[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 42-67]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 43]]

       (3) add at the end the following new subdivision:
       ``(E) have a view toward insuring against duplication of 
     Federal programs.''.
       (C) Membership of Committees.--
       (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

[[Page 44]]

     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 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.

[[Page 45]]

  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.''
  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.

[[Page 46]]

  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 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

[[Page 47]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 48]]



     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 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

[[Page 49]]

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 (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

[[Page 50]]

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, 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

[[Page 51]]

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.
  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

[[Page 52]]

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 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

[[Page 53]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 54]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 55]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 56]]

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 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

[[Page 57]]

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 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

[[Page 58]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 59]]

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 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

[[Page 60]]

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 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

[[Page 61]]

     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 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

[[Page 62]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 63]]

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, 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

[[Page 64]]

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 ``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:

[[Page 65]]



      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
     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

[[Page 66]]


     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
     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

[[Page 67]]


     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

  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.''

                             {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.

                          ____________________