Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 743) to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional safeguards for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with representative payees, to enhance program protections, and for other purposes.

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership, and I rise in support of the Ose- Maloney amendment, a compromise approach to deposit insurance coverage that holds standard account coverage at $100,000 while offering increased protection for retirees.

Mr. Chairman, as a whole, this is an outstanding bill. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 522, I am supportive of the overwhelming majority of provisions in the legislation. It is long past time to merge the BIF and SAIF insurance funds. Additionally, eliminating the 23 basis point cliff and providing a new premium system that takes into account the past contributions of institutions are major steps forward.

The bill includes a mechanism for determining credit for past contributions to the insurance funds that is based on an amendment I cosponsored along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) last session. This is a critically important provision as a matter of fairness to institutions that recapitalized the funds, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for including this balanced amendment in the legislation.

Despite these many positives, I believe the immediate 30 percent increase in insurance coverage in the bill is a serious mistake. This coverage increase to $130,000 is opposed by all the Federal financial service regulators, including Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Peter Fischer, OCC Comptroller John Hawke and OTS Director James Gilleran.

Proponents of increased coverage argue that it poses no new risk to the insurance system, but the regulators who oppose this increase are the very officials whose job it is to protect the safety and soundness of the financial system. The unanimity of regulator opposition to increased coverage is an extremely powerful message.

Another argument put forth by proponents of coverage increases is that inflation has eroded deposit insurance. I do not believe this argument matches the actual situation of the banking industry. The fact is that only 2 percent

of insured accounts have more than $100,000 according to a study by the Federal Reserve. The same Fed study put the average account balance at merely $6,000. Any way you look at it the increase in coverage will benefit very, very few depositors.

Proponents of increasing coverage also contend that because insurance premiums are paid by banks, increasing coverage does not cost taxpayers. While I concede this point, I think we have to remember that behind the deposit insurance funds is the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Since I joined the Committee on Financial Services at the close of the savings and loan crisis, I have been committed to protecting the safety and soundness of the financial service system. While the causes of the S&L failures were many, as my friend from Alabama pointed out, the fact is that standing behind the insurance system are our constituent taxpayer dollars. No matter what the reasons are for a future bank failure or string of failures, by raising insurance coverage we increase the potential liability of the government. Additionally, raising coverage may encourage the concept of moral hazard. Institutions will be encouraged to engage in riskier behavior to boost earnings if they know that failure is insured by the Federal Government.

Finally, I urge support for this amendment because it strikes a compromise. It holds the line on coverage for standard accounts while offering retirees additional insurance. I believe that there are many valid policy arguments for offering additional coverage and additional insurance for this special class of banking account. At its core this amendment represents a compromise. It allows Members the opportunity to support the concerns of the regulatory community on standard accounts while offering increased insurance on retirement accounts.

This is a good bill and I will support its passage. I simply think it would be much improved with the adoption of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for his leadership and I thank also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for crafting a fine underlying bill, along with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following testimony from our committee hearing:

Prepared Testimony of the Honorable Peter R. Fischer, Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, Department of the Treasury, 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,

February 26, 2003--Dirksen 538

Mr. Chairman, Senator Sarbanes, and Members of the

Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to provide the

Administration's views on deposit insurance reform. I also

want to commend Chairman Powell and the FDIC staff for their

valuable contributions to the discussion of this important

issue.

The Administration strongly supports reforms to our deposit

insurance system that would, first, merge the bank and thrift

insurance funds, second, allow more flexibility in the

management of fund reserves while maintaining adequate

reserve levels and, third, ensure that all participating

institutions fairly share in the maintenance of FDIC

resources in accordance with the insurance fund's loss

exposure from each institution. The Administration strongly

opposes any increases in deposit insurance coverage limits.

Our current deposit insurance system managed by the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) serves to protect

insured depositors from exposure to bank losses and, as a

result, helps to promote public confidence in the U.S.

banking system. I am concerned today that our deposit

insurance system has structural weaknesses that, in the

absence of reform, could deepen over time. I want to

emphasize that there is no crisis in the FDIC; both of its

funds are strong, well managed, with adequate reserves. This

is the right time to act--when we do not face a crisis--and

the Administration supports legislation focused on the repair

of these structural weaknesses.

Increases in FDIC benefits, however, including any increase

in the level of insurance coverage, are not part of the

solution to these problems and should be avoided. When I

testified before this Committee last April, I argued that an

increase in deposit insurance coverage limits would serve no

sound public policy purpose. Nothing has occurred since then

to change that view. The Administration continues to oppose

higher coverage limit in any form. Indeed, we feel that the

entire issue of coverage limits regrettably diverts attention

from the important reforms that are needed.

merging the bank and thrift insurance funds

We support a merger of the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and

Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) as soon as

practicable. A larger, combined insurance fund would be

better able to diversify risks, and thus withstand losses,

than would either fund separately. Merging the funds while

the industry is strong and both funds are adequately

capitalized would not burden either BIF or SAIF members. A

merged fund would also end the possibility that similar

institutions could pay significantly different premiums for

the same product, as was the case in the recent past and

could occur again in the near future without this change. A

merger would also recognize changes in the industry. As a

result of mergers and consolidations, each fund now insures

deposits of both commercial banks and thrifts. Indeed,

commercial banks now account for 45 percent of all SAIF-

insured deposits.

Flexibility in the Management of FDIC Reserves

Current law generally requires each insurance fund to

maintain reserves equal to 1.25 percent of estimated insured

deposits, the ``designated reserve ratio.'' When the reserve

ratio falls below this threshold, the FDIC must charge either

a premium sufficient to restore the reserve ratio to 1.25

percent within one year, or a minimum of 23 basis points if

the reserve ratio would remain below 1.25 percent for a

longer period. Since the latter would be expected when the

banking system, and probably the economy as well, were under

stress, such a sharp increase in industry assessments could

have an undesirable pro-cyclical effect, further reducing

liquidity precisely when liquidity is needed. Were FDIC fund

contributions to come from resources that otherwise might be

part of capital, every dollar paid would mean a potential

reduction of 10 or 12 dollars in lending, or as much as $12

billion in reduced lending for a $1 billion FDIC

replenishment.

Reserves should be allowed to grow when conditions are

good. This would enable the fund to better absorb losses

under adverse conditions without sharp increases in premiums.

In order to achieve this objective and also to account for

changing risks to the insurance fund over time, we support

greater latitude for the FDIC to alter the designated reserve

ratio within statutorily prescribed upper and lower bounds.

Within these bounds, the FDIC should provide for public

notice and comment concerning any proposed change to the

designated reserve ratio. The FDIC should also have

discretion in determining how quickly the fund meets the

designated reserve ratio as long as the actual reserve ratio

is within these bounds. If the reserve ratio were to fall

below the lower bound, the FDIC should restore it to within

the statutory range promptly, over a reasonable but limited

timeframe. We would also support some reduction in the

prescribed minimum premium rate--currently 23 basis points--

that would be in effect if more than one year were required

to restore the fund's reserves.

Nevertheless, as we learned from the deposit insurance

experience of the 1980s, flexibility must be tempered by a

clear requirement for prudent and timely fund replenishment.

The statutory range for the designated reserve ratio should

strike an appropriate balance between the burden of pre-

funding future loses and the pro-cyclical costs of

replenishing the insurance fund in a downturn. A key benefit

to giving the FDIC greater flexibility in managing the

reserve ratio within statutorily prescribed bounds is the

ability to achieve low, stable premiums over time, adequate

to meet FDIC needs in bad times, with the least burden on

financial institutions and on the economy. We also believe

that with this reform, the possibility of recourse to

taxpayer resources is even further removed.

Full Risk-Based Shared Funding

Every day that they operate, banks and thrifts benefit from

their access to federal deposit insurance. For several years,

however, the FDIC has been allowed to obtain premiums for

deposit insurance from only a few insured institutions.

Currently, over 90 percent of banks and thrifts pay nothing

to the FDIC. This is an untenable formula for the long-term

stability of the FDIC.

Moreover, current law frustrates one of the most important

reforms enacted in the wake of the collapse of the Federal

Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and the

depletion of FDIC reserves: the requirement for risk-based

premiums. When 90 percent of the industry pays no premiums,

there is little opportunity to do what any prudent insurer

would do: adjust premiums for risk. Nearly all banks are

treated the same, and lately they have been treated to free

service.

For example, today a bank can rapidly increase its insured

deposits without paying anything into the insurance fund. As

is now well known, some large financial companies have

greatly augmented their insured deposits in the past few

years by sweeping uninsured funds into their affiliated

depository institutions--without compensating the FDIC at

all. Other major financial companies might be expected to do

the same in the future. In addition, most of the over 1,100

banks and thrifts chartered after 1996 have never paid a

penny in deposit insurance premiums. Yet if insured deposit

growth by a relatively few institutions were to cause the

reserve ratio to decline below the designated reserve ratio,

all banks would be required to pay premiums to raise

reserves.

To rectify this ``free rider'' problem and ensure that

institutions appropriately compensate the FDIC commensurate

with their risk, Congress should remove the current

restrictions on FDIC premium-setting. In order to recognize

past payments to build up current reserves, we support the

proposal to apply temporary transition credits against future

premiums that would be distributed based on a measure of each

institution's contribution to the build-up of insurance fund

reserves in the early-to-mid 1990s. In addition to transition

credits, allowing the FDIC to provide assessment credits on

an on-going basis would permit the FDIC to collect payments

from institutions more closely in relation to their deposit

growth.

We strongly oppose rebates, which would drain the insurance

fund of cash. Over much of its history, the FDIC insurance

fund reserve ratio remained well above the current target,

only to drop into deficit conditions by the beginning of the

1990s. Therefore, it is vital that funds collected in good

times, and the earnings on those collections, be available

for times when they will be needed.

There are other important structural issues that need to be

addressed sooner than later. It would be appropriate to

evaluate whether there are changes to the National Credit

Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) that would be suitable in

light of the proposed reforms made of FDIC insurance so as to

avoid unintended disparities between the two programs.

Perhaps even more important is the need to address the long-

term funding of supervision by the National Credit Union

Administration, particularly in view of recent trends toward

conversions from federal to state charters and growing

consolidation of credit unions. Similarly, there are

structural problems in the funding of the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift

Supervision, the resolution of which should not be delayed.

Deposit Insurance Coverage Limits

The improvements to the deposit insurance system that I

have just outlined are vital to the system's long-term

health. Other proposals, however, would not contribute to the

strength of the taxpayer-backed deposit insurance system and

may actually weaken it.

Increasing the general coverage limit up front or through

indexation, or raising coverage limits for particular

categories of deposits, is unnecessary. Savers do not need an

increase in coverage limits and would receive no real

financial benefit. Unlike other government benefit programs,

there is no need for indexation of deposit insurance coverage

because savers can now obtain all the coverage that they

desire by using multiple banks and through other means.

Higher coverage limits would not predictably advantage any

particular size of banks, would increase all banks' insurance

premium costs, and would mean greater taxpayer exposure by

adding to the contingent liabilities of the government and

weakening market discipline. An increase in coverage limits

would reduce--not enhance--competition among banks in general

as the efficient and inefficient offer the same investment

risk to depositors; in fact, perversely, investors would be

drawn at no risk to the worst banks, which usually offer the

highest interest rates.

Higher Coverage Limits Not Sought by Savers

First of all, the clamor for raising coverage limits does

not come from savers. The evidence that current coverage

limits constitute a burden to savers is scant; there has been

little demand from depositors for higher maximum levels. The

recent consumer finance survey data released by the Federal

Reserve confirm what we found in the previous survey, namely

that raising the coverage limit would do little, if anything,

for most savers. Median family deposit balances are only

$4,000 for transaction account deposits and $15,000 for

certificates of deposit, far below the current $100,000

ceiling. The same holds true even when considering only older

Americans, a segment of the population with higher bank

account usage: median transaction account balances and

certificates of deposit total $8,000 and $20,000,

respectively, for those households headed by individuals

between the ages of 65 and 74.

Examining the Federal Reserve data for retirement accounts

shows present maximum deposit insurance coverage to be more

than adequate. The median balance across age groups held in

IRA/Keogh accounts at insured depository institutions is only

$15,000. For the 65 to 69 age group, median household IRA/

Keogh deposits total $30,000.

A small group of relatively affluent savers might find

greater convenience from increased maximum coverage levels.

But it is a tiny group. Only 3.4 percent of households with

bank accounts held any uninsured deposits, and the median

income of these households was more than double the median

income of all depositors in the survey.

Under current rules, these savers have plenty of options,

with the market place presenting new options for unlimited

deposit insurance coverage without changing federal coverage

limits. At little inconvenience, savers with substantial bank

deposits--including retirees and those with large bank

savings for retirement--may place deposits at any number of

banks to obtain as much FDIC coverage as desired. They may

also establish accounts within the same bank under different

legal capacities, qualifying for several multiples of current

maximum coverage limits. Firms are now developing programs

for exchanging depositor accounts that could offer seamless

means of providing unlimited coverage for depositors without

any change in current limits.

One of the fundamental rules of prudent retirement planning

is to diversify investment vehicles. Many individuals,

including those who are retired or planning for retirement,

feel comfortable putting substantial amounts into uninsured

mutual funds, money market accounts, and a variety of other

investment instruments. Just 21 percent of all IRA/Keogh

funds are in insured depository institutions. There is simply

no widespread consumer concern about existing coverage limits

that would justify extending taxpayer exposure by creating a

new government-insured retirement program under the FDIC.

Coverage Limits and Bank Competition

Banks, regardless of size, continue to have little trouble

attracting deposits under the existing coverage limits.

Federal Reserve data have shown that smaller banks have grown

more rapidly and experienced higher rates of growth in both

insured and uninsured deposits than have larger banks over

the past several years. After adjusting for the effects of

mergers, domestic assets of the largest 1,000 commercial

banks grew 5.5 percent per year on average from 1994 to 2002;

all other banks grew 13.8 percent per year on average. Nor

are smaller banks losing the competition for uninsured

deposits. Uninsured deposits of the top 1,000 banks grew 9.9

percent annually on average over this period, while such

deposits at smaller banks grew on average by 21.4 percent

annually.

Higher Coverage Limits for Municipal Funds Erode Discipline

Proposals for substantially higher levels of protection of

municipal deposits than of other classes of deposits would

exacerbate the inherent moral hazard problems of deposit

insurance. Rather than keep funds in local institutions,

state and municipal treasurers would have powerful incentives

to seek out not the safest institutions in which to place

taxpayer funds but rather those offering the highest interest

rates. Since these are usually riskier institutions, state

and municipal treasurers would be drawn into funding the more

trouble banks. Local, well run, healthy banks might have to

pay a premium in increased deposit rates to retain municipal

business. Today there are incentives for state and local

government treasurers to monitor risks taken with large

volumes of public sector deposits. Should the FDIC largely

protect these funds, an important source of credit judgment

on the lending and investment decisions of local banks would

be lost.

conclusion

In conclusion, I reaffirm the Administration's support for

the three-part general framework that I have outlined to

correct the structural flaws in the deposit insurance system.

I encourage Congress to pursue these improvements with a

steady focus on the important work that needs to be done. The

Administration does not support legislation that raises

deposit insurance coverage limits in any form, and we urge

that Congress avoid such an unneeded and counterproductive

diversion from real and necessary reform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security, for yielding me this time.

One thing I do agree with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security about is that we should reform the government pension offset. Instead of talking about technicalities or ways that people have figured a way around it, we ought to look at the whole issue. There has been legislation cosponsored by the majority of this House for 3 years, but we have not had a hearing yet on dealing with that. That is what is frustrating.

So instead of dealing with the big issue, they are going to say, okay, for those teachers or firefighters or police officers in Texas or Georgia or whatever other States, they are going to punish those because they found a way under current law to be able to receive their widows' benefits. We are talking about widows benefits. I do not know about the GAO study or whatever they wanted to talk about, but I do know that we are talking about widows' benefits.

Let me give an example. I have a lady in my own district in the Aldine School District; her husband passed away 10 years ago. She has been receiving his Social Security widow's benefits. She teaches school. She is 73 years old now. After decades of teaching math, she is ready to retire; but if she retires, she will have her widow's benefits under Social Security reduced so substantially that there will almost be nothing left, because of her teacher retirement under the State of Texas.

Now, again, I do not know how the request was made for these GAO studies, but I do know that the facts on the ground show something different than what my colleagues say. This teacher will have to wait to retire. She would have to go to work for 5 years at a school that has Social Security. Well, she does not have that choice. We have some districts in Texas who do, some who do not. Very few actually do. So she would have to be 78 years old under the bill to be able to continue receiving her widow's benefits. That is wrong. That has been wrong, and it is affecting so many people. That is why we have an amendment, and I thank the Committee on Rules for giving us an opportunity to strike that section.

We have an opportunity through that amendment that will do it. Let us deal with the whole issue, but let us also support the amendment that will leave this provision in here for people who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate has been good because it has talked about what the concern is, that we really need to deal with government pension offset.

I know there has been legislation introduced now for a number of years and that there is a commitment to have a hearing on it, but we have a bill right now; the latest legislation, H.R. 594, has at least 50 Republican Members and in a very short time has received almost 200 co-sponsors of it, that would eliminate the controversial government pension offset. And I guess that is what is frustrating because we have so much support to eliminate it or at least, as had been earlier talked about, let us moderate it. Do not punish widows that are public employees, two-thirds. Let us make them only pay one-third. Sure, they only worked a day maybe, but they are not getting it for their work under Social Security.

They are getting it because they were married to their spouse for at least 10 years and, in some cases, 30 and 40 years; and yet, because they were public schoolteachers, they had to take advantage of that loophole because, otherwise if their husband died before they were 62, they did not receive anything. So they found a way under current law to seek redress, and this bill is going to close that loophole, supposedly.

Again, maybe it should be, if my amendment is adopted, I would like the committee to really bring out a reform during this Congress because, again, we have been waiting now for many years. In fact, my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I remember 3 years ago he and I stood at a press conference with lots of Members talking about we need to reform the government pension offset, and that is what ought to be done, but do not punish the States of Georgia or Texas or whatever other jurisdiction said, well, wait a minute, we know it is wrong, we know it is wrong to penalize a widow who teaches school.

For example, a colleague of mine from Texas has a military base, Fort Hood, with a lot of his constituents now in the Persian Gulf. They said we have a program that is called Troops to Teachers. Our armed services pay Social Security so they retire from the military, and yet they are going to go back to teach and they are going to be penalized for the Social Security they earned in the military if they retire in Texas from the teacher retirement system and they do not work for a school district that has Social Security.

The system is wrong, and my colleagues are making it worse by changing it by this bill; and this is what is so bad. My colleagues can show me all of the studies, but I cannot explain those studies to my constituents who are teachers who said you mean to tell me I have been married 30 years to my husband and everything because we are talking about 80 percent of these people are women, and we know nationally the retirement income for women is so much lower than men. We have teachers who have been married all these years, and sure, they are going to take advantage, but that is because they have been married to someone who paid into Social Security for at least 10 years, in some cases 3 or 4 decades.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate already on the general debate, but I rise in opposition to the legislation in support of my amendment, and it is frustrating because there are some good things in this legislation, but I guess what is really frustrating is that why should a section of this bill be addressed to public educators, firefighter and police officers that happen to be in Texas or Georgia, and yet, in another section, we are trying to combat fraud by felons.

I agree, we should combat fraud by felons; and if we have felons who are receiving Social Security, felons who are absconding, I do not mind. In fact, why are we waiting this long to keep them from getting their Social Security? Do not go after widowed teachers, whose spouses paid into Social Security.

Eighty percent are women who receive fewer retirement benefits than men, and it is not just for teachers, firefighters in the same legislation. It just seems like it is wrong to put that issue in the same legislation due to felons receiving Social Security benefits.

In fact, I had a constituent last night say, you mean to tell me all these years I have taught and I am in the same legislation trying to close a loophole for fugitive felons receiving Social Security? I said, I am sorry, ma'am, but that is what it has. The bill has some other good things in it; but we have this amendment, and I appreciate the Committee on Rules providing this.

It is called a loophole, but it is really not. There are lots of loopholes in our laws, but it is called laws; and I know on our side of the aisle we have talked about corporate loopholes for a long time. Let us close up the corporate loopholes, but why are we closing up one for the widowed teachers, again, who their only punishment is they worked as a public schoolteacher and was married to someone who paid into Social Security at least 10 years and, again, in some cases, many more years?

When the House first considered this legislation, it failed because of a controversial provision that we have, and the bill ought to pass, but it ought to be passed without this provision, and let us come back, get our Ways and Means subcommittee and the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with the government pension offset as a separate bill.

Last session, this legislation passed out of the House with, I do not think, any dissenting votes. It went to the Senate; and on a technicality, they added this back in, and it was stopped in the House when they tried to pass it on unanimous consent last fall and when most of us were in our districts.

In States where some public employees are not covered by Social Security, such as in Texas, this does reduce the spousal benefits by two-thirds, and in some cases, it can eliminate all of them, all their benefits. It is a problem for many public servants, but it is especially, again, bad for women, and, again, since 80 percent of the Texas schoolteachers and retirees are women. Sixty percent of that group is married, and again, I think it is interesting on the floor of the House because I always heard the statement, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but here we have bills that can enforce marriage, why are people on social services, that encourage them to get married, and here we have teachers who are married for all these years, and yet we are punishing them under the pension government offset.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I realize my colleague from Texas did not have time to yield, but let me just say that these teachers do not make the choice between the teacher retirement systems and Social Security. The choice is made by the local school districts. That is why 50 school districts in Texas pay into both.

We have more than 1,100 school districts in the State of Texas where those local school board members, not those employees, those local school board members make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that having the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means calling this ``scamming the system'' is like the pot calling the kettle black. We have provisions in our Tax Code for individuals, one person. We have Tax Code provisions for one company or groups of companies. Yet it is a scam system if we are going to protect public school educators.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) with whom I have gone on trips to see our military, and this issue is also about the military. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who represents Fort Hood pointed out, this will impact them unless we reform the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.)

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say they are not receiving the benefits because of that 1 day, they are receiving them because they were married for at least 10 years to someone who paid into Social Security. That is the reason that they are receiving it. It is not hypothetical. We have people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years, and their spouses have received nothing. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

To my really good friend and neighbor, that is the whole point of the debate. We should reform the government pension offset and not punish those who have found a way to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Dallas, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The reason I am offering this amendment is because the underlying bill provides for this section 418. There are a lot of good provisions in the underlying bill, and people can vote for my amendment and still vote for the bill. There are other States with public employees like Texas. It just impacts Texas more than I guess other States, maybe Georgia or somewhere else, that reduces our spousal benefits because we have local governments that do not participate in Social Security. Only 50 of our school districts, the gentleman

from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), participate; but we have over 1,100 school districts, and that is a local decision. My wife as a teacher did not decide she would go to work for someone who paid Social Security. She went to work because she wanted to be a teacher, and that is the frustration because no one thinks about it until they realize later in their careers, wait a minute, I have been married for all these years and I am going to get penalized if my husband passes away?

Marriage is a contract. It is also a contract that says they have worked together for all those years and yet if they happen to be a public school teacher, tough luck for that marriage contract. They do not benefit. They get punished because they worked as a teacher and they did not pay into Social Security, but their spouse did, their husband did. Again, we are talking about 80 percent of the public schoolteachers in Texas and I am sure nation-wide, and I am sure this is a nation-wide problem. It is just that Texas has found a way around it, and yet you are going to punish Texas, and yet Georgia and other States have the same problem. Almost all these people are eligible for Medicare through their husbands, but none of them are eligible for their spousal benefit because of the government pension offset. The GPO is wrong, and I would not be here today if we had a bill come out to deal with the GPO on a fair basis, the government pension offset; but we are not.

I do not want to keep this loophole. I want it to treat fairly all the government employees who are being treated badly, but it affects teachers because they are the most in population. It affects firefighters and police officers also; but after a lifetime of being underpaid and they depend on their husband's Social Security or widow's benefits if they pass away and yet we take it away, and it is just frustrating to see that happen and to punish people. Yes, in Texas we found a way to deal with this wrong and you are punishing teachers because we have dealt with it instead of dealing with it in Congress, and that is what is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Members thought that last battle was just because of Texas teachers, firefighters, or police officers; and it is, but simply because Texas has found a way to deal with the government pension offset. Another State, Georgia, has tried and is doing the same thing.

We need to reform the government pension offset. A lot of Members have told me, we are going to vote for you, we are going to vote against you, but we need to reform it. This is what this motion to recommit says, to report back. It instructs the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with an amendment addressing the concerns of Federal, State, and local employees about the government pension offset under title II of the Social Security Act.

During the last 3 or 4 years, there have been bills introduced in this House that have been bipartisan. We have had at times 218 cosponsors of legislation to reform the government pension offset and have not had a hearing.

We have a bill right now, H.R. 594, that has at least 50 Republican cosponsors, and has about 175, and I think it has only been out for a few weeks for cosponsorship, to reform the government pension offset. This is our way to use our rules to be able to say to one of our committees, whether it is my Committee on Energy and Commerce or something else, to say we want to reform the government pension offset. That is why we want to send this bill back. They can reform it and send it back to us. That is what this is about.

If Members want to reform the government pension offset, if they want to take a benefit for not only teachers in Texas but teachers all across the country, Federal employees, military, because the government pension offset affects everyone who is a public employee, then we need to reform it. That is the job of our committee, the Committee on Ways and Means.

I would hope that Members would vote for this motion. That way, we would actually see this vote on the floor of the House that I have not seen until the last few weeks dealing with the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating, because a lot of us have heard from our public employees across the country and in our districts. They are frustrated when they find out they get penalized, even though they did pay into Social Security. Or in the case of teachers in Texas who do not have the option because of their local school district decision, they do not even receive their widow's benefits without such a penalty. That is what is frustrating.

We need to reform the government pension offset. That is what the committee should do, and that is what this motion to instruct would do. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know about a $3 bill, but maybe the Committee on Ways and Means could get one printed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under our House rules that we are required to use the word ``promptly'' instead of ``forthwith'' because we now have had a budget resolution. I would ask, is that correct?

I withdraw the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the committee, for his tremendous leadership in steering what is a complex bill through the legislative process. I also want to thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his support of this important piece of legislation. The committee and the Congress in its votes on this legislation in the past, legislation very similar, has shown that it can work together in a very bipartisan manner.

Deposit insurance reform has been thoroughly discussed and debated over the past several years. During the 107th Congress, I introduced comprehensive deposit insurance reform, H.R. 3717. The legislation was a by-product of recommendations by the FDIC in early 2001, industry representatives coming together urging that we take action. The American Banking Association, The Credit Union National Association, Independent Bankers and Financial Services Roundtable, all urging the Federal Reserve, the administration, urging us to take action to reform Federal deposit insurance. We did take action, and the 107th Congress passed H.R. 3717 by a vote of 408 to 18.

Unfortunately, that bill died in the other body.

Earlier this year, I introduced the same legislation. This time it is H.R. 522, the Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) joined me in introducing this legislation, along with 57 other cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. It was approved by the Committee on Financial Services by a unanimous voice vote. I am pleased that the Senate now plans to act on similar legislation in the very near future, and that the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 outlines a proposal similar to our legislation.

The legislation is supported not only by American bankers, the Financial Services Roundtable made up of the 100 largest financial corporations in America, but also by the credit unions, the thrift associations, the community bankers, the securities industry, and also by groups that we sometimes do not find on the same side; the American Association of Retired Persons has recently endorsed this legislation.

Federal deposit insurance has been the hallmark of our Nation's banking system for almost 70 years. The reforms made by this legislation will ensure that the system that serves savers and depositors so well for so long will continue for future generations.

What does the legislation do? First, it merges separate insurance funds that currently apply to deposits held by banks on the one hand and savings associations on the other, creating a stronger, more stable fund that benefits banks and thrifts alike.

Second, it changes the ``pro-cyclical'' bias of the current system. In other words, it spreads out over time the assessments to the institutions which results in, by doing this, a more uniform assessment. Presently we have sharply higher premiums served during recessionary times and much lower premiums during good times. Banks can least afford to pay a higher premium during recessions, and we found that out, and this corrects that.

Third, the legislation includes modest increases in the amount of coverage available. The system has gone from 1980 without an increase in coverage. If we took 1980 as our basis and we increased coverage based on inflation, we would go to $200,000. If we went back to 1980, the $100,000, and we increased it based on per capita income, it would actually go to $300,000. So we are proposing $130,000, a very modest increase.

If we went back to 1974, because some have said they should not have raised it in 1980, they should have kept it at the 1974 level, and we increased it for inflation, it would go to $140,000.

Mr. Chairman, there are some who will offer amendments who have actually publicly stated that they do not believe in Federal deposit insurance, one of the gentlemen offering an amendment later on. So there are Members of the body who do not believe that our deposits in banks should be federally insured.

I understand that; but I, for one, disagree with that. I think Americans have come to rely and have a sense of security in knowing that when they put their retirement funds in a bank or thrift that it is federally insured. Particularly in light of the recent volatility on Wall Street, people have, I think, come to rely more and value more the fact that they can put their money in a federally insured financial institution and not lose that money.

All of us have heard from community bankers in our districts about the challenges that they face in competing for deposits with large- money center banks that are perceived by the market, rightly or wrongly, as being too big to fail. By strengthening the deposit insurance system, our legislation will help small neighborhood-based financial institutions across the country, especially in rural areas, continue to play an important role in financing economic development.

The independent bankers have actually said that this legislation is key to maintaining local home-owned banking institutions. The deposits that community banks are able to attract through Federal deposit insurance guarantees are cycled back into local communities in the form of consumer and small business loans. One reason for this legislation is we value the right of every American to go down to his corner financial institution.

My thanks go to the chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as remains.

Mr. Chairman, there are opponents to this legislation. Those opponents give several reasons, and we may hear those during the amendments; but I think the most honest opponent of this legislation is the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who will offer an amendment or who may not offer an amendment but who has filed an amendment to strike the increases in coverage.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said in the American Banker, and I quote him, in today's edition, ``I don't believe in Federal deposit insurance.'' I think that pretty much sums up the opposition because if a person does not believe in it, then a person does not want it to increase to allow for inflation or for increase in per capita income. If a person does believe in it, then they want it to remain current. They want it to remain current with per capita income and inflation.

As I said, we last increased the levels in 1980. If we adjusted them for per capita income, they would actually go to $300,000. If we increased them for inflation, they would go to $200,000. We, to build a consensus, only increased them to $130,000; but we did increase retirement funds to $260,000, but we felt that there were people other than retirees who deserve the protection to keep up with per capita income and inflation.

So we increased everyone's coverage to 130, including small businesses and depositors, many of whom we found in testimony sell their house, deposit the entire proceeds in a financial institution and assume, sometimes tragically, that there is sufficient coverage.

There are additional reasons why people are opposing this legislation. There is a question of cost. The CBO scored the same bill last year as a savings of $750 million. This year they say it has a cost of $1 billion.

Chairman Powell of the FDIC responded to the CBO estimate and said this, because it conclusively rebuts any CBO estimate that this will cost the taxpayers and any argument that may be made on the floor today about the budgetary impact of the legislation, and he says, ``H.R. 522 provides the FDIC with the tools to achieve revenue neutrality in the management of the deposit insurance system. Because any analysis that determines 522 will result in an increase in net government spending must necessarily rely on assumptions regarding how the FDIC Board will exercise the discretion provided in the legislation.'' And here is the most pertinent part: ``I can assure Congress that the leadership of the FDIC has no intention of managing the deposit insurance system in a way that increases the cost to the government or increases the burden on insured institutions. The costs of the deposit insurance system will continue to be borne by the banking industry, but in a manner that establishes a strong risk-based premium system and avoids the procyclical risks inherent in current law.'' I do stress there are risks in the current law if we do not amend it.

He also in a letter to this body on March 31 says, ``No analysis of the `costs' of legislation is complete without a full consideration of the benefits provided by the bill,'' and he goes on to list many benefits to the economy, to savers and to strengthening our banking institution.

Another rabbit that has been turned loose by opponents of this bill is that the increase in coverage, the last increase was what precipitated the savings and loan crisis. That is simply not a fact. There were many causes. In fact, let me read from a report from this own body as to the reason for the savings and loan crisis. The causes of the thrift crisis can be traced to a number of factors: poorly timed deregulation, the dismal performance of some thrift management, inadequate oversight supervision and regulation.

Mr. Chairman, I was standing to claim the time in opposition.

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

I speak in opposition to this amendment. One of the statements by the proponent of this amendment has been that the former increase in coverage was the primary reason for the savings and loan crisis, and let me say in that regard that the cause of the savings and loan collapse, crisis in this country, has been well examined and well documented. The FDIC, in fact, issued a report called ``History of the Eighties, Lessons for the Future and Examination of the Banking Crisis of the 1980s.''

Here is their reasoning. The rise in the number of bank failures in the 1980s had no single cause or short list of causes. Rather, it resulted from a concurrence of various forces working together to produce a decade of banking crises.

First, broad national forces, economic, financial, legislative and regulatory established the preconditions for the increased number of bank failures. Second, a series of severe regional and sectional recessions hit banks in a number of banking markets and led to the majority of the failures. Third, some of the banks in these markets assumed excessive risk and were insufficiently restrained by supervisory authorities with the result that they failed in disproportionate numbers.

As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, we have made several changes in the law in this body in an attempt, and I think a successful attempt thus far, to make these institutions subject to more oversight and to stronger capital requirements.

One Member of our body's father served as the FBI director during the savings and loan crisis. He was asked in a congressional hearing for his comment on the savings and loan crisis, and he said that criminal activity, fraud and looting were the primary causes of the crisis. In fact, the committee staff has made a fairly exhaustive study of the various articles written concerning the collapse of the savings and loans, and these were the reasons given at the time.

My colleagues can see we have a basic laundry list of reasons, but there is actually evidence that the increase in coverage at the time gave savers some degree of security and actually prevented a panic at many institutions, and some of that body of evidence supports that it actually helped in a contagion of that crisis.

Mr. Chairman, the final argument is a moral-hazard argument. The offerer of this amendment has argued that increasing coverage will create a greater moral hazard in the system; but then, surprisingly, his amendment does not raise the level from $100,000 to $130,000. It does away with that, but then he raises retirement accounts to $260,000, and he raises municipal deposits; and by doing that, they have managed in the subcommittee to basically arouse everyone's opposition to the amendment because if we raise the coverage for retirements in municipal deposits, then one is, in fact, arguing against the reason for offering his own amendment.

I will close simply by saying that this moral-hazard argument has been looked at by the FDIC. They asked two respected economists to make a report, and they were Federal Reserve Governor Alan Blinder, and this is what he said. The point is made that if the FDIC is given the authority to charge risk-based premiums, and that is what H.R. 522 does, then ``most objections based on moral hazard should evaporate.'' He goes on to state, ``In a world of properly priced deposit insurance, it seems more appropriate to ask the opposite question: Why have any coverage limits at all?''

In fact, I think that ought to be the question we are debating: Why have any coverage limits at all? Even the CBO says that this bill will result in an increase of insured deposits in our institutions. Is that not something that we have all argued for? Do we not want an increase in the deposits in our financial institutions? Does that not strengthen our economy? Is that not good for America? They say that some institutions will fail and some people in that institution will lose 200 or $220,000 worth of retirement funds. Do we not want them to have federally insured coverage? Do we want them to lose this money? I do not think so.

Finally, do we believe in insurance? I think that is the essence of this whole argument. I mean, do we believe in insurance? Do we believe in insuring for losses? If we do, and I for one think that insurance is a good thing, I believe that insurance is a prudent thing, and I believe that in order for our Federal deposit insurance system to survive and have any relevance then that insurance protection, which I believe in, I believe in insuring against risk, I believe it is a prudent thing to do, then why would we want the Federal deposit insurance system to wither on the vine?

Why would we not want it to stay current with inflationary rates and per capita income? And the only way to do that is to vote ``yes'' on this bill. A vote against this bill basically would be like going back to 1980 and reducing the coverage from $100,000 to $30,000 if you went on per capita income, or $47,000 if you went on inflation.

How many in our body would do that? How many in our body would vote today to take those levels back to the 1980 level? I do not think any of us would. A few of us would because, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says, I do not believe in Federal deposit insurance. I do not believe in the Federal Government supplying insurance. Well, it is the depositors, for one thing. The Federal Government does not. If he would look, he would see it is the banks through their premiums.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and simply close by doing two things. One is responding to the gentleman from California when he uses the analogy that if someone wants to deposit or wants over $100,000 in their account they can simply take part of that money out of one account and place it in another account or they can drive down the street.

Now, Americans today are a highly mobile society, and we know that Americans sell their homes and we know that in almost every case, when they do that, they deposit that money in their bank. They do not take that check and split it. They do not ask for two checks. We know that the average cost of a house is well in excess of $100,000 and we know that they deposit that money in a bank. And if that bank fails, they lose all but $100,000. We do not think that is right.

The authors of this amendment also do a strange thing. They say we are increasing the coverage and that is a bad thing; but then they increase the coverage for retirement accounts to $260,000 and municipal accounts to $2 million. So they basically argue against their own amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire into the amount of time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

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

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.