Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the visit to the United States of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan beginning January 26, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by extending congratulations to the Speaker, our majority leader, our friends in the minority and all of our colleagues on their election.

The comprehensive changes that we are proposing in H. Res. 5 seek to build on the successful reform accomplishments of the last 8 years which have helped to make the House more accountable and deliberative and have strengthened our ability to govern effectively and responsibly.

As my colleagues recall, Mr. Speaker, we overhauled the committee system, made Congress compliant with anti-discrimination and workplace safety laws, opened committee meetings to the public and press, modernized the Rules of the House to make them more understandable, and cut the number of standing rules nearly in half. In the 107th Congress, we created the Committee on Financial Services, enhanced oversight planning, strengthened performance goals and objectives, and created the Department of Homeland Security.

Our continued investments in technology are transforming the culture, operations, and responsibilities of Congress in a very positive way.

With that having been said, I want to describe some of the more significant positive rules changes we are proposing to the standing rules of the House, and those are contained in section 2 of this resolution.

Section 2(A) and section 2(C), as well as section 2(L) stem from the recommendations made by the bipartisan Continuity of Congress Task Force, which was formed following the attack of September 11, 2001, which Speaker Hastert talked about, that was cochaired by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and it reviewed the rules and procedures of the House to ensure that the appropriate institutional and mechanisms were in place to respond to a catastrophic event.

The first provision amends rule 1, clause 8(b) to require the Speaker to provide to the Clerk of the House a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker.

Section 2(C) provides new recess and convening authorities to the Speaker in the event of an imminent threat to the safety of the House by amending clause 12 of rule 1.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, section 2(L) codifies the practice of adjusting the whole number of the House upon the death, resignation, expulsion, disqualification, or removal of a Member in rule 20, clause 5.

In the 107th Congress, rule 18 was amended to allow the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. This procedure has been very helpful, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, in improving the management of the floor and in dealing with the challenges of our legislative schedule. In an effort to provide committees with similar management flexibility, section 2(G) proposes to amend rule 11, clause 2(h) to allow committees to adopt a similar rule authorizing the chairman of a committee or subcommittee to postpone certain votes and resume proceedings on a postponed question after reasonable notice. An underlying proposition would remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed.

During the 105th Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House adopted H. Res. 168, which included both changes to the standing rules of the House and freestanding directives to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. For the past two Congresses, these freestanding directives have been carried forward through a separate order.

Section 2(H) codifies these directives which address committee agenda, committee staff, meetings and hearings, public disclosure, requirements to constitute a complaint, duties of the chairman and ranking member, investigative and adjudicatory subcommittees, standard of proof for adoption of statement of alleged violation, subcommittee powers, due process rights of respondents, and committee reporting requirements.

Section 2(I) permits the joint referral of measures without designation of primary jurisdiction. This change is meant only as a minor deviation from the normal requirement under the rules for the designation of one committee of primary jurisdiction and should be exercised only in extraordinary jurisdictionally deserving instances.

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to provide more realistic estimates of tax measures, section 2(J) requires the Committee on Ways and Means to include in reports on measures amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 an analysis by the Joint Tax Committee on the macroeconomic impact of such legislation. This is something also known, Mr. Speaker, as dynamic scoring.

Mr. Speaker, section 2(O) of the resolution expands the application of clause 5(a) of rule 21 to include as a tax or tariff measure a floor amendment limiting funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff. The intent of this rules change is to ease the burden on the maker of a point of order from having to show a necessary, certain and inevitable change in revenue collections, tax statuses, or liability as previous precedents required, to one of showing a textual relationship between the amendment and the administration of the Internal Revenue or tariff laws.

The resolution amends clause 7(c)(1) of rule 22 to permit further motions to instruct during conference to be offered after 20 calendar days, but not less than 10 legislative days. While continuing to afford a Member a timely opportunity to offer a further motion to instruct, the modification in section 2(P) provides a more realistic timetable, especially when a conference extends over a lengthy recess and is unable to meet.

Section 2(T) creates a new rule 27 which provides for the automatic House passage of a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt when the House agrees to a budget resolution that requires such an increase. The amount of the increase in the joint resolution conforms to the level established in the budget resolution. The final House vote on the conference report on the budget resolution shall be deemed the vote on the joint resolution. The rule is similar to the former rule 23 of the 106th Congress and prior Congresses.

The resolution also makes exceptions and clarifications to rule 25, also known as the gift rule, with regard to perishable food distributed in the office and charity travel, respectively. And, for the most part, the remaining provisions of section 2 are technical, conforming, or clarifying in nature.

Mr. Speaker, section 3 of the resolution consists of ``Separate Orders'' which do not change any of the standing rules of the House. These are more or less housekeeping provisions which deem certain actions or waive the application of certain rules of the House.

Section 3(A) provides for the continuation of certain budget enforcement mechanisms from the 107th Congress as well as deems the provisions of the budget resolution H. Con. Res. 353 as adopted by the House in the 107th Congress shall have effect in the 108th Congress until such time as a conference report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2004 is adopted.

Also contained in section 3(B) is a separate order providing for the limited number of exemptions to clause 5(d) of rule 10 regarding a limitation on the number of subcommittees a committee may establish. This resolution grants the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure up to six subcommittees each.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing that it takes time for committees to organize and report legislation at the beginning of a new Congress, section 3(D) provides that during the first session of this 108th Congress motions to suspend the rules shall be in order on Wednesdays from the beginning of the Congress through the second Wednesday in April, as though under clause 1 of rule 15.

Mr. Speaker, section 4 of the resolution is very important and significant, and is aimed at ensuring effective oversight of a crucial national priority, and that is what was discussed in the Speaker's address to us; namely, homeland security. The security threats to our Nation are real and dangerous. Every branch of government, including the Congress, must be an integral part of the homeland security effort.

In that regard, section 4 of the resolution establishes a Select Committee on Homeland Security for the 108th Congress with both legislative and oversight responsibilities.

The select committee would have legislative jurisdiction over matters that relate to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. As the Act is the organic statute creating the new Department of Homeland Security, it is anticipated that the select committee would be the committee of jurisdiction over bills dealing with the new Department.

Further, the select committee would have jurisdiction over legislation amending the Act such as a bill making technical corrections to that Act. In addition to the committee of primary jurisdiction, the Speaker would have the authority to refer bills to the select committee as an additional committee, either initially or sequentially. Otherwise, the existing jurisdictional rules of the House would continue to apply during the 108th Congress.

The select committee would have oversight responsibility over laws, programs, and government activities relating to homeland security and is intended to serve as the primary coordinating committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker, until the new Department of Homeland Security is up and running, it is difficult to predict how best to reflect legislative oversight and authorization functions for the Department in the House. Furthermore, during this transitional period, it is crucial that the White House and the new Department's leadership have a central point of contact with the House. This new select committee will provide this interim capacity. It will also conduct a study of the operation of the rules of the House, including possible changes in committee jurisdiction with respect to homeland security. Those recommendations would be submitted to the Committee on Rules by September 30, 2004.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a more detailed, section-by-section summary of H. Res. 5, as well as other relevant material.

Section-By-Section Summary

Section 1. Resolved Clause

The rules of the House of Representatives for the 107th

Congress are adopted as the rules of the House for the 108th

Congress with amendments as provided in section 2, and with

other orders provided in sections 3 and 4.

Section 2. Changes in Standing Rules

(a) Speaker succession. The Speaker is required to submit

to the Clerk of the House a list of Members to succeed the

Speaker in the event of a vacancy in the office of the

Speaker until the House reconvenes in order to elect a new

Speaker. [Rule I, clause 8(b)]

(b) Repeal of Speaker term limit. This provision strikes

Clause 9 of Rule 1, which limits a Member to no more than 4

consecutive terms as Speaker. [Rule I, clause 9]

(c) Declaration of emergency recess. The Speaker may, when

notified of an imminent threat to the House's safety, declare

an emergency recess subject to the call of the Chair. Allows

the Speaker to accelerate or postpone the reconvening of the

House in the event of an emergency. [Rule I, clause 12]

(d) Clarification of staff access to House Floor. The

practice of allowing leadership staff with Floor

responsibilities access to the House Floor is codified. [Rule

IV, clause 2(a)(7)]

(e) Rules Member on Budget Committee. The Committee on the

Budget shall include one member of the Committee on Rules.

Codifies action taken in the 108th Republican Conference

organizational meeting requiring that one Member of the Rules

Committee serve on the Budget Committee. [Rule X, clause

5(a)(2)]

(f) Associate and professional staff. This change clarified

that the professional staff of the Appropriations Committee

shall comply with the same rules regarding their duties as

the professional staff of all other House committees. Further

clarifies that the associate or shared staff of the

Appropriations Committee are not subject to the review of the

Committee on House Administration in connection with the

reporting of committee expense resolutions. This change is

technical in nature [Rules X, clause 9(b)]

(g) Postponing votes in committee. Committees may adopt a

rule which allows the chairman of a committee or subcommittee

to postpone votes on approving a measure or matter or on

adopting an amendment and to resume proceedings on a

postponed question at any time after reasonable notice. An

underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate

or amendment to the same extent as when the question was

postponed. [Rule XI, clause 2(h)]

(h) Incorporation of H. Res. 168 (105th) in clause 3 of

Rule XI ``(Committee on Standards of Official Conduct).''

Over the last two consecutive Congresses the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct's operating procedure has been

carried over as a separate order referencing a resolution

adopted by the 105th Congress. This modification codifies the

aforementioned operating procedures. [Rule XII, clause

2(c)(1)]

(i) Joint referral. Joint referral of measures without

designation of primary jurisdiction will be permitted under

`exceptional circumstances.' Under this designation, the

Speaker may designate more than one committee as though

primary. [Rule XII, clause 2(c)(1)]

(j) Require dynamic scoring in Ways & Means reports. The

Committee on Ways and Means is required to include in reports

on measures amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 an

analysis by the Joint Tax Committee on the macroeconomic

impact of such legislation. The committee is not required to

include such analysis if the Joint Tax Committee certifies

that such analysis is not calculable. In addition, the

chairman of the Ways & Means Committee may satisfy this

requirement by inserting such analysis in the Congressional

Record prior to the bill's consideration on the floor. [Rule

XIII, clause 3(h)]

(k) Personal electronic equipment on the Floor. This

provision modernizes the rules of the House to prohibit only

the use of wireless telephones and personal computers on the

House floor, thereby permitting the use of unobtrusive

handheld electronic devices. [Rule XVII, clause 5]

(l) Accounting for vacancies. The practice of adjusting the

whole number of the House in the case of vacancies in the

membership is codified. [Rule XX, clause 5]

(m) Proceedings during call of House. This change clarifies

that a motion to adjourn retains its normal privilege and is

in order during a call of the House under clause 6 of rule

XX. The former language of the rule could be interpreted to

five the Speaker the discretion to entertain such motion.

This change is technical in nature. [Rule XX, clause 6(c)]

(n) Five-minute voting in series. The Speaker's authority

to reduce the minimum time for electronic voting following a

fifteen-minute vote is expanded to include all succeeding

votes provided no other business intervenes and notice of

possible five-minute voting is given. This change is

technical in nature. [Rule XX, clause 9]

(o) Prohibition on limitation amendments for the

administration of taxes and tariffs and on measures

restricting imports. Expands the application of clause 5(a)

of rule XXI to include as a tax or tariff measure a floor

amendment limiting funds in a general appropriation bill for

the administration of a tax or tariff. [Rule XXI, clause

5(a)]

(p) Motions to instruct during conference. Permits further

motions to instruct to be offered after 20 calendar days, but

not less than 10 legislative days. [Rule XXII, clause

7(c)(1)]

(q) Fiduciary relationship exemption for physicians.

Redefines a fiduciary relationship as not including ``the

practice of medicine,'' thereby allowing dentists and

physicians to earn outside income up to $22,500. [Rule XXV,

clause 2]

(r) Perishable food as gift. Provides that the value of

perishable food sent as a gift to an office shall be

allocated among the individual receipts and not to the

Member. [Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(1)(B)]

(s) Gift ban exemption for charity travel. Clarifies the

gift ban to allow Members to be reimbursed for travel and

lodging expenses by a charity organization, in cases where

the net proceeds of the event go to a qualified charity, and

the invitation is issued by the charity. [Rule XXV, clause

5(a)(4)(C)]

(t) Statutory limit on public debt. (reinstate ``Gephardt

Rule'', former Rule XXIII of the 106th Congress.) Provides

for automatic House passage of joint resolution increasing

the statutory limit on the public debt when the House agrees

to a budget resolution that requires such an increase. The

amount of the increase in the joint resolution conforms to

the level established in the budget resolution. The final

House vote on the budget resolution shall be deemed the vote

on the joint resolution. [New Rule XXVII, former Rule XXVII

redesignated as Rule XXVIII]

(u) Technical corrections. Technical and grammatical

changes are made throughout the rules of the rules of the

House, including those correcting changes that were made as a

result of the recodification of the House rules.

Section 3. Separate Orders

(a)(1)-(a)(3) Continuation of budget enforcement mechanisms

from the 107th. This order 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 and 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 original

bill by a special rule. Specified or minimum levels of

compensation will not be considered as providing new

entitlement authority.

(a)(4) Continuation of budget ``deeming'' resolution from

the 2nd Session of the 107th Congress. This order establishes

that the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 353 as

adopted by the House in the 107th Congress, shall have effect

in the 108th Congress until such time as a conference report

establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2004 is adopted.

(b) Extra subcommittees for Armed Services, International

Relations, and Transportation & Infrastructure. A waiver of

Rule X, clause 5(d), is granted for International Relations,

Transportation & Infrastructure, and Armed Services for 6

subcommittees in the 108th Congress.

(e) Numbering of bills. In the 108th 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 during the first session.

(d) Wednesday suspension day. During the first session of

the 108th Congress, motions to suspend the rules shall be in

order on Wednesdays through the second Wednesday in April.

Section 4. Select Committee on Homeland Security

This section establishes the Select Committee on Homeland

Security for the 108th Congress. It establishes that the

Select Committee will have legislative jurisdiction to

develop recommendations and report to the House by bill or

otherwise on such matters that relates to the Homeland

Security Act of 12002 (P.L. 107-296).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was inclined early on to believe that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), might be supportive of our package; but I have now come to the conclusion that he would at best be undecided on our package, and he has raised a number of questions.

I believe that I should say that we clearly plan to work in the area of homeland security with my friend, the gentleman from Texas, and other members of the minority in addressing issues of concern when we proceed with this very important work. We want to work in a bipartisan way; and I happen to believe that this package which we have come forth with will, as I said, increase the accountability and deliberative nature of the institution. I would hope that we could have both Democrats and Republicans supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is very clear that the Speaker does have authority to refer legislation, and it is his intent to ensure that we maintain the jurisdiction of those committees. And the expertise that the gentleman offered on this very important issue, and I remember his testimony upstairs in the Committee on Rules on this, it will be very valuable as this issue is addressed. And it is quite possible that the gentleman may or a member of his committee may be a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. So I can assure the gentleman that we are going to do everything possible to keep the expertise that is out there involved in this process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we began today with wonderful bipartisan statements that came from both the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the new minority leader, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker, right behind me here in this Chamber; and we want to see that spirit continue today, and obviously we very much want to have that spirit continue through this 108th Congress because we have many very serious challenges that we face as a Nation.

Number one, of course, is our national security and, along with that, homeland security, the challenges abroad. Right next to that, of course, is focusing on getting this economy moving, which the President talked about earlier today in Chicago; and as we look at this opening day rules package, I am very proud of the fact that it does more to focus on the very important issue of minority rights than anything that was done by my friends on the other side of the aisle during their 4 decades of uninterrupted, one-party control of this institution.

If my colleagues look at the reforms that we have maintained we initiated once we became a majority and frankly built upon, they do, in fact, increase the accountability and the deliberative nature of this Congress. We have items that are included in this measure which guarantee the minority the right to offer a motion to recommit on legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving for 14 years here in the minority until in 1994 we won the majority. During that period of time, there were numerous occasions when the then-Republican minority was denied the chance to even offer a motion to recommit.

Something else that we have done that we are very proud of, Mr. Speaker, again focusing on minority rights, has been to ensure that one-third of the funding level for minority staffing on committees is provided to the minority. Once again, during the 14 years that I was privileged to serve here in the minority, we saw numerous occasions when the then-Republican minority was denied the chance to have even a modicum of investigative staff on certain committees; and the numbers were very, very heavily skewed against the then-Republican minority. We are providing a much higher level of funding for the Democratic minority.

Also, we heard this discussion earlier about the issue of proxy voting. The issue of proxy voting had to do with committee chairmen arbitrarily utilizing the proxy of Members who were not even in the room, in the building, quite possibly they were not even in our Nation's capital; and yet their votes were being cast on issues that they may not have even known about. So we chose to bring an end to proxy voting.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things is that we have learned that we do have a very narrow majority. It is a little greater than in the 107th Congress, I am happy to say; but it is still the second narrowest in recent times, and we do have the challenge of trying to manage and move very important legislation through this body.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have, as a Republican majority, learned from some of the actions of the Democratic majority; and we went, as I said, for 4 decades without being in the majority. We served in the minority. It took us time to learn about the process of governing. We were not able to do that overnight, and so I will admit there are some modifications that we have made, and providing the opportunity for committee chairmen, obviously working, as has been the case in the 107th Congress and earlier Congresses, with the minority to roll votes in committee while guaranteeing Members the opportunity to offer second-degree amendments is something that will again enhance the ability to move legislation effectively; and we hope, as has been the case in the past, that much of that will be done in a bipartisan way.

We have established this Department of Homeland Security. We do have dynamic scoring. I know there was concern raised about that. It is a very, very small consideration. The Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office will not be engaged in this; but we will see the Joint Committee on Taxation doing it. Why? Very simply, because we believe that behavioral patterns should be taken into consideration when we look at the impact of a tax cut on the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

Today, I introduced legislation which reduces the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent down to 10 percent. I introduced it perspectively, encouraging the American people to once again invest, to get into the market and to invest. What the bill that I have introduced basically says is that during a 2-year period, if people invest and they hold on to that asset for 1 year, they will be able to see a tremendous cut, a cut of one-half, from 20 percent down to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent for those in the 15 percent bracket.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue and I believe that every shred of evidence over the past and with the scoring procedure that we have put into place will show that the rich pay more in taxes. Why? Because we have often a lock-in effect. More than half the American people are members of the investor class today. People are invested in markets through 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts. They have got some appreciated assets with real estate homes and all, and we know that the market has dropped tremendously, but the President's plan is encouraging economic growth.

We, in the bill that I have just introduced in a bipartisan way, are encouraging economic growth with that as well; and with economic growth, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. That is what the scoring procedure that we have put into place for the Joint Committee on Taxation will do. It will simply provide that information, making that information available.

So we have a very fair, balanced measure here which again increases the deliberative nature of this institution and does increase the accountability.

On the issue of the debt limit, every Member will be accountable because that vote will be cast when we deal with the budget resolution itself. So we are going to see every Member accountable for their votes that they cast right here.

We have spectacular leadership from Speaker Hastert. This is a measure that will allow him to deal with the very serious challenges that our Nation faces in the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Motion to Commit Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember how partisan, divisive and, most importantly, unproductive the last Congress was. Despite the President's campaign promise to change the tone in Washington, nothing really changed in the way Republicans ran the House of Representatives. In fact, over the past 2 years, the Republican majority had a well- established and easily documented track record of denying the minority a voice in proceedings and deliberations of the House, and that, unfortunately, played a large role in the failure of the Republican Congress to address America's critical concerns, from the economy and homeland security to health care and retirement security.

But, in the spirit of the new year, Mr. Speaker, Democrats came to the floor today hoping that Republicans might turn over a new leaf, that they might agree to a rules package to operate the House as a deliberate, democratic institution in which all points of view have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, the package before us only makes things worse, making changes that only assure that the voice of the minority will be heard less and less. For that reason, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 5. I will offer a motion to commit at the end of this debate, and I urge every Member of this body who believes that all of the American people have a right to be heard and a right to participate in a democratic, small ``d'', institution to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the Politburo; this is the United States House of Representatives. It is high time that the majority remembered that very clear distinction. We are not here to raise our hands in unison; we are here to debate what is in the best interests of this country, and there are many differing views in this body about how to achieve that end. Those views should and must be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to explain why I and the Democratic Caucus oppose these rules changes proposed by the Republican majority. As I said, we see these changes, along with the majority's record of stifling dissent, as counterintuitive to the notion of the democratic process. We see some of these changes as fig leaves or, as my good friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is often heard to say, giving Members a chance to pose for holy pictures. We see some of these changes as attempts to cover up what is really happening in terms of the Federal budget, both on the spending and tax sides. And finally, we see some of these changes as allowing Members to skirt the intent of the ethics rules in this body, something that only sullies the reputation of an honorable institution.

For example, the majority took great pains in 1995 to abolish the practice of proxy voting. I am not here to pass judgment on that old practice. I can only say that the Republican majority condemned Democrats when we held the majority for allowing Members to vote by proxy in committee. However, the Republican majority has encountered some of the same problems that made proxy voting a useful tool for committees to get their work done. Because the Republican majority has refused to negotiate committee ratios that accurately reflect and fairly reflect the numbers in this body, their Members have been spread too thin and oftentimes must choose between one committee's proceedings and another.

Consequently, there have been a number of markups held where Democrats have been able to pass amendments because some Republicans have voted for those amendments and because other Republican Members have been absent. The majority has decided that the best way to deal with those rare occasions in which Democrats actually win a vote is to ensure that votes cannot be taken until the Chair of the full committee or a subcommittee has all the votes in the room, somewhat akin to proxy voting.

This change proposed by the majority would allow those Chairs to postpone indefinitely votes on ordered questions. There is no definition in the rule about when votes must be called by, and there is no definition in the rule for what constitutes reasonable notice.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a recipe for autocracy in the committees of this body. My motion to commit will delete this provision from the package of the rules for the 108th Congress.

Secondly, the Republican majority seems intent on cooking the Federal budgetary books in so many ways that a new recipe was sure to find its way into this package, and so it has. The majority has now included a rule providing that no tax bill may be considered unless the Joint Committee on Taxation has included an analysis in the report accompanying that bill on the macroeconomic impact of such legislation. And just what is the macroeconomic impact? Why, it is nothing more than dynamic scoring, a methodology that has been discounted and outright dismissed by any economist worth his or her salt, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

As Chairman Greenspan has said about dynamic scoring: ``The analytical tools required to achieve it are deficient . . . no model currently in use can predict macroeconomic effects without substantial ad hoc adjustments that effectively override the internal structure of the model.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, it does not work, an example of what President Bush had called ``fuzzy math.''

Yet, the Republican majority persists in believing that this bogus economic analysis of tax policy is real and reliable. But I would contend the only real thing that is real and reliable about dynamic scoring is that it will serve as a cover-up for the true impact of the losses of revenue to the Federal Treasury generated by tax cuts endorsed by this White House and the Republican majority. My motion to commit will delete this provision from the package of the rules of the 108th Congress.

Motions to instruct conferees have been successfully used by Democrats and, may I add, by the Republicans when they were in the minority, to fight for important issues like aviation security when otherwise denied that ability by the Republican majority. Because Democratic Members are far too often shut out of the deliberative process when a bill reaches the floor, a motion to instruct is sometimes the only way a Member might be able to bring an issue up for discussion. But the Republican majority, who did not seem particularly anxious to do much work in Washington in the past 2 years, considers these attempts to open the discussion in the House as a nuisance, rather than as a means to bring democracy back to the institution.

So Republicans have an amendment in this package that further restricts the right of any Member, Republican or Democrat, to offer a motion to instruct by requiring that in addition to the 20 calendar days from the time a conference is appointed, 10 legislative days must elapse. The new rule is so loosely drafted that it is questionable whether those 20 calendar days and 10 legislative days run concurrently or not. Either way, since this body is in session so seldom, 10 legislative days would fill up an entire month, further delaying the ability of Members to bring up legitimate issues relating to those bills submitted to conference.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is such a blatant slap in the face of the democratic process in the House of Representatives, the Republican majority should hang its collective head. For that reason, my motion to commit will strike this amendment from the rules package.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Congress, I have had the opportunity to serve on two special committees created for the purpose of revising and

strengthening our ethics rules and regulations. The Republican majority made much of past abuses in this body, in spite of the fact that Members on both sides of the aisle were caught in these situations. Yet, now the Republicans believe they have such a safe and secure majority for the foreseeable future, they want to undo some of the significant strides that were made by these two special committees.

The Republican majority has opened a proverbial can of worms by including several items in their package. The first might be called the ``pizza rule.'' Because some outsiders like to provide large quantities of free food and drink to Members' offices night after night, this new Republican provision would carve out an exception to the gift rule.

We also have the ``I have a second job and I want to get paid for it'' rule. Members are currently prohibited from acting in certain fiduciary capacities and thus are not allowed to receive compensation for practicing a profession that offers services involving a fiduciary relationship.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how worthy a profession might be, why should we create a special exemption in the rules for the practice of medicine? If we do it for one, why not everyone? I think this House would be far better served if we just kept the rule the way it is now.

For these reasons, my motion to commit will strike the provisions in the rules package that relate to ethics rules.

My motion to commit also strikes two separate orders contained in section 3 of the resolution. The first provision I will seek to strike establishes the budget resolution adopted by the House in the second session of the 107th Congress as in effect in this Congress until such time as a conference report establishing a budget for fiscal year 2004 is passed.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues will say this will merely allow the House to finish work on the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003. Perhaps we should have done that in the 107th Congress rather than waiting to do it in the 108th Congress, with budget numbers outdated and unrealistic given the current economic circumstances.

In addition, the appropriations number in the House-passed budget resolution of the 107th Congress is $749 billion; yet, the Republican leadership has agreed with the White House on budget numbers exceeding that figure. In addition, the budget resolution of the second session of last Congress maintains highway numbers that are also outdated and which, frankly, are not good policy. For example, those numbers will not allow for increased highway construction money that might be prudently spent throughout the country to create jobs and restore crumbling infrastructure.

Secondly, in furtherance of the Republican majority's agenda to stifle debate by cutting debate, cutting off amendments, and staying out of town as much as possible, this package contains a separate order that will make Wednesday a suspension day through the second Wednesday in April. Now, this order will certainly cut down on the work of the Committee on Rules, since one of our best work products has been a rule making Wednesday a suspension day. But Democrats believe that far too many bills are considered under suspension already and that the House is thus denied the opportunity to fully debate and amend legislation.

In my motion to commit, this provision would be stricken; but we have also included language that calls on the Republican majority to bring up fewer, rather than more, bills on suspension, and that no bill should be considered on suspension if it authorizes or makes appropriations in excess of $100 million. There is ample time in our calendar to spend on the floor debating legislation. We should not be institutionalizing shortened weekdays and cutting off debate.

We have also included in the Democratic motion to commit language calling on the Republican leadership to ensure that the minority party will be able to fully participate in the legislative process. We have recommended that they strive to ensure that five ``good government'' ideas are followed in the House.

First, so that Members might know what they are voting on when they vote, we call on the Republican leadership to ensure that Members have conference reports available to them 3 calendar days before such a conference report is considered in the House; and at the very least, at a bare minimum, no conference report should come to the floor unless every Member has had 24 hours to review it; not exactly a revolutionary concept.

Second, we asked the Republican leadership to reduce the number of waivers contained in rules reported from the Committee on Rules. This is especially important in the consideration of bills that have been reported and that go straight to the floor. Many times, even members of the committee of jurisdiction are not sure if the bill that comes to the floor is the same bill that was reported, and it would only enhance the legislative process and democracy if Members had adequate time to review legislation.

Third, we call on the Republican leadership to allow the House to debate and amend legislation by reducing the number of important bills that are considered on the suspension calendar.

In that regard, we are, fourthly, asking that the majority ensure that more alternatives and substitutes be allowed in rules adopted by the Committee on Rules.

Finally, we ask the Republican leadership to allow more legislation to be considered on the floor under open rules so that more Democrats may offer amendments.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Democrats must raise strong objections to the manner in which the Republican leadership has gone about creating a Select Committee on Homeland Security. This provision was added last night with no consultation with the minority, and we believe that is no way to begin a new Congress when the issue of homeland security is one that does not belong to either party. We are all Americans here, and we should be involved in the deliberations surrounding the provisions of the Homeland Security Act.

Mr. Speaker, I know our motion to commit will not pass today; but I do believe it is important that we talk about these issues, because in the long run it is for the good of the institution. I am proud to serve here, and I am proud to represent the people of my congressional district. I think that I, along with every other Member of this body, should be able to fully participate in the process of making laws, setting policy, and determining the course of this Nation in the years to come.

While I recognize that he with the most votes wins, I also know that if someone has the most votes, they should not fear an opposing point of view. For too long the Republican Party has seemed, through their words and actions, to fear dissent among their own ranks, as well as the opposing view that may be held by the minority. We are a democracy; and we should never forget that, for in a democracy the rights of the minority are protected while at the same time advancing the will of the majority. I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that in the 108th Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House Rules packages being offered today by the majority. Over the previous

four Congresses, which have been controlled by the Republican party, the House rules became increasingly hostile to the rights of the minority. This proposal continues that trend.

Let there be no misunderstanding--when I speak of the rights of the minority I am speaking of the rights of the 47 percent of all Americans who are represented by Democratic and Independent Members of Congress. It is their rights which are being abused when their Member of Congress is treated unfairly.

For example, the right of all Members, and particularly the minority, to file its views on legislation reported by a committee, has been reduced to 2 days. During the 40 years of Democratic control the minority was always permitted 3 days.

Similarly, committee ratios have been consistently stacked against the minority. For example, on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, during Democratic control the majority representation of the committee was always within two percentage points of its ratio in the House, and the difference averaged less than one percent. In the past three Congresses, under Republican control, the difference was more than 3 percent. In short, the Republican majority has robbed the Democratic minority of seats they deserve in our committee.

In the last Congress, the Republican rules package radically changed the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee by transferring its jurisdiction over securities and insurance to the Committee on Financial Services. This change was done without a single hearing at which Members of the majority or minority were permitted to present their views, or without a single markup at which minority Members could vote or suggest alternatives. Now the Republican majority is doing the same thing with the establishment of a Select Committee on Homeland Security.

The majority has not only trampled upon the rights of the minority, but also upon the rights of individual citizens. For example, Republicans eliminated a longstanding rule of the House that permitted individuals who were required to appear before a committee under a subpoena the right to have television cameras turned off. The rule had permitted all other media to cover the hearing, but the rule gave the witness the right to some level of fairness.

In this context, I look with interest every year to see what new rules will be adopted in response to the majority's irritation with the minority's invocation of its merger remaining rights.

This year there are several interesting changes. Perhaps the most interesting one is the permission to committees to adopt rules allowing the chairman to postpone votes on bills and amendments in committee. When my Republican colleagues took control of the House they complained that proxy voting permitted Members to cast votes on matters without attending the debate that accompanied the matter. It now appears that by permitting votes to be postponed to a time certain, Members will no longer have to attend committee markups while important amendments are being debated. Instead, they will merely have to show up at a specified time to vote. It sounds an awful lot like proxy voting to me.

Another rule change stretches out the length of time before the minority may offer motions to instruct conferees by requiring a minimum of 10 legislative days. Again, this rule limits minority rights.

While some rule changes are technical in nature, it appears that the other substantive amendments are designed to make it easier for my Republican colleagues to plunge our Nation further into debt. Not satisfied with throwing away the progress made during the Clinton administration, which changed annual budget deficits to surpluses, the Republicans in the last Congress immediately threw the country back into budget deficits while raiding our Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

While they seemed to take delight in placing more and more tax cuts on the Floor during the past Congress, it was a lot more painful for them to figure out how to pay for them. So this year they are adopting a host of rules to hide their budget profligacy. No longer will they require Members to vote on raising the statutory limit on the debt. Now their vote on the budget resolution will automatically raise the debt limit.

Moreover, the rules continue the so-called ``deeming'' resolution, which allows the House to pretend it has adopted a binding budget resolution when in reality, only one House has acted. The rules would also require the Ways and Means Committee to include so-called ``dynamic scoring'' on amendments to the tax code. While ``dynamic scoring'' has no real definition, it is generally understood to mean a way to pretend that a tax cut increase revenues rather than decreasing them. We heard all of this same nonsense during the Reagan administration and talk about the Laffer curve. Ultimately, we saw only greater deficits.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for my Republican colleagues to stop playing games with the House rules. We must respect the rights of Democratic Members of this body, and more importantly, the rights of the 47 percent of Americans who they represent. We must stop using the House rules to make it easier to plunge the Nation into debt, while hiding raids on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The Republicans' procedural thumb on the scale demeans this institution and reduces its credibility.

Mr. Speaker, this rules package is a very important continuation of the majority's effort to shut down democratic debate. The ranking minority member spoke about this rule allowing the chairs of committees to roll votes. Basically what it represents is a willingness of the Republican Members to roll over, to beg, to sit up and do whatever their leadership tells them, because what this does is degrade the possibility of democratic debate in committees.

People not familiar with the jargon probably do not fully understand what is being proposed. You will go to a committee session, a markup as we call them, and vote on the legislation, and you will offer an amendment to try to change things. Under these rules you may very well not know whether your amendment has won or lost. There will be a debate on the amendment and the Chair of that committee can then postpone the voting on that amendment until the end of that session. And what do you do if you have offered an amendment that might be somewhat controversial that has a chance to pass? What do you do if you could have passed the amendment if you have made a slight change? How do you then decide what to do next? Obviously there is no way you can have a rational debate in a committee if, having offered an amendment, you cannot tell whether or not that amendment has passed or not.

So what this does is simply ratify the Republican approach, which is all power is lodged in whatever leadership is in charge at the particular moment and the Members are to be excused from the irritation of having to think about it. When the majority came to power in 1995 they wanted to give it a proxy. They said the problem with proxy voting is that people vote without listening to the debate. They are not there. They vote by proxy. So they have now come up with a proposal that has all of the abuses of proxies and none of the efficiencies. At least proxies allowed you to determine an issue one at a time.

What will happen is you will go to a committee meeting. Members will not be there. They will troop in obediently at the end and vote as the Chair tells them, and it will have destroyed the possibility of debate earlier because you simply cannot logically legislate if you do not know what the outcome has been of these amendments.

Now the majority has succeeded in a number of ways in this House, during my tenure here with their being in control, in shutting down debate. I have to say that sadly they have had an accomplice in this, the media. We had wide coverage in the press gallery of our ceremonial oath taking. Now that we are dealing with extremely controversial measures that will further the degradation of democracy in the U.S. House of Representatives, very few people are here to cover it. So I guess they will once again get away with it. But the consequence will be very clear. The extent to which there is now rational debate and openness in the committees will be substantially diminished.

The Republican leadership is apparently willing obediently to vote for this rules package, although I am told that many of them objected to parts of it, to give once again their right to make decisions to their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules package before us today. While it contains several

items which I support, particularly the deeming resolution setting spending limits for the unfinished appropriation bills, the package contains two items which tilt the rules in favor of policies which will more easily send our Nation further into red ink. I would ask the majority to reconsider both of these proposals.

One of the reforms the majority made with great fanfare as part of the Contract with America in 1995 was repeal of the Gephardt rule, which would spin off separate legislation increasing the debt limit upon passage of the debt resolution without a separate vote or opportunity for debate on the amendments.

Now that our national debt is growing at a record pace under their policies, less than 6 months ago the administration asked us to increase the debt ceiling by $400 billion; Christmas Eve, the administration is asking us to increase the debt ceiling again to $6.4 trillion.

The majority now, under their rules package, has decided that greater openness and accountability regarding our national debt perhaps is not such a good thing after all. I ask Members to reconsider that. Just as credit card spending limits serve as tools to force families to examine their household budgets, the statutory debt limit reminds our Nation to more closely evaluate taxing and spending policies. Reviving the Gephardt rule will allow Members to avoid taking responsibility for paying the bills we incur by our votes.

Now, the implementation of dynamic scoring also should raise a red flag to those who call themselves conservative in this body. Under the logic of those advocating dynamic scoring, the tax cut we passed last year should have resulted in greater surpluses than was being projected last spring. We can disagree about the extent the tax cut contributed to the return of the deficit, but it is clear that it did not have a dynamic effect on producing higher surpluses and revenues.

The conservative approach, to me, is to be conservative in budget projections. If we err on the side of being conservative and cautious, Congress can easily deal with the problem of having more money than was projected. But when we err on the side of being too optimistic, we have a much greater challenge in dealing with fiscal problems such as those before us now.

We are paying the price today for ignoring the warnings of experts in the past. We should not ignore the warnings of those that say changing to dynamic scoring will contribute to further problems of the deficit and debt of this country.

Vote ``no'' on the rules changes; vote ``yes'' on cutting the interest taxes on the American people.