urge the leadership to reconsider all the amendments
added to the committee's procedural rules without a bipartisan process.
In 1997 the House, through a bipartisan task force, carefully studied
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's enforcement
procedures, made a series of changes. The rules package includes
provisions that would significantly alter those procedures. It would be
a mistake to reverse these bipartisan determinations without a
bipartisan process of our own.
The 45-day thing that has been mentioned, I do not like that. I think
that creates a problem in trying to implement a fair and even-handed
ethics process. I would like to see that removed.
When in 1997 the Bipartisan Task Force Report was before the House,
the House significantly rejected, on a bipartisan vote of 181 to 236,
an amendment that would have required automatic dismissal of any
complaint after 180 days, not 45 days. The reason for rejection of that
amendment, as set out in the floor debate, is that such an artificial
time limit on the life of a complaint would serve to encourage deadlock
within the committee and partisanship among committee members.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think that is something we need
to look at. The ranking member and I and
[[Page H17]]
the members of the ethics committee have been considering a group of
suggestions that we would like to bring to the full House. We would
like to do that, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the new session of Congress
convenes, when we are ready for that process. I think that is the way
it ought to be done. These are the people that struggle with these
issues every day. I think they ought to be concerned about what we
think would make the process better. They do not have to follow it, but
at least be concerned about it. The process in the House is not
perfect. Let us strive to make it perfect. On this one issue, let us
act together on a bipartisan basis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will control the time for
the minority.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his
presentation.
We were told the President wants to proceed on a bipartisan fashion
in the next 4 years to deal with the important issues that confront our
Nation.
{time} 1545
I think that is appropriate and, hopefully, we will do that. However,
on this first day, the rules package is usually a partisan package. It
was when Democrats were in charge; it is now when Republicans are in
charge. That is understandable. But as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) has so correctly pointed out, there was an exception, and that
exception was dealing with the ethics of this institution which, in
fact, deals with the confidence that the American public has in this
institution.
Mr. Speaker, the opening day of a new Congress should be one in which
the interests of this institution are paramount. The body of rules we
adopt to govern debate, decorum, and the actions of our Members should
reflect that. To be sure, the American people who elected us to this
great body can expect to see sharp differences on this floor over the
substance of legislation. That is as the framers of the Constitution
planned.
But the framers also intended, I believe, and the American people
deserve to know, that this House is committed to holding its Members to
the highest ethical standards.
Today, as I think has been attested to by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley), the House moves in the wrong direction. The rules
proposed for the 109th House ignore the fundamental principle of
protecting the ethics of this House. The proposed Republican rules
before us will seriously weaken the ability of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to enforce standards of integrity by
providing that no action will be taken on a properly filed ethics
complaint after 45 days unless the committee votes by a majority vote
to take action. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will speak,
who chaired with Bob Livingston, our former colleague, the amendment of
these rules.
Under the current rules, which have functioned well since 1997, a
properly filed complaint that has not been addressed by the chair and
ranking member or the committee itself automatically goes to an
investigative subcommittee. That is as it should be. Inaction ought not
to be tantamount to dismissal. That is what this proposal does. The
Republican proposal would make it extremely difficult to investigate
properly filed complaints.
Under this new rule, either side, either side will be able to
guarantee a deadlock when a legitimate, factually strong ethics
complaint against a Member is filed, provided the chair or ranking
member take no action.
We have been told that the most egregious attempts to weaken the
ethics systems have been abandoned. I beg to differ. The most egregious
attempt is the one before us now currently remaining in this rule. Let
no one miss this distinction: the proposal to protect an indicted
leader, a proposal that has been withdrawn by the majority, always was
speculative, because we do not know if a leader will be indicted. In
sharp contrast, however, the rule before us will have a concrete,
demonstrable effect on every ethics complaint filed from this day
forward.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the
only mechanism that this institution has to police itself. When we
weaken the committee, we weaken the standards that we are all expected
to uphold, and we erode public confidence in this institution.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) spoke eloquently to the
maintenance of the status quo when he was in the minority urging us to
be vigilant in rooting out unethical behavior in this institution. He
was right then. He is not correct now in offering this rule which
weakens that process.
The adoption of this rule will substantially weaken our commitment to
ensuring ethical conduct. I think the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) was right in his letter. I think he had the intellectual
honesty and integrity on this floor when he spoke. He is going to vote
for the rule because he believes that some offensive aspects of the
proposal have been taken out. But I tell my friend that the most
egregious, long-lasting, impacting change remains in this package.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues on behalf of the American people, on
behalf of the integrity of this institution, on behalf of our
commitment to ensure ethical conduct on behalf of the American people,
that this not be passed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to respond to my very good friend from Maryland by
saying that I may not be as eloquent today as I was when I was in the
minority, but I continue to share my very strong commitment to ensure
the integrity and the behavior of Members of this institution. I also
will say as my friend said, it is very clear that the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, has made it clear that he is supportive of this
package. I and my colleagues looked at these recommendations, all of
which emerged from members and former members of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. I also believe that it is very possible
for us to maintain the highest ethical standards and to continue to
ensure, to now ensure that due process is entitled to Members of this
institution as they proceed with matters before that committee.
So I believe that this package is one which should enjoy strong
bipartisan support, because when it comes to matters of ethics it will
address the concern and the protection of Members of both the minority
and the majority, as well as this institution as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
(Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the ethics-related
provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Committee
on Rules. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct in the last Congress. It was an honor
to serve with the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley), as he
always managed to chair the committee in a completely bipartisan
manner.
The headlines in this morning's paper say ``GOP Abandons Ethics
Changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right.
It is true that the most outrageous ethics undermining provision has
been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions, provisions
that would make major changes in the way the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct handles enforcements of the rules, they remain.
There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain
would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because
of the changes they would make in committee procedures, but, and
equally important, because of the partisan way in which they are being
adopted. If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the
House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That
[[Page H18]]
point should be self-evident. How could there be a legitimate ethics
process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan
process, it is absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules
be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What is more, because of the
importance and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it is also
essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful,
considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity
for input, Democrats and Republicans.
Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until
today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics
rules or the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct procedures in a
slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a
party line vote.
It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the
Committee on Rules that attempt to justify these amendments are based
entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the
benign sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the
Committee on Rules memorandum states, ``Currently, if the chairman and
ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint
within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative
subcommittee.'' Fine. But that statement is incomplete and, therefore,
misleading.
The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at
any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for
consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the
committee's agenda and when either one of them does that, an
investigative committee cannot be established without a majority vote
of the committee.
Another example, Mr. Speaker. Under the heading ``Due Process for
Members,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states that, ``Under the
current rule, the chairman and ranking member or the committee may take
action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity
to be heard.''
This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that
a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the
Member having such rights, and that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is flatly
wrong. The rules are replete with the rights for Members who are
accused of any violation.
When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments,
you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee
actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead on
committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct
of a Member.'' It may be well that the rules should provide certain
rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter
or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those
rights be? They should be determined through a deliberative, fair,
bipartisan process.
But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those
Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an
adjudicatory subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial
would take place before the committee has conducted any formal
investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about
conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that
circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever
any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the
committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal
investigation of the matter or dismissing it entirely. Both of these
rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are
brought to us today through a partisan process.
I'd like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this
package at the insistence of the Rules Committee. I had the honor of
serving as ranking member of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress,
and I also served on the committee for 6 years during another time of
controversy in the late 1980s. It was an honor to serve during the last
2 years with Chairman Hefley, as he always managed the committee in a
completely bipartisan manner.
A headline in this morning's newspaper says, ``GOP abandons ethics
changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right.
It's true that the most outrageous ethics-undermining provision has
been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions--provisions
that would make major changes in the way the Ethics Committee handles
enforcement of the rules--remain.
There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain
would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because
of the changes they would make in committee procedures, and, equally
important, because of the partisan way in which they would be adopted.
If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House,
it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That point should be self-
evident--how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is
operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it's
absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a
truly bipartisan basis. What's more, because of the importance, and the
sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it's also essential that any
proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open
way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input--Democrats
and Republicans.
Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until
today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics
rules or the Ethics Committee procedures in a slapdash way, with
literally only hours of consideration, and on a party-line vote.
It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the
Rules Committee that attempt to justify these amendments are based
entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the
benign-sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the
Rules Committee memorandum states, and I quote:
``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no
action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter
automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.''
That statement is incomplete--and therefore misleading. The rules
that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time
that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for
consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the
committee's agenda, and when either one of them does that, an
investigative subcommittee cannot be established without a majority
vote of the committee.
Another example: under the heading, ``Due Process for Members,'' the
Rules Committee memorandum states that, and I quote:
``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member, or the
committee, may take action against a Member without a complaint,
notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''
This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that
a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the
Member having such rights, and that suggestion is flatly wrong. The
rules are replete with rights for Members who are accused of any
violation, and because of the bipartisan makeup of the committee,
Members are typically accorded rights well beyond those required by the
rules.
When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments,
you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee
actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead
committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct
of a Member.'' It may well be that the rules should provide certain
rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter
or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those
rights be?
They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan
process. But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to
those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an
adjudicatory subcommittee of the Ethics Committee. But in the
circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place
before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the
matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business
would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of
this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought
to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose
between either launching a formal investigation of the matter, or
dismissing it entirely. There would be no chance for an expedited
resolution of the case, even in those instances in which the committee
believes it already has all the basic facts, and the conduct involved
probably does not warrant a formal sanction. Both of these rule changes
lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today
through a partisan process.
But the proposed amendment that raises even more concern is the one
that provides for automatic dismissal of any complaint that
[[Page H19]]
is not acted upon within a period as short as 45 days. When the House
last considered Ethics Committee procedures, in 1997, it rejected, on a
bipartisan vote, an amendment that would have required the automatic
dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within 180 days.
The reason that amendment was rejected is that it was recognized that
such a time limit would encourage deadlock on the committee, and
partisanship among the committee members. Under a time limit, if one
side or the other is uncomfortable about dealing with a particular
complaint, those Members don't have to discuss it or otherwise try to
deal with it--by their just doing nothing, the complaint will
disappear. Yet now this provision for automatic dismissal has
reappeared, and this time it has a far shorter time frame for committee
consideration than the nearly identical provision that the House
soundly rejected in 1997.
I want to close by asking all Members, including all Members of the
leadership on both sides of the Aisle, to give some serious
consideration--not just today, but in the weeks and months ahead--to
whether you genuinely want to have a meaningful ethics process in the
House, and what we as Members, individually and collectively, have to
do in order for such a process to exist. As I said at the outset, for
this process to exist, it has to be a truly bipartisan one, and it has
to be treated with seriousness and respect. It has to be recognized
that the basic purpose of the process is to consider and address
legitimate ethics concerns, and if Members are successful in using the
process for partisan, political purposes, it is going to fail. The
approval of these amendments would seriously undermine the process and,
for that reason alone, this rules package should be defeated.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the very distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Science.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this balanced
rules package. I want to speak particularly to the provisions regarding
homeland security. To determine whether a proposed regime to oversee
homeland security is appropriate, one cannot just look at a flow chart.
The simplest structure is not necessarily the best, nor is one that is
unduly complex. One has to look at how a proposed structure will
actually function and what it can and cannot accomplish.
The homeland jurisdiction being proposed in this package strikes the
right balance between a system that is too centralized and one that is
too diffuse. First, I should say that the most important and necessary
change regarding governance of the Department of Homeland Security was
made 2 years ago when we created a Subcommittee on Homeland Security on
the Committee on Appropriations. But having a single committee that can
look across the Department of Homeland Security from an authorizing
perspective is also a sensible move, and the new committee created in
this package will do that.
{time} 1600
What would not make sense, however, simple as it might seem, is
giving sole authority over all aspects of homeland security to the new
committee. Homeland security is too diffuse and important a government
activity to rest with one committee. Almost every activity of every
Federal agency has some relationship to homeland security, and almost
every activity of the Department of Homeland Security impinges on the
activities of other agencies.
An appropriate congressional oversight structure has to take account
of that basic fact. A structure that overly centralized homeland
security oversight would make it harder to evaluate the Department of
Homeland Security in the context of the other activities of the Federal
Government. An overcentralized structure could also make a
congressional committee a captive of the agency that it oversees.
I know that it is very easy to denigrate arguments against a single,
centralized Select Committee on Homeland Security as so much turf
fighting. But in reality it is simply intellectually lazy to assume
that a centralized structure would enable Congress to do its work more
effectively.
I found especially ironic a Washington Post editorial that called for
a highly centralized structure. The editorial argued that a centralized
committee would be more efficient because the Department of Homeland
Security would not have to answer questions from a lot of different
committees. Well, it would also be more efficient if the Department did
not have to respond to questions from a lot of different news outlets,
but presumably The Post would argue that there are advantages to
forcing the Department to respond to reporters with a variety of areas
of expertise and a variety of perspectives.
The Post certainly would not want the only news outlet to be an in-
house publication. So I want to applaud the House leadership for doing
what it has done, and I stand in strong support of this rules package.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct is correct when he says that ethics reform must be
bipartisan and if the House is to have meaningful bipartisan ethics
process, changes of this magnitude can be made, as they were in 1997,
only after thoughtful, careful consideration on a bipartisan basis.
There has been no effort to look at the rules changes on ethics in a
bipartisan manner.
In 1997 when I co-chaired the Committee on Ethics Reform along with
Bob Livingston, the changes that we made were done after deliberation,
and after Democrats and Republicans, working together, came before the
House and we did make major changes. And we instituted the 45-day rule
for assigning a proper complaint for investigation; but we changed the
rules in 1997. We made it clear that you can move towards an informal
investigation without a finding that it merits further inquiry or a
resolution of preliminary inquiry because we did not want any matter of
guilt or wrongdoing for the committee to be able to get the facts
necessary to decide whether to go to formal investigation.
Yet this rules change which would allow after 45 days inaction to
dismiss a complaint makes inaction action, and it can be done on a very
partisan basis. Now, that is wrong. That is not how it should be.
The rules as they are currently configured in order to move a
complaint past the committee, you have to have the bipartisan agreement
of the committee because you have to have a vote in the committee. It
guarantees a process will move forward in a bipartisan manner and, in
fact, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has operated in a
bipartisan manner because of the way the rules are configured.
If this rule is changed, you are making it much more likely that the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will act in a very partisan
matter because they will be able to delay for 45 days, which does not
take a lot of effort to figure out how to delay for 45 days. We have
enough lawyers on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that
will be able to figure out that one. And it will be done on a partisan
basis that will leave a cloud on the Member and a cloud on this
institution. You should not have that in this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the rules package.
Every House Member should vote to put the House on record against
ethical and procedural abuses that contaminate this institution.
The stench of special interest corruption is overwhelming Congress,
and repulsing the public. It is time the House Rules reflected the
ethical standards and common sense of the American people.
I came to this House 30 years ago, and our historic incoming class
brought with it one of the strongest tides of reform ever seen: rules
were changed, chairmen were replaced, procedures were modernized so
that the voice of the people was heard, and respected, in this House of
the people.
Ten years ago, the Republicans took control of the House, promising a
new era of reform. To read the national newspapers, it is evident to
everyone--except themselves--that the Republicans have betrayed their
promise of reform. They have tolerated misconduct and enshrined special
interests as never before.
Today, we give them, and all Members, an opportunity to restore
public trust by voting for
[[Page H20]]
two commonsense amendments to the House rules.
First, no sitting Member should negotiate for a new job with any
organization that has had business before his or her committee for a
year. That's not hard to understood: no one should be shaping public
policy with an eye on a future private sector salary.
Second, no bill should be brought to the House floor unless Members
have had 3 days to read it first. That's not hard to understand: we
should not be passing bills that are hundreds of pages in length--
sometimes over 1,000 pages--without ever having seen what is in the
bill. Ronald Reagan thought it was a bad idea; surely today's House
Republicans can agree.
Let's be honest about it: 99 percent of the American people outside
the Beltway will agree with both of these principles--no negotiating
for new jobs with special interests; Members should know what they are
voting on before it becomes law. We shouldn't even have to have a
debate. But we do.
Less than a month ago, the Nation was stunned to learn that the
committee chairman who had fashioned a blatantly pro-drug industry,
anti-senior, anti-consumer prescription drug law was retiring and
taking a job with the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, our former
colleague assumes his job with PhRMA today, just as we are taking our
oaths of office.
Mr. Tauzin will reportedly be earning a salary nearly 13 times what
he earned when he wrote that pro-industry bill--one of the best paid
lobbyists in Washington.
He earned it. That prescription drug law will enrich him, but it
takes billions of dollars out of the pockets of America's senior
citizens--by prohibiting them from purchasing cheaper drugs from
Canada, and by prohibiting the Federal Government from negotiating with
the pharmaceutical industry--his new employer--for lower drug prices.
That's worth billions to the drug industry.
While the deal was not announced until last month, the discussions
began a year ago, as was widely reported at the time. In fact, a top
aide to the Republican leadership was quoted last January 24 on CNN.com
as saying that Republican Congressman Tauzin's negotiation with PhARMA
``doesn't look very good.''
It doesn't look ``very good'' today either, as millions of seniors
face higher drug prices thanks to the Tauzin bill, and Bill Tauzin
takes office to improve the tattered image of the drug industry.
We all know this stinks. And so do our constituents. Let's put an end
to it today by barring negotiations for private jobs by Members of
Congress. That's what our constituents would want us to do.
And at the same time, let's put an end to the outrageous practice of
voting on complex and lengthy bills before Congress has had time to
read them--bills like that prescription drug bill Bill Tauzin wrote
while he was listening to PhARMA's whispers in his ears.
Isn't it bad enough that Republicans majority writes the bills in
secret, without input from the Democrats who represent 48 percent of
the country? Without scrutiny by the press? Without review by the
public
Must we also vote on secret legislation, without reading it, without
knowing the tax breaks and earmarked spending for special interests
that have been stuck in without any review?
I urge all Members to put party aside and vote the way your
constituents would want you to vote: an end to private job negotiations
while serving in public office, and full disclosure of the contents of
legislation before we vote.
Mr. Speaker, I also vigorously oppose the proposed rule change that
would allow an ethics investigation to end after 45 days of the Ethics
Committee of five Democrats and five Republicans remained deadlocked.
Today, the Republicans are once again putting partisan politicians
ahead of ethics by moving forward with their plan to shield their
embattled majority leader--Tom DeLay--from any further investigation.
The goal of this change is to block the Ethics Committee from
considering pending and future matters that could prove to be damaging
to their party.
Under the present rules, if the chair and the ranking minority member
of the Ethics Committee cannot agree whether to investigate a
complaint, the committee begins an initial investigation into the
matter.
But, under the Republicans' proposed rule change, the Republican
chairman of the Ethics Committee--who is handpicked by the Speaker--
could simply refuse to examine a complaint.
After 45 days, the complaint would be dropped, without even an
initial investigation into the matter.
This new rule would allow Republicans to block pending ethics matters
and prevent future investigations from moving forward. And the reason
is very simple: there are at least two matters currently pending
against Republican leaders, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Contrary to this morning's press reports, the Republicans haven't
backed away from their attempts to shield DeLay from further
investigation, they've simply become a little more deceptive in how
they're doing it.
Last year, when the Ethics Committee admonished DeLay three times, it
deferred action on another serious charge--his role in funneling
illegal soft money into Texas races through his State PAC--until after
the investigation against him had been completed.
The rule change now proposed by his Republican colleagues would allow
the Republican chairman of the committee to block any further
investigation of DeLay's activities, shielding the minority leader from
further admonishments even if he is indicted by a grand jury.
Also pending is an investigation of Republican lobbyist, Jack
Abramoff, and former DeLay staffer, Michael Scanlon, and their ties to
several Republican members. Changing the ethics rules would permit the
Republicans to halt any investigation of the Abramoff scandal and the
Members who could be implicated in their outrageous looting of Native
Americans.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this unbalanced and improper rules package.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are making a terrible mistake here
today by changing the rule in terms of the provision that would simply
require no action after a 45-day period because, as the earlier speaker
immediately preceding me indicated, what we will have done is change a
nonpartisan committee that is based on a nonpartisan process into one
that provides for a partisan veto over action where the behavior of an
individual Member or Members is at question. That, I suggest and
submit, is something that this institution will suffer from.
There has been much discussion recently regarding this package. It
was anticipated that there would be additional provisions that were not
submitted today, but let us be clear what is at risk here. It is the
confidence of the American people in the integrity of this institution.
Perception, as we all know, is reality. And when the American people
understand very clearly that we now have a Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct in which either side has a veto, it will undermine the
confidence of the people in our ethical process.
My question to the proponents would be, what is wrong with the
current rules? We have operated on them.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
The gentlewoman is correct: I currently serve on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. And despite what I read in the morning
papers, the Republican leadership is eliminating a major traditional
ethics standard of the House. While we are relieved that the Republican
leadership did not go as far as they wanted to, I do not think we can
be happy with the trend that is clearly downwards as it is today.
The new rule means no ethics violations will be investigated of party
leaders, whether they be Republican or Democratic, control their
members, since a tie vote means a dismissal. The logical result is more
partisan political pressure on the committee members.
America was intended to be a city on a hill with the highest
standards for the government in the world; and sadly, today we are
lowering those standards.
The majority is proud of their political power and their skills at
political games, and politics is an important part of our business; but
principles must be held above politics because no man can serve two
masters, both principles and politics.
When we are guided by only political consideration in the House
leadership today, the House abandons its principles and the moral
compass.
I do not enjoy serving on the committee. I do know something about
legislative ethics, having first been elected to the State house of
representatives after a tremendous Sharpstown bank scandal in Texas
1972. Born and raised in Texas, I understand what it means about
conservative government, but I cannot begin to explain how
[[Page H21]]
eliminating a traditional ethics standard is conservative in the
slightest.
The House leadership can fool some of the people some of the time,
like they did today when the papers said they were dropping ethics
changes, when they clearly continue to weaken the standards. However,
the people recognize this for what it is, a weakening of our
government's ethics in pursuit of political parity by one party, be it
Democrat or Republican.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed
changes in the ethics rules.
I served for 8 years on the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, and it is not an enviable assignment. But Members who have
never served on the committee would be proud of how these tasks are
approached. It is a committee that is evenly split. In the 8 years I
served, we had unanimous votes.
The Members who serve think about the institution. They are there to
serve the American people and the institution. It has not been a
partisan body. It has been one that holds other Members to a high
ethical standard. These rules will undermine the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, and the process of using the Committee on Rules
rather than the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to
deliberate on the changes is also undercutting the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
I recommend that we do not support these rule changes. And I also
want to mention on the homeland security provision of the rule, it is a
huge mistake to ``murky up'' the jurisdiction over cybersecurity. We
are at tremendous risk for a cyberattack, and the changes in that area
will make us less safe.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman concerns the change to the
rules that would allow Members to use campaign funds to purchase cell
phones. As you know, there is a law that prohibits a Member of Congress
from using the resources of their office or their office to solicit
campaign funds.
It is my hope that allowing campaign cell phones to be used in a
congressional office is not in any way a back-door attempt to allow a
Member to use a campaign cell phone from their congressional office or
any Federal facility to raise funds to get around this prohibition that
currently exists in law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to respond to the gentleman.
Let me say we are in the midst of a discussion about ethics at this
point. Obviously, it is our goal to maintain the highest ethical
standards. We have a law, which is actually a criminal law, which
states that it is a violation of 18 U.S. Code 607 for the solicitation
of campaign contributions from Federal property.
The idea behind this change that is included in this rules package is
that Members should not be required to carry two separate cell phones
with them. This would allow campaign funds to be used for the purchase
of a cell phone that might be used for calling your office or other
official purposes. But the law which prevents the solicitation of
campaign contributions from Federal property in fact is maintained and
is one we that feel very strongly about.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Just for a clarification, the use of a
campaign cell phone in this building?
Mr. DREIER. In any Federal building whatsoever. On Federal property
is what the law says. It is a violation of the law.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. To solicit campaign funds with a campaign
cell phone.
Mr. DREIER. It is a violation of the law.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to what I consider a
shameless rules package which will undermine the ethical standards held
by this House.
After the elections in November, the first thing the Republican
majority did was to lower the House's ethical standard. In an act of
unprecedented shamelessness, they changed the rule of their party to
permit an indicted member of their party to remain in a leadership
position. Yesterday, in the face of an overwhelming bipartisan and
public condemnation they changed their rules back.
This is not shocking. What is shocking is that they ever considered
it in the first place. Even more shocking, just if you think you have
seen it all, is that the majority considered deleting the most
fundamental of ethics rules which says that Members of the House should
be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct.
{time} 1615
It says a Member shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that
should reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.
Dropping this rule is unthinkable. Yet Republicans only decided to
keep it last night when the issue became too hot for them to handle.
Thank heavens it became too hot for them to handle, but what is
completely apparent to the public and those who follow the Congress is
that the Republicans did not leave it at that. They went on to make new
mistakes, to undermine the ethical standard of the House.
Instead of a bipartisan effort to strengthen the ethical process, the
Republicans have engaged in a completely partisan exercise that should
be an affront to every Member on either side of the aisle who has
served in this body. The proposed changes which are still in this rules
package are destructive, and they are unethical.
Mr. Speaker, I know of what I speak. I served on the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct for 6 years, and then for a seventh year
I served as a part of the bipartisan committee to rewrite the ethics
rules. It is bipartisan, evenly divided, and we came up with new ethics
rules, some of which survived the floor that year in 1997.
The package that was put together was meant to be fair to Members as
well as uphold the high ethical standards. It says that Members should
be judged by their actions and by the rules of the House and the law.
So it was only about what took place, the facts and the law. It was not
about rumor. It was not about hearsay. It was about the facts, the
rules of the House and the law.
There was a process which was fair to Members because, as I say, as
someone who has 7 years on the ethical process, that it is very hard to
make judgments about our peers. It is a very, very difficult task, and
we want to be fair, but we have a higher responsibility to uphold that
ethical standard.
So it was put forth and has been the rules of the House and the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that in order to cease or
dismiss a case, we had to have a majority of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct. That would be eliminated today. That would be
eliminated today.
So, on a partisan basis, there could be no cases that go forward.
Either party with half the votes in the committee, evenly split, could
cease and desist any complaints from going forward. That is simply not
right.
The point of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is to
have a process in which to deal with ethics complaints against Members.
The point of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is not to
whitewash or to have a system that says nothing will ever move forward.
What could the Republicans be afraid of that they would so
fundamentally undermine the ethical process of the House to say we are
going to establish a system where nothing will ever go forward? This
simply is wrong. We owe it to the public, we owe it to each other to
uphold that ethical standard.
So, as I say, on the first day of this new Congress, the Republican
majority is publicly demonstrating what has been evident for some time,
and that is its arrogance, its pettiness, its shortsighted focus on
their political life
[[Page H22]]
rather than to decide how we are each of us fit to govern.
Here is the thing. We have this rules package before us. They did
some flash last night so that the press is saying, oh, they blinked.
They did blink on a couple of different scores, but the fundamental
challenge to the ethical standard of the House being enforced is still
in this rules package, and it should be rejected.
Democrats have made two proposals. One of them is to remove this
change, and that would be a vote on the previous question, and then on
the motion to recommit we address two other abuses of power that should
be addressed in this bill.
One is what I will call the Tauzin rule, and the Democratic motion to
commit would forbid a Member of Congress to negotiate with an outside
entity that has business before his or her committee and before the
Congress, in the current Congress or in a previous Congress, called the
Tauzin rule because Mr. Tauzin, who managed the Medicare bill, was at
the time being courted by the pharmaceutical industry which was to
benefit from provisions in the prescription drug bill, a rumored $2
million a year salary for selling America's seniors down the river.
That is simply wrong. Has this become an auction house?
The public has to think and believe that when we are here and we are
on the public payroll and we are Members of Congress that our
accountability is to them and not to our next job. I call that the
revolving door, shorthand for the Tauzin rule, and the impact of that
is a very, very bad prescription drug bill that put pharmaceutical
companies first, seniors last.
In our motion to commit we also address the 3-day rule. As many of my
colleagues recall in recent memory, there was occasion on the floor
when a huge bill of many thousands of pages, containing nine
appropriations bills, seven of which never appeared on the floor of the
United States Senate, came before this House where the matter was
overnight passed in the Committee on Rules, came to the floor the next
morning without any chance of Members being able to read the bill. It
came under the martial law rule the Republicans use by which they say
we waive the 3-day rule by a simple majority. It should take two-
thirds, but by a simple majority we waive the 3-day rule. Well, why was
it important? It was important that day because there was a great deal
in that bill that Members did not know about that they were voting on
and should not they know that, but very specifically in that bill and
it was not found out until the bill went to the Senate, who had more
time to read the bill because it went over there several hours after it
was heard here, and in that bill it said that the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations in the House and the Senate or his or her
designee could look at the tax returns of American taxpayers. Where did
that come in? It is a total orphan. It is a total orphan. No one was
going to take responsibility for that.
Because of the egregiousness of that and the violation of privacy of
the American people, I insisted that the Members come back to vote on
that rather than just have it be done by unanimous consent to remove
that provision from the law. Why did I call Members back? So that the
American people will know because of the abuse of power in this House,
ignoring of the 3-day rule, that Members cannot even see what they are
voting on before they vote on it, and something like looking at your
tax returns could be sneaked into the bill, without any safeguards to
protect people from that.
That is just one example. Another example is the Medicare
prescription drug bill which came to the floor without proper time for
review as well. The list goes on and on.
In our motion to commit, we address the abuse of power of a powerful
chairman, negotiating for a job while he was a Member of Congress, who
had control of the bill over the industry, which was offering him $2
million a year. That is how much it cost to sell the American seniors
down the river, and I hope that even if you separate yourself from any
of the examples and just say I sent you to Congress to represent me,
you do that in what you say there and how you vote, and I expect that
you know what you are voting on.
The message to the American people here this afternoon is a vote for
the motion to commit, is a vote for Members to be able to read a bill
before they vote on it. Is that asking too much? The Republicans say it
is. So a yes vote on the motion to commit gives Members the 3 days
which under the rules of the House they are entitled to. A vote for the
motion to commit stops the unethical process of Members negotiating
with people outside, whose bills they are managing inside this
Congress, in this Congress or in the previous Congress.
The previous question vote would say no to the Republicans in their
evisceration of the ethical process of this House by saying that you do
not need a majority to dismiss a case; you can just do it if all the
Members of your party on the committee decide to stick with you on it.
It is simply not right, and this should not be partisan. That is really
what is really sad about it.
Everything that we have done in the ethics process has had some level
of respect to the extent that it has because it has been bipartisan,
bipartisan in writing the rules, evenly divided committee, cooperation
between the chair and ranking member.
Today is a major departure from that, and I guess maybe I have just
spent too many long hours for too many long years in the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct room trying to respect the rights of
Members and our higher responsibility to uphold an ethical standard. To
see the Republicans today run roughshod, rigging the rules, negotiating
for jobs, no reading of the bill, it is an outrage. It is an absolute
outrage.
So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes on
the motion to commit, and by all means, however you vote on those, no
on this very shameful rules package.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman because ethics equals integrity. I will submit my statement
into the Record. Vote a resounding no on the resolution that is on the
floor, and I hope that we will come before our peers and recognize that
ethics equals integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed changes to the
House Rules under the Privileged Resolution before the committee of the
Whole House. Taken together, this package of proposals will gut the
House Rules.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to
completely gut and render ineffective the current Rule XI, which
provides that a properly filed ethics complaint that has not been
addressed by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Ethics Committee gets
referred to an investigative committee. The Republican proposal would
provide that, unless the committee votes by majority to take action on
a properly filed complaint, no action will be taken after 45 days.
This change to Rule XI would take away an important oversight power
and allow partisan politics to kill legitimate and colorable ethics
complaints. A change like this would be an embarrassment to what this
nation calls a ``democracy.'' Furthermore, by allowing members to
intentionally deadlock the vote of the Ethics Committee to kill a
claim, we would be acting in contravention of the spirit of the U.S.
Constitution that guarantees procedural due process.
We should strengthen the House ethnics rules rather than eviscerate
them for the American people whom we represent. Rules so relaxed that
Members can negotiate with a corporation, lobbying firm, or trade
association that has business before their committee should not be
further stripped. The honor that was bestowed upon this House upon its
establishment must be maintained. Members must be held accountable for
their action.
Moreover, Members should be given adequate time in which to read
legislation that will be voted upon. Since the legislation that we pass
in this august body affects the entire nation--which includes the
Districts represented by Minority Members, it is an injustice that
insufficient time has been given for review of legislation.
In the proposal that has been brought before the House does not
contain the changes that are needed. It would be irresponsible for this
body to accept what is before us.
[[Page H23]]
The proposed Rule X amendment to create a Standing Committee on
Homeland Security, on the other hand, is a smart one. It is only
appropriate that this Committee be made permanent and be given
jurisdiction over ``overall homeland security policy.'' Important
organizational and admnistrative aspects of the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS, require oversight to ensure effective and efficient
operation.
DHS is a conglomeration of 22 federal agencies with more than 180,000
employees and a budget of $36 billion. Because the Department is still
in its infancy stages, it is critical that committee oversight be
applied to track and quickly eradicate deficiencies.
The Congress has just passed the National Intelligence Reform Act, or
S. 2845, that will change the way our intelligence is collected and
processed. DHS will be an important partner to our intelligence
agencies in order to keep America safe. In addition, with the
challenges that we have had with adequately funding first responders,
it is very important that Congress retain a close relationship to the
Department.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rules package that is before this body, and
I urge my colleagues to defeat it. I yield the balance of my time.
Further, a rules change that changes the quorum for this body without a
constitutional change is minimally undermining our constitutional
values.
Vote ``no'' on this resolution and ``yea'' on the motion to
recommitt.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I urge every Member of this House to vote no on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to strike from the proposed rules package a provision that
effectively guts our already ailing ethics process. This provision
would halt the investigation of properly filed ethics complaints if,
after 45 days, the chair and ranking Member of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct have not set up an investigation
committee.
I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on this
previous question so we can delete this offensive provision.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after the vote on the previous question,
I will call for a yes vote on the motion to commit. My motion to commit
will prohibit sitting Members of Congress from negotiating for future
employment with any person who has a direct interest in the legislation
referred to any committee on which that Member serves.
It also includes a rules change that would require a two-thirds vote
in the House to waive the requirement in our standing rules that
Members must have 3 days to read the committee reports.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement as part of
that immediately prior to the vote on the motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous
question.
I call on all Members of this House, particularly the freshmen
casting their first vote, please vote for ethics today. Do not vote
against the Constitution. Vote for this House that you will love and
revere as all of us do on both sides of the aisle. Please vote no on
the previous question and vote yes on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may
reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the
motion to commit and the vote on the adoption of H. Res. 5 if the votes
immediately follow a 15-minute vote, notwithstanding intervening
proceedings attending the administration of the oath of office to
Members-elect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this rules package.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have a great rules package that is coming before us,
a rules package which I believe is deserving of bipartisan support. The
reason I say it is deserving of bipartisan support is that is the word
that has been used by Members on both sides of the aisle to describe
exactly what we have been doing here and should be doing here.
Mr. Speaker, this package includes a number of very important
provisions. It allows us to deal with the prospect of a horrendous
attack on this institution, and it allows us to continue this
institution's operations so the American people will understand that
this institution stands even at a time of great crisis. This rules
package allows for the establishment of a new permanent standing
committee on homeland security, as the Speaker outlined in his opening
remarks here today. I believe that is something that will allow
Democrats and Republicans to spend time working on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rules package which allows for bipartisan
process at the ethics committee level. The Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct is the committee which has the responsibility of
working to ensure the integrity of all of the Members of this
institution. The package we have before us does just that.
I believe that the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley), is very clear. He understands that the provisions included in
this package will in fact maintain the integrity of this institution.
He was not going to support the earlier package; he is supporting this
package. The issue of bipartisanship is important because in this
package we ensure that we will not see the politicization of the ethics
process which tragically we have seen in the past, because it will
require bipartisanship, which all Members are talking about, if we do
proceed with the investigatory process.
That is the right thing to do, and I believe this package should in
fact enjoy the support of Democrats and Republicans alike because it is
designed to protect this institution and its Members.
Mr. Speaker, the House is an institution built upon its rules.
Accordingly, it is appropriate that one of the first orders of business
of the 109th Congress will be to adopt a rules package which is both
true to its traditions and forward-thinking in its outlook.
The package we have before us represents the work product of many
Members. During the initial stages of compiling this package, back in
November, the Rules Committee received 40 difference proposals form
both Democrats and Republicans.
In addition, our committee staff has actively sought the input of the
officers of the House, its committees, and its caucuses to get their
perspectives on the kinds of changes we can make to facilitate the work
of the House.
While not every proposal we received was incorporated into this
package, I assure you that each received substantial consideration by
the Speaker and the Rules Committee. And, as always, the Rules
Committee will continue to review our rules and operations to see where
other improvements can be made.
Mr. Speaker, all of the ideals contained in this resolution reflect
the considered judgment of our colleagues, and will ultimately improve
our ability to carry out our constitutional responsibilities. While I
will detail each of these changes in the section-by-section that I will
place in the Record, I want to elaborate on just a few of these
changes.
The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) is the author of
one important provision directing committees to review matters within
their jurisdiction to ferret out duplicative government programs as
part of their oversight planning at the beginning of each Congress.
There are a number of instances where we are conforming the rules to
reflect current House practice, such as with the designation of
leadership members of the Budget Committee and the taking of recesses
in committee to allow flexibility on our schedules.
We are also making the ability to consider suspensions on Wednesdays
permanent in
[[Page H24]]
this Congress after our successful experiment in the 108th Congress.
The package includes important provisions to allow us to function in
situations where large numbers of Members are incapacitated. The
``provisional quorum'' language includes a number of safeguards to
ensure that this institution can continue to operate during times of
turmoil and democracy will be preserved.
As we search for permanent solutions to the problems facing us in the
post-9/11 era, this is an important step in meeting our
responsibilities.
We will also eliminate the Corrections Calendar. While this was
originally intended to make it easier to consider legislation making
corrections to outright errors in law, it turned out to be more
cumbersome than other procedures, such as consideration under
suspension of the rules.
And yes, Mr. Speaker, in a change guaranteed to draw applause from my
colleagues, the House rules will now allow us to make reference to the
Senate and its Members, so long as those references are confined to the
question under debate and avoid personality. The Senate has long had
similar provisions and this new rule merely conforms our rules to
theirs.
I know that my colleagues and I share the desire to maintain our
traditions of dignity and decorum in proceedings, and will do so even
with this rules change.
On another topic, the package makes a series of changes to our ethics
rules.
We included two provisions suggested by the chairman and ranking
member of the Standards Committee: (1) clarifying the rule on
officially connected travel to allow a family member other than a
spouse or child to travel with the member at the sponsor's expense, and
(2) conforming the rules of the House to current law which allow the
use of campaign funds to pay for certain official expenses, such as a
cellphone.
We also included provision suggested by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to conform the rules of the House to current
law with regard to the 90-day pre-election limit on franked mail.
The package also includes two other provisions addressing our ethics
rules. The first gives Members the same rights to choose their counsel
before the Ethics Committee that they would enjoy if they were a
respondent in a court case.
The second change addresses an inequity in the Standards Committee
process requiring an investigative subcommittee if the chairman and
ranking member don't act within 45 days. This change restores the
presumption of innocence in our process.
As important as each of those changes are, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
most important change in this resolution will be the creation of a new
standing Committee on Homeland Security.
It represents a far-reaching and critically important part of our
overall strategic effort to protect the American people. The 9/11
Commission unanimously called for this action. They saw the need, and
we believe most Members do, too.
Over the past 3 years, the Congress has asked the American people to
accept change in countless ways. We have mandated change at the
Federal, State, and local levels. We have asked for change from our
allies and forced change upon our enemies.
And we saw the need for change over 2 years ago, and we responded,
first with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and then
with the formation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Their
final report, a thorough and complete study of homeland security
jurisdiction as it relates to House rules, was transmitted to my
committee at the end of last year.
These measures made it clear to me and many other Members that steps
need to be taken to further ensure the safety of the American people.
The Rules Committee thoroughly reviewed the Select Committee's report
and recommended a comprehensive and thoughtful reform effort that
mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission: the formation of a
permanent Committee on Homeland Security.
This change in House rule X, which governs the committee and their
legislative jurisdictions, is delicately crafted architecture. It draws
to the new committee only jurisdiction directly related to our defense
against terrorism. Thus, it creates a primary committee while
recognizing the other legitimate oversight roles of existing
committees. It acknowledges the expertise and experience residing in
other committees and leaves with them jurisdiction that may have a
homeland security implication but not a direct policy relationship.
The House must have one central point where we, as national
legislators, sort out the critical questions of securing our homeland
without sacrificing our free society or a stable economy.
However, we envision a system of ``purposeful redundancy.'' By that
we mean more than one level of oversight and an atmosphere in which the
competition of ideas is encouraged.
With this jurisdiction and the legislative history that I will place
in the Record, the Department of Homeland Security will have more
certainty as to which committee has the primary responsibility for
homeland security. At the same time, the American people will live with
the assurance that we are working to prevent anything from falling
through the cracks.
Mr. Speaker, the new committee will have jurisdiction over: (1)
Overall homeland security policy; (2) the organization and
administration of the Department of Homeland Security; and (3)
functions of the Department of Homeland Security relating to border and
port security (except immigration policy and non-border enforcement),
customs (except customs revenue), the integration, analysis, and
dissemination of homeland security information, domestic preparedness
for and collective response to terrorism, research and development, and
transportation security.
By approving this resolution, the House will do what the Speaker and
the 9/11 Commission has asked it to do: consolidate jurisdiction of the
House in one committee. This committee will be dedicated to setting
national homeland security policy and to effectively overseeing that
the Department of Homeland Security carries out its mission.
Mr. Speaker, in making these changes, I want to note several points
for the record.
First, referrals to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the
108th Congress will not be considered a precedent for referrals in the
109th Congress.
Second, at the request of Mr. Thomas, I am placing a document into
the Record regarding understandings between the Department of Treasury
and the Department of Homeland Security.
Third, because the Department continues to evolve, references to a
department, agency, bureau, office, or subdivision include a reference
to successor entities to the extent that the successor engages in
homeland security activities now conducted by the department, agency,
bureau, office, or subdivision referred to in the legislative history.
For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the Office
of Domestic Preparedness to the Department of Homeland Security, to
``have the primary responsibility within the executive branch of
Government for preparedness of the U.S. for acts of terrorism.''
Subsequently, its name has been changed by the Department to ``Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)''
although its mission stays the same.
Finally, I welcome questions from my colleagues about jurisdictional
matters related to this change. However, I want to caution all Members
that referrals are solely within the Speaker's power, and, in my
answers, I will not infringe upon the power.
Once again, I appreciate the input from all of you regarding the
109th rules package, and I feel that with your assistance, we will make
the rules of the House stronger and make for a safer country.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the changes in the House
ethics rules that the Republican majority is seeking to adopt today.
The proposed Republican rule changes would cripple the ethics process
in the House and dramatically lower the bar for standards of official
conduct.
Late yesterday, the Republican majority in the House released the
details of its rules package for the 109th Congress. Some of the
newspapers reported this morning that the majority had abandoned its
efforts to loosen rules governing Members' ethical conduct, but this is
not the case. While the majority backed away from some of its rule
changes, the most egregious ethics change remains. This provision would
make it much more difficult for the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Members of the
House.
Under current rules, if the Ethics Committee deadlocks on whether or
not to pursue an ethics complaint against a Member of the House, the
matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee. Under the
proposed change, a complaint against a Member would be tabled unless a
majority votes to take action on it within 45 days. Since the committee
is evenly split with five Republicans and five Democrats, either
political party could simply block an ethics complaint by stonewalling
and running out the clock.
There is no doubt that if the proposed rule change had been in effect
during the last Congress, no action would have been taken against the
Members of the House who were reprimanded as a result of the Ethics
Committee's investigation of bribery allegations raised in connection
with the vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003. The
committee would have deadlocked and the entire matter swept under the
rug 45 days after the complaint was made.
I was listening to the debate on this earlier. The chairman of the
Ethics Committee said
[[Page H25]]
that he does not favor this change. He said he would like it removed.
Why then is the majority leadership pursuing this change, when it is
opposed by the ranking Republican on the Ethics Committee?
At a time when public confidence in Congress is so low and the Nation
faces so many challenges, it is inexplicable that the first order of
business in the new session is to water down the ethics rules in the
House and make it even more difficult to discipline lawmakers who abuse
their office.
This should not be a partisan matter. The proposed rule change harms
the integrity and credibility of the House as an institution, and that
reflects badly on all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike. I urge
all my colleagues to join me in opposing this assault on ethics
enforcement in the House.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules package that
we have before us today.
It is outrageous that my Republican colleagues have placed before us
a rules package that at best lacks integrity, and at worst is
completely unethical.
As the highest body of elected officials in our country, we should be
held to the highest ethical standards.
But instead, my Republican colleagues have opted to put before us a
rules package that actually lowers our ethics standards, so that they
may promote their own agenda, at whatever cost.
This rules package makes it far more difficult for ethics
investigations to take place. By requiring a majority of the ethics
committee before an investigation can even begin, we are in great
danger of diminishing the integrity of our great institution.
With this new rule, the majority party can effectively block any
ethics investigation of a member of their party. This is an abuse of
power.
And it's not just Democrats who oppose this plan. Americans across
the country have expressed their opposition to this plan.
My Democratic colleagues and I have a better plan that will
strengthen the ethics rules to improve congressional accountability and
to make sure that legislation is properly considered.
The Republican plan fails to close a loophole that allows legislation
to be considered before members have read it. Last year this led to the
passage of a provision that would have let the Federal Government
deeply invade citizens' privacy by reading their tax returns. I am
appalled that the Republicans have failed to include the Democratic
provision to tighten this loophole.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution,
so that we do not allow this rules package to become law.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting for the Record the following
legislative history regarding the changes made by this resolution to
Rule X, along with supporting materials.
Legislative History To Accompany Changes to Rule X
rule x and the committee on homeland security
Legislative history
Overall homeland security policy--The jurisdiction of the
Committee on Homeland Security over ``overall homeland
security policy'' is to be interpreted on a government-wide
or multi-agency basis similar to the Committee on Government
Reform's jurisdiction over ``overall economy, efficiency, and
management of government operations and activities. . . .''
Surgical addresses of homeland security policy in sundry
areas of jurisdiction occupied by other committees would not
be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security on the
basis of ``overall'' homeland security policy jurisdiction.
For example, the Committee on Homeland Security shall have
jurisdiction over a bill coordinating the homeland security
efforts by all of the critical infrastructure protection
sectors. Jurisdiction over a bill addressing the protection
of a particular sector would lie with the committee otherwise
having jurisdiction over that sector.
Organization and administration of the Department of
Homeland Security--The jurisdiction of the Committee on
Homeland Security would apply only to organizational or
administrative aspects of the Department where another
committee's jurisdiction did not clearly apply. The
Committee's jurisdiction is to be confined to organizational
and administrative efforts and would not apply to
programmatic efforts within the Department of Homeland
Security within the jurisdiction of other committees.
Homeland Security Oversight--This would vest the Committee
on Homeland Security with oversight jurisdiction over the
homeland security community of the United States. Nothing in
this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise
restricting the authority of any other committee to study and
review homeland security activities to the extent that such
activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the
jurisdiction of that committee.
Individual committee concerns
Agriculture--The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland
Security over ``border and port security'' shall be limited
to agricultural importation and entry inspection activities
of the Department of Homeland Security under section 421 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Committee on
Agriculture shall retain jurisdiction over animal and
plant disease policy including the authority reserved to
the Department of Agriculture to regulate policy under
section 421 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the
Animal Health Protection Act, the Plant Protection Act,
the Plant Quarantine Act, and the Agriculture Quarantine
Inspection User Fee Account. The Committee on Agriculture
shall retain jurisdiction over the agricultural research
and diagnosis mission at the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center.
Armed Services--The Committee on Armed Services shall
retain jurisdiction over warfighting, the military defense of
the United States, and other military activities, including
any military response to terrorism, pursuant to section 876
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Energy and Commerce--The Committee on Homeland Security
shall have jurisdiction over measures that address the
Department of Homeland Security's activities for domestic
preparedness and collective response to terrorism. The words
``to terrorism'' require a direct relation to terrorism. The
Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdiction over
``collective response to terrorism'' means that it shall
receive referrals of bills addressing the Department of
Homeland Security's responsibilities for, and assistance to,
first responders as a whole. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce (and other relevant committees) shall retain their
jurisdiction over bills addressing the separate entities that
comprise the first responders. For example, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce shall retain its jurisdiction over a bill
directing the Department of Health and Human Services to
train emergency medical personnel.
Financial Services--The Committee on Financial Services
shall retain jurisdiction over the National Flood Insurance
Program and Emergency Food and Shelter Program of FEMA, and
the Defense Production Act. The Committee on Financial
Services shall retain its jurisdiction over the anti-money
laundering, terrorist financing, and anti-counterfeiting
activities within the Department of the Treasury and the
financial regulators.
Government Reform--The Committee on Homeland Security shall
have jurisdiction over ``the organization and administration
of the Department of Homeland Security.'' The Committee on
Government Reform shall retain jurisdiction over federal
civil service, the overall economy, efficiency, and
management of government operations and activities, including
Federal procurement, and federal paperwork reduction. The
Committee on Government Reform shall retain jurisdiction over
government-wide information management efforts including the
Federal Information Security Management Act. The Committee on
Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction over integration,
analysis, and dissemination of homeland security
information by the Department of Homeland Security, and
the Committee on Government Reform shall retain
jurisdiction over measures addressing public information
and records generally including the Privacy Act and the
Freedom of Information Act. The Committee on Government
Reform shall have jurisdiction over the policy
coordination responsibilities of the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement.
Intelligence--The Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence shall retain jurisdiction over the intelligence
and intelligence-related activities of all departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence and the National
Counterterrorism Center as defined in the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Judiciary--The Committee on the Judiciary shall retain
jurisdiction over immigration policy and non-border
enforceme4tn of the immigration laws. Its jurisdiction over
immigration policy shall include matters such as the
immigration and naturalization process, numbers of aliens
(including immigrants and non-immigrants) allowed,
classifications and lengths of allowable stay, the
adjudication of immigration petitions and the requirements
for the same, the domestic adjudication of immigration
petitions and applications submitted to the Department of
Labor or the Department of Homeland Security and setting
policy with regard to visa issuance and acceptance. Its
jurisdiction over non-border enforcement shall be limited to
those aspects of immigration enforcement not associated with
the immediate entry of individuals into the country,
including those aspects of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. The Committee on Homeland Security shall
have jurisdiction over border and port security including the
immigration responsibilities of inspectors at ports of entry
and the border patrol. As used in the new Rule X(1)(l)(9) and
this legislative history, the word ``immigration'' shall be
construed to include ``naturalization'' and no substantive
change is intended by the new rule's not containing the word
``naturalization.''
Science--The Committee on Science shall retain some
jurisdiction over the research and development activities of
the Department of Homeland Security as such matters are
incidental to the Committee on Science's
[[Page H26]]
existing jurisdiction (except where those activities are in
the jurisdiction of another committee).
Transportation and Infrastructure--The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure shall retain jurisdiction
over the Coast Guard. However, the Committee on Homeland
Security has jurisdiction over port security, and some Coast
Guard responsibilities in that area will fall within the
jurisdiction of both committees. Jurisdiction over emergency
preparedness will be split between the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Homeland Security. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure shall retain its jurisdiction under clause
1(r)(2) over ``federal management of emergencies and
natural disasters.'' This means that the committee retains
its general jurisdiction over the emergency preparedness
and response operations of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Bills addressing FEMA's general
preparation for disaster from any cause shall be referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The
Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction
over the Department of Homeland Security's
responsibilities with regard to emergency preparedness
only as they relate to acts of terrorism. Thus, the
Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction
over the responsibilities of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, in accordance with section 430 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002.
As indicated earlier, the Committee on Homeland Security's
jurisdiction over ``collective response to terrorism'' means
that it would receive referrals of bills addressing the
Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities for, and
assistance to, first responders as a whole and not over
measures addressing first responder communities individually.
The Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction
over the functions of the Department of Homeland Security
relating to transportation security, while the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure shall retain its
jurisdiction over transportation safety. In general, the
Committee on Homeland Security would have jurisdiction over
bills addressing the Transportation Security Administration
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would
have jurisdiction over bills addressing the various entities
within the Department of Transportation having responsibility
for transportation safety, such as the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland
Security does not include expenditures from trust funds under
the jurisdiction of other committees, including but not
limited to the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Federal
Buildings Fund, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Ways and Means--The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways
and Means over ``customs revenue'' is intended to include
those functions contemplated in section 412(b)(2) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 and includes those functions as
carried out in collection districts and ports of entry and
delivery.
____
Secretary of the Treasury,
Date: May 15, 2003.
SUBJECT: Delegation from the Secretary of the Treasury to
the Secretary of Homeland Security of general authority over
Customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the
Treasury as set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Secretary of
the Treasury, including the authority vested by 31 U.S.C.
321(b) and section 412 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Pub. L. 107-296) (Act), it is hereby ordered:
1. Consistent with the transfer of the functions,
personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States
Customs Service to the Department of Homeland Security as set
forth in section 403(1) of the Act, there is hereby delegated
to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority related
to the Customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of
the Treasury as set forth in sections 412 and 415 of the Act,
subject to the following exceptions and to paragraph 6 of
this Delegation of Authority:
(a)(i) The Secretary of the Treasury retains the sole
authority to approve any regulations concerning import quotas
or trade bans, user fees, marking, labeling, copyright and
trademark enforcement, and the completion of entry or
substance of entry summary including duty assessment and
collection, classification, valuation, application of the
U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedules, eligibility or requirements
for preferential trade programs, and the establishment of
recordkeeping requirements relating thereto. The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide a copy of all regulations so
approved to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee
on Ways and Means and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on Finance every six months.
(ii) The Secretary of the Treasury shall retain the
authority to review, modify, or revoke any determination or
ruling that falls within the criteria set forth in paragraph
1(a)(i), and that is under consideration pursuant to the
procedures set forth in sections 516 and 625(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516 and 1625(c)). The
Secretary of Homeland Security periodically shall identify
and describe for the Secretary of the Treasury such
determinations and rulings that are under consideration under
sections 516 and 625(c) of the Tariff act of 1930, as
amended, in an appropriate and timely manner, with
consultation as necessary, prior to the Secretary of Homeland
Security's exercise of such authority. The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide a copy of these
identifications and descriptions so made the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance every
six months. The Secretary of the Treasury shall list any case
where Treasury modified or revoked such a determination or
ruling.
(b) Paragraph 1(a) notwithstanding, if the Secretary of
Homeland Security finds an overriding, immediate, and
extraordinary security threat to public health and safety,
the Secretary of Homeland Security may take action described
in paragraph 1(a) without the prior approval of the Secretary
of the Treasury. However, immediately after taking any such
action, the Secretary of Homeland security shall certify in
writing to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee
on Finance the specific reasons therefor. The action shall
terminate within 14 days or as long as the overriding,
immediate, and extraordinary security threat exists,
whichever is shorter, unless the Secretary of the Treasury
approves the continued action and provides notice of such
approval to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(c) The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the
Customs Service (COAC) shall be jointly appointed by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Meetings of COAC shall be presided over jointly by
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland
Security. The COAC shall advise the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Secretary of Homeland Security jointly.
2. Any references in this Delegation of Authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Homeland
Security are deemed to include their respective delegees, if
any.
3. This Delegation of Authority is not intended to create
or confer any right, privilege, or benefit on any private
person, including any person in litigation with the United
States.
4. Treasury Order No. 165-09, ``Maintenance of delegation
in respect to general authority over Customs Revenue
functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, as set
forth and defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,''
dated February 28, 2003, is rescinded. To this extent this
Delegation of Authority requires any revocation of any other
prior Order or Directive of the Secretary of the Treasury,
such prior Order or Directive is hereby revoked.
5. This Delegation of Authority is effective May 14, 2003.
This Delegation is subject to review on May 14, 2004. By
March 15, 2004, the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Finance to discuss the upcoming review of this Delegation.
6. The Secretary of the Treasury reserves the right to
rescind or modify this Delegation of Authority, promulgate
regulations, or exercise authority at any time based upon the
statutory authority reserved to the Secretary by the Act.
John W. Snow,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 5, to the
Republican rules package. Specifically, I oppose the proposed changes
to rule X, which among other things creates a permanent standing
Committee on Homeland Security and grants legislative jurisdiction to
that committee. I am not opposed to the creation of a permanent
Homeland Security Committee. Indeed, I believe that the Homeland
Security Committee should be made permanent and should be granted
jurisdiction over the overall homeland security policy of the Federal
Government. Further, I believe that a Homeland Security Committee is
needed to oversee the internal administration of such a large Federal
agency as the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, which has over
180,000 employees.
Although H. Res. 5 includes these provisions, I oppose its grant of
legislative jurisdiction to the new committee of areas that have
previously been the jurisdiction of other committees. I oppose this
grant of jurisdiction, not because of some desire to protect existing
committees' ``turf'', but because transfer of these security issues to
a new committee divests from the responsibility for those issues from
those Members who have substantial experience and expertise--in some
cases developed through decades of work--on them. The existing
committees are best equipped to give the full House the benefit of
carefully thought out recommendations that provide effective security
without unnecessary risks to safety or economic efficiency. It will
take years for a new committee to be able to develop the expertise to
provide the House and the Nation with reports and recommendations of
the quality that existing committees provide.
[[Page H27]]
It is not enough to say that members with particular areas of
expertise will have an opportunity to be heard on these issues. The
most effective way to influence policy is to be part of the debate and
discussion in the early stages of policy formation; simply voting yes
or no when legislation makes it to the House floor is generally not
sufficient participation to craft policy.
I take this position on the basis of my 30 years of experience in the
House, during which time I have given high priority to security,
particularly the security of our transportation system.
H. Res. 5 would divest responsibility for DHS' transportation and
port security functions from the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, T&I Committee, and transfer it to the Homeland Security
Committee. However, transportation and port security cannot be
considered in a vacuum. Developing sound security legislation requires
balancing security risks against the economic and safety impacts of
such measures on transportation industries and their customers. For
example, we would not want to install technology on aircraft to protect
against missile attacks if that technology would create
disproportionate safety risks.
In addition, security mandates are only one type of requirement
imposed on transportation industries. Other requirements include
safety, consumer protection, environmental, accessibility, and
competitiveness statutory or regulatory mandates. Any security
legislation or regulation must be considered in the context of the
costs and benefits of all such requirements governing transportation
industries.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has the
responsibility and the expertise to broadly consider security risks,
weigh all costs and benefits of proposed requirements, and determine
the likely effects of such actions on transportation industries, their
customers, and the existing framework of other statutory and regulatory
requirements. The T&I Committee, time and again, has proven it's
capable to ensure that the U.S. transportation system is efficient and
safe, as well as secure. In the aftermath of the Pan Am Flight 103
tragedy, the T&I Committee developed the landmark Aviation Security
Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-604), which mandated background
checks for airline and airport employees and the deployment of bomb
detection equipment for baggage at our Nation's airports. During the
1990s, our committee continued to respond to the changing security
needs through oversight and legislation.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the T&I Committee
developed and considered the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
of 2001, ATSA. ATSA established a new Transportation Security
Administration, TSA, federalized the screening workforce, and required
the screening of all checked baggage to protect against terrorist
threats. The Aviation Subcommittee alone has held 19 hearings on
aviation security issues since September 11. Since September 11, the
T&I Committee has also spearheaded important maritime and port security
legislation including the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002,
and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.
The T&I Committee has the member expertise, the staff, and the
institutional memory to deal with these issues. I believe that the
quality of congressional oversight and legislation on these issues will
suffer if these issues are simply transferred wholesale to a new
committee. It will take years for the new committee to develop the
institutional background and expertise that currently resides in our
committee.
Finally, the Republican Conference drafted these changes to rule X in
isolation. Democrats were afforded no role in crafting this critical
security policy.
I believe the proposed changes to rule X do not further the security
of this Nation. Instead, I fear that they will hamper security by
divesting from those Members with the experience and institutional
knowledge of these issues the direct responsibility to craft security
policy.
For all of these reasons, I oppose H. Res. 5.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the rules package includes
a provision that will make the Homeland Security Committee a permanent
committee. More importantly, we will be giving the committee real
oversight and legislative jurisdiction. But I am disappointed that the
majority has only given shared jurisdiction to the Homeland Security
Committee in some areas. This creates the potential for ongoing turf
battles that the 9/11 Commission warned against.
I am also discouraged that the majority has decided to add a third
day of suspension bills to the legislative calendar each week. An
increasing amount of legislation is being passed by the House under a
suspension of the Rules. This is unnecessary and keeps us from doing
the real business of the House--budgeting, appropriations and
oversight.
A perfect example of this is the massive omnibus appropriations bill
passed for fiscal year 2005 just a few weeks ago. This bill was rushed
to the floor, ignoring the House rule requiring a 3-day review period
before voting on conference reports. Only after the House voted on the
bill, careful scrutiny of the language uncovered a provision allowing
certain Members and staff access to any American's tax return.
Not only was this an embarrassing episode for the House leadership,
it continued a troubling trend. In 4 out of the last 5 years, the
majority has made a massive omnibus bill the only option to fund the
government. This take-it-or-leave-it approach is not acceptable and is
fiscally irresponsible.
Congress has also been asleep at the switch when it comes to funding
for Iraq and the war on terrorism. This administration continues to
fund the war on terrorism by supplemental appropriations. This is not a
temporary war. Congress needs to stand up to this White House, stand up
for honest budgeting, and require that funding for Iraq and the war on
terrorism be made on-budget, and through the regular appropriations
process.
By appropriating through omnibus bills and budgeting by supplemental,
Congress is surrendering its constitutional duties. The results of this
practice are ballooning deficits--the CBO confirmed that the 2004
deficit is the largest in history, $413 billion--a lack of follow-
through to determine how appropriated funds are being spent.
Without proper oversight as a backstop, problems in the executive
branch can spin out of control. Members are learning about problems for
the first time through the newspapers, not as a result of tough
oversight hearings. This kind of lax or nonexistent oversight
contributes to situations like we saw in Abu Ghraib prison. Now we have
learned about secret, permanent detention facilities in the United
States where possible terrorists are held indefinitely, without any
legal status.
Mr. Speaker, we need to take a hard look at our priorities and get
back to doing the business of the House. We should be moving forward
with a tough, focused oversight agenda, and a schedule that devotes
more time to priority, must-pass legislation and less time to
suspension bills. Instead, it appears that we are adopting a rules
package today that will bring us more of the same.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as has been the case for a number of years,
the rules package put forward by my Republican colleagues continues to
trample on the rights of the minority. It will do nothing to stop the
abusive practices in this House such as the 3-hour vote on the Medicare
bill in the middle of the night. In fact, it allows the Speaker added
discretion to reconsider votes that the Republican majority loses. In
addition, the new rules require an affirmative vote by the Ethics
Committee before any action can be taken. This, in effect, gives my
Republican colleagues the right to block any investigation.
I would like to focus on one portion of the package that will create
a permanent Committee on Homeland Security. While I am sure some of my
colleagues believe that the new committee will improve our security,
unfortunately this new committee will be nothing more than a costly
addition to the expenditures of the legislative branch, and it will
likely breed a new wave of ``turf warfare'' among the committees of the
House. We simply do not need a special committee every time we face a
crisis.
The process under which we are being asked to approve this change is
particularly troublesome. I call your attention to the last time the
House felt compelled to create a new committee. In 1980, some Members
of the House believed that it would be wise to create an energy
committee. It used a careful process in which a committee on committees
was created, consisting of Democrats and Republicans. When that
committee reported its recommendations to the House, substitutes were
permitted, and the result reflected a thoughtful understanding of how
best to achieve the objectives.
In contrast, we are now being asked to consider a proposal which was
sent to us just yesterday. It was hatched in secret by our Republican
colleagues without the input of any Democrats. While many of my
Democratic colleagues may agree with the need for a new committee, the
right of the minority to have their views considered and voted upon has
been trampled once again.
I also oppose the notion that a new committee is needed. If the main
concern is one of oversight, we can use our existing committees to do
the job. If Members still believed that a new committee was necessary,
it need not have legislative jurisdiction.
I am certain that is such a committee had legislative recommendations
of merit, the appropriate committees along with proper actions by
respective party leaders would ensure the bill would come to the floor.
Instead, I foresee a new committee that will seek to increase its
powers by introducing bills granting all manner of new authorities to
the Department of Homeland Security. In addition,
[[Page H28]]
thoughtful bills addressing aspects of homeland security reported by
the existing committees will now be delayed as the new committee will
seek referrals. And needed responsiveness by the executive branch to
the existing committees may be hindered.
While the 9/11 Commission urged a reorganization of congressional
committees to deal with homeland security, it is odd that this new
committee will have no jurisdiction over the issues that were
identified by the Commission that led to the 9/11 tragedy. The new
committee will have no jurisdiction over the intelligence community,
the law enforcement community, or immigration enforcement.
It is a shame that the first day of this new Congress should be
marked by an attempt to authorize a new committee without so much as an
open markup to consider its merits. Moreover, it would be extremely
unwise to ignore the expertise and experience of existing committees as
we address homeland security issues, but we are starting down that path
today.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the radical
new provision included in this rules package resolution which would
violate the Constitution by allowing the Speaker and a small group of
Members to usurp the powers of a majority of the House and act with
only a ``provisional quorum'' instead of the real thing.
The proposal would deny the plain language of section 5 of article I
of the Constitution and create a new category of quorum--a
``provisional quorum''--which the Constitution expressly forbids. It
destroys the very idea of the quorum. It would also demolish a 99-year-
old precedent, based on the Constitution, that a quorum of the House
consists of a majority of the membership chosen, sworn, and living.
For each House Member deprived of the right to exert an impact on the
work of the House, either through physical presence in or absence from
the Chamber, the approximately 600,000 persons represented by each
Member would be deprived of their rights to democratic representation
in the legislative body structured to be closest to the American
people. This proposal transfers the rights of those ``closest to the
people'' to those closest to the House floor.
The proposal takes the guise of a rules change which the House has no
power to pass, since the Constitution determines what kind of body the
House is, and what it can--and can not--do.
Under this proposal, a majority of Members of the House could be
alive and well and fully cognizant, but unable to reach the floor,
while the few who are present could usurp their authority and the
powers of the House.
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution states that a quorum
consists of a majority, and, in the absence of a majority, all that the
remaining minority of Members of the House can do is either adjourn
from day to day or vote to compel the attendance of absent Members.
There are no other options--no matter how inconvenient that fact may be
for any faction on the floor of the House during a time of emergency.
The fact that the Constitution authorizes a minority to compel the
attendance of the absentees clearly indicates that the absentees are
needed to conduct business. The Constitution does not guarantee that a
minority of the House will necessarily succeed in compelling the
attendance of absent Members to create a constitutional quorum. And
such a result could indeed cause a crisis, which H. Res. 5 would do
nothing to remedy. Unfortunately, during the last Congress the House
refused to make serious progress toward ensuring continuity of
government.
Let's consider how the plan before us today actually might operate.
Suppose that, in the aftermath of a catastrophic emergency which
caused mass casualties and disrupted transportation and communications
nationwide, a presiding officer existed in the House who might either
be the Speaker or another Member of the House acting as ``Speaker pro
tempore'' from a list of names left by a deceased Speaker.
Suppose that the presiding officer decided, if a quorum of the
majority of Members failed to appear within a specified time period,
that Members who weren't present on the House floor or any other
designated place of meeting ceased to be Members for purposes of
determining a quorum.
Suppose the rump minority of Members who had managed to reach the
floor wanted to pass major legislation, including a declaration of war
or authorization for use of military force, send constitutional
amendments to the States for ratification, expel Members from their
seats, or elect a new Speaker to become Acting President of the United
States, all using a ``provisional quorum'' of one-half of the Members
present, plus one.
Could they do these things? The proposed rule says they could. The
Constitution says they could not.
The resolution gives the Member presiding the effective power to
temporarily define out of existence those Members who don't respond to
a specified series of quorum calls. These Members' seats would not be
considered vacant, but they would fall into a kind of extra-
constitutional limbo until the missing Members--or a majority of the
total membership--reappeared in the House. It is even possible that
some states might seek to replace Members who do not answer the
``provisional quorum'' call in the House by ordering special elections
even though the Members might be known to be alive.
All Members are equal under the Constitution, and the right to
membership in this House is not determined by a Speaker, Speaker pro
tempore, or a rump of a minority of the body. It is determined by a
vote of the people, and only a constitutionally constituted House may
exercise the power to determine the qualifications of its Members and
whether they have been duly elected.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the House may not add qualifications
for membership beyond those expressly stated in the Constitution. If a
Member has been duly elected and taken the oath, he remains a Member,
and can only be removed through resignation, or through expulsion.
There is no constitutional requirement that a Member must appear on the
floor to maintain membership, or that House membership can somehow
lapse.
It is surprising that some who only last year during debate on the
``Continuity of Representation Act'', H.R. 2844, spoke eloquently about
the status of a House consisting only of Members elected by the people
are now supporting a proposal to define those elected Members out of
existence.
Members who are trapped at an airport because the transportation
system is inoperative, for example, do not simply cease to exist, nor
can their powers be vested in other Members, willingly or not. Their
absence has potential consequences, including the inability of the
House to act until the collective body is ``assembled'' again, as the
Constitution requires.
The resolution would also do an end run around the issue of
``disability'', a matter not addressed in the Constitution and one
which requires a constitutional amendment to resolve, as the 25th
Amendment did in the case of the President. Disabled Members--whom we
might describe as those either physically injured or mentally incapable
so as to be incapable of participating in the work of the House--have
the same status as those who are fully functional. The Constitution
makes no mention of disabled Members, but it does not give the House
the power to pretend they don't exist. The House has never expelled or
otherwise attempted to remove a sitting Member on the grounds of
disability.
Proponents of the proposal before us today claim to address the
problem of incapacitated Members, but only by effectively ignoring it.
Under the provisional quorum rule, these Members would presumably not
be able to appear on the floor and would be automatically excluded from
the provisional quorum. It's a very convenient solution to the
disability problem, though blatantly unconstitutional.
The House could adopt the provisional quorum plan as a House rule if
the Constitution were amended to authorize it to do so; however, the
Constitution does not.
The argument that the House is somehow exercising a constitutional
power to make its own rules is also spurious. The House may only make
rules which the Constitution permits it to make. The House may not
reinvent itself at will as a different kind of legislative body by
pretending that it is simply changing its rules.
At the very least, the House should debate the provisional quorum
issue as a separate resolution, following hearings by the Rules
Committee, with the Speaker in the chair to signal the historic nature
of the debate and the radical action proposed to be taken. Burying the
issue within this resolution with other controversial rule changes is
an outrage.
The 108th Congress proved to be a huge disappointment because of its
failure to effectively address many issues involving the stability of
our structure of government, deficiencies brought to the forefront by
the September 11 attacks, as well as a disturbing tendency to paper
over controversies with legislation which fails to substantively
address the problem.
For example, the House rejected a constitutional amendment offered by
Representative Baird of Washington which would have reconstituted the
House quickly through temporary appointments, pending special
elections, if a large number of Members were killed. I had introduced a
different version of the proposal, H.J. Res. 89. Members opposed to the
concept--which is admittedly extremely controversial--refused to allow
real hearings and debate. Even though prospects for passage of a
constitutional amendment were extremely slim, a substantial debate
would have served to educate the Congress and the American people on
the importance of these issues, and perhaps provide impetus in a search
for alternatives. A major effort like this has to start somewhere.
Instead, the House passed, but the Senate subsequently did not
consider, H.R. 2844, the
[[Page H29]]
``Continuity of Representation Act'', which created an unrealistically
fast, unfair, undemocratic and unworkable scheme to fill vacant House
seats through a mandatory national 45-day special election period. This
bill was referred principally to the House Administration Committee,
where I was able to make an official record of its many flaws.
Neither House passed simple legislation which would have corrected an
oversight in the legislation creating the Department of Homeland
Security in 2002, which failed to place the supposedly critical new
cabinet officer somewhere--anywhere--in the statutory line of success
to the Presidency.
Though hearings were held, neither House addressed significant issues
of Presidential succession, such as the role of the Speaker and
President pro tempore and lame duck Cabinet members in the succession
lineup, and the ability of some officials to ``bump'' others serving as
acting president under the current Federal statute.
Mr. Speaker, I plan to urge further action on congressional
continuity issues in the new year, to work with my colleagues on the
Committee on House Administration to assert our own jurisdiction more
effectively and to push other relevant committees to do the same. We
need both more effective action, and better internal cooperation, to
accomplish these goals.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Explanation of 3-Day Layover Supermajority Vote requirement
1. Committee Reports. Clause 4(a)(1) of Rule XIII requires
committee-reported bills to lay over for three days before
consideration in the House. The purpose of this rule, which
dates from the legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, is to
give Members who did not participate in committee
deliberations time to consider the committee's work. The
three-day layover period gives Members time to familiarize
themselves with the legislation and to prepare for House
debate, which could include drafting amendments to the
committee-reported bill. When he was a minority Rules
Committee Member, Chairman Dreier explained the importance of
this rule in the following way:
``Why is it that we have the 3-day layover? Very simple,
Mr. Speaker, I do not think you would enter into a business
agreement or purchase a home or engage in any kind of major
activity without having read it first. The idea behind the 3-
day layover is very simple. It is there so that we may in
fact allow Members to have the opportunity to review
legislation before they exercise their constitutional right
and vote for it or against it.''
Althoug Chairman Dreier was very critical of special rules
that waived the 3-day layover when he was a minority Rules
Committee member, his committee routinely reports special
rules waiving 3-day layover of committee-reported
legislation. In the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee
waived the 3-day layover of committee-reported legislation 31
times.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore regular order
to the committee reporting process. It would allow the House
to adopt a rule waiving the 3-day layover of committee-
reported legislation only with a two-thirds vote--in the same
way the House must approve a rule calling for same-day
consideration of a bill by a two-thirds vote.
2. Conference Reports. House-Senate conferences are a
critical part of the Congressional deliberative process
because they produce the final legislative product that
becomes the law of the land. The conference is where the
final compromises are made and the final statutory language
on the bill's toughest issues is negotiated and drafted. As
Chairman Dreier wrote back in 1993:
``Deliberative democracy is just as important at the end of
the legislative process as it is at the formative
subcommittee stages or the amendatory floor stage. In fact,
the case can be made that it is even more important that
Congress be fully informed and deliberate on that final
product since that is the version that will become law.''
Because only a restricted group of House Members
participate in conferences and because conference reports can
contain significant policy changes from the House-approved
version of a bill, the standing House Rules provide Members a
number of protections against the conference process. Perhaps
the most important protection is the one found in clause
8(a)(1)(A) of House Rules XXII, which requires conference
reports and joint explanatory statements to lay over for
three days after publication in the Congressional Record. The
purpose of this rule is very clear. Since most Members do not
participate in the conference, they need time to study and
familiarize themselves with the conference product.
Conference reports on major legislation run sometimes
hundreds of pages and often contain small, technical-looking
changes in bill language that can have large policy effects.
They can also contain provisions that serve the interests of
a small group of conferees, but do not reflect the intentions
of the broader house membership.
Although conference reports are privileged and could come
directly to the Floor for consideration without a rule, they
are routinely considered under special rules because they are
often in technical violation of one or more sections of Rule
XXII or the Budget Act of 1974. While it is understandable
that the majority may need to use special rules to waive
certain points of order against the content or consideration
of conference reports in particular situations, the Majority
has made it the practice to grant ``blanket waivers'' to
virtually every conference report the House considers.
Twenty-five of the 28 special rules the Rules Committee
granted on conference reports in the 108th Congress waived
3-day layover. In other words, it has become standard
practice to jam conference reports through the House
before most Members know what is in them.
One of the troubling consequences of this policy is that
Members only learn about the details of a conference report
after it has already passed the House. Some of these
conference reports reconfirm the truth of the old saying that
``the devil is in the details.'' Chairman Dreier made this
very same argument, when, as a minority Rules Committee
member, he opposed waiving the 3-day layover on conference
reports. He wrote:
``The House and Senate have been repeatedly embarrassed
over the years by conference reports on voluminous pieces of
legislation which have been voted on before even properly
printed or distributed, let alone understood. Only after
their enactment have some of the provisions come back to
haunt the Congress.''
The 108th Congress has had its share of embarrassing
episodes involving the quick approval of conference reports
that were later discovered to contain controversial
provisions added into bills during the conference stage. For
example:
One of the earliest actions of the 108th Congress was to
repeal the embarrassing provision Republican leaders had
slipped into the Homeland Security conference report at the
end of the 107th Congress that protected Eli Lilly and a
number of other pharmaceutical companies from civil liability
for their production of the vaccine preservative Thimerosal.
The Energy Bill conference added scores of obscure
provisions that had not appeared in the House or Senate
bills, including the embarrassing ``greenbonds initiative,''
which turned out to be subsidy to build a Hooters restaurant
in Shreveport, Louisiana.
The recent conference report for the FY05 Omnibus funding
bill included a provision giving Appropriations Committee
Members and staff access to the Internal Revenue Service tax
returns of U.S. Citizens.
To avoid future embarrassing episodes such as these and to
restore Members' rights to have three days to study a
conference report, this section would allow the House to
adopt a rule waiving the 3-day layover of conference report
only with a two-thirds vote.
____
Previous Questions for H. Res. 5--109th Congress Opening Day Rules
Package
In section 2:
Amendment to H. Res. 5 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
Strike section 2(k)(2) (relating to dismissal of
complaints) and redesignate the succeeding paragraph
accordingly.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
this vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to commit
and a 5-minute vote on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 4]
YEAS--222
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
[[Page H30]]
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Capps
Feeney
Jones (NC)
Larsen (WA)
McHugh
Miller, Gary
Northup
Serrano
Watson
{time} 1705
Messrs. SANDERS, DeFAZIO, and MEEHAN changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Motion to Commit Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the
motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. SLAUGHTER moves to commit the resolution H. Res. 5 to a
select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith with the following amendments:
In section 2, add at the end the following new subsections:
waiver of three-day layover requirement requires two-thirds vote
Sec. . Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives is amended by striking the period at the
end of subparagraph (2) and by adding at the end the
following new subparagraphs:
``(3) a rule or order proposing a waiver of clause 4(a)(1)
of rule XIII or of clause 8(a) or 8(b) of rule XXII by a vote
of less than two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being
present; or
``(4) a rule or order proposing a waiver of subparagraph
(3) by a vote of less than two-thirds of the Members voting,
a quorum being present.''.
post-employment restrictions for members
Sec. . Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by redesignating clause 13 as
clause 14 and by adding after clause 12 the following new
clause:
``13. No Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may
negotiate for future employment with any person who has a
direct interest in legislation referred to any committee
during this or the preceding Congress while that Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves on that
committee.''.
Ms. SLAUGHTER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196,
nays 219, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
[[Page H31]]
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Capps
Doyle
Feeney
Fortenberry
Jones (NC)
Larsen (WA)
McHugh
Miller, Gary
Northup
Peterson (PA)
Serrano
Watson
{time} 1719
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin and Mr. COX changed their votes from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER
pro tempore (Mr. LaHood).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 4, 2005--On Page H 31 under RULES OF THE HOUSE the
following appeared: {time} 1715 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood).
The online version should be corrected to read: So the motion to
commit was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above
recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood).
========================= END NOTE =========================
{time} 1715
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minutes vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, AL
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Capps
Doyle
Feeney
Hastings (WA)
Jones (NC)
Larsen (WA)
McHugh
Miller, Gary
Northup
Peterson (PA)
Serrano
Watson
{time} 1530
Miss McMORRIS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the
following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I
would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 3--``nay''; rollcall No. 4--
``nay''; rollcall No. 5--``yea''; rollcall No. 6--``nay.''
____________________