Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider a package of reforms that, despite garnering broad bipartisan support throughout the Nation, was not cleared for the floor until today.

The House received this blueprint for making America safer in the form of the September 11 report in July, well over 5 months ago; and upon release of the report, and ever since, the commissioners have been appealing to the House to respond to its recommendations with a great sense of urgency.

To its credit, throughout the summer recess the House undertook an ambitious schedule of hearings on the 9/11 report; and as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I heard the impassioned testimony from both Governor Kean and Representative Hamilton as they presented a compelling case for why structural reforms were essential to enhancing the security of the American people from the threat of terrorism.

At the time, I believed we would get this intelligence reform package cleared by both Houses of Congress well before the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; but as we all know, despite broad bipartisan support in both bodies, it simply did not happen. Instead, it was left in sort of suspended animation for months while the House leadership secured support from the majority of the majority in the House.

Mr. Speaker, in my 18 years in the House of Representatives, I have never heard of such a standard. Whether it is the product of an arrogant belief that the views of the minority in the House are now somehow subordinate or it is the manifestation of leadership drunk with power, I truly do not know; but if this is any indication of how the House leadership intends to do business in the 109th Congress, be warned that the American people will not like it.

It is not just the red States that are populated with patriotic, moral Americans who serve courageously in our Armed Forces or as first responders. Patriotic, moral Americans live in blue States and every State of this Union. We are all Americans. We are all equal under the law, and we all have an important role to play in the life of this Nation.

I would also caution the majority to bear in mind the words of the 18th century philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who said, ``It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can.'' I think we saw that well-demonstrated today.

Satisfied that it has secured support from a majority of the majority, the House leadership is now rushing this bill to the floor, denying Members adequate time to review each and every critical provision.

Have we learned nothing from the debacle surrounding the omnibus spending bill? The privacy rights of millions of American taxpayers were put at risk by one small provision inserted into that 3,000-page bill. Under the regular order of the House, we should have had 3 days to review the report; but with a martial-law rule, we do not even get one.

In the 108th Congress, the Committee on Rules has reported 29 martial rules and 17 in the second session alone. At the rate we are going, the regular order of business is becoming the irregular order of business.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has delayed this bill long enough. I would have preferred this bill, so crucial to defending our country, be considered by unanimous consent; but I know there are many people who would be happy if this legislation never saw the light of day.

Before I close, I want to reiterate my support for the intelligence reform package. Despite my opposition to the way it has come to the floor, I intend fully to vote for it later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House voted to repeal a controversial provision in the omnibus appropriations bill that no Member knew was in the bill when the bill was filed. Yet today, having learned little, the House will rush to vote on the intelligence bill about which Members know probably just as little, and they will do so without having the language available.

I would like to be able to vote for this bill because it will probably improve the sharing of intelligence, and there are a number of other good provisions in it. But Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that there have been two intelligence failures in the last 5 years. First was the failure to prevent the 9/11 attack. Second was the use of faulty intelligence to suck us into a dumb war in Iraq. The new layer of bureaucracy created by this bill may or may not help us on the first front, but it is likely to make it harder to correct the second. That is why I am going to vote against the bill and against this motion to speed up its consideration.

One of the bill's most glaring shortcomings is that it does not guarantee that dissenting or alternative views will ever be clearly stated to the President. That was a major problem in the decision to go to war in Iraq. To correct that problem, Senator Roberts included a provision in the Senate bill establishing an office and a process to provide these alternative points of view at every stage. That provision is, sadly, hugely watered down now in this bill. The bill simply leaves it up to the National Intelligence Director to decide how different points of view are factored into decisions. That is a terribly weak substitute.

Second, in emerging domestic and foreign surveillance operations, the bill does not sufficiently protect ordinary Americans from the mistakes of Big Government. The bill does contain a Presidential board to look at government-wide privacy issues, but that will do little to protect innocent Americans or to address specific grievances that may arise. That will come back to haunt us, just as certain aspects of the PATRIOT Act have.

Finally, the bill purports to increase the number of border and Customs agents; but in fact, the bill does nothing of the kind. That language is meaningless without the dollars to back it up, and this House has rejected providing those dollars, (ill-advisedly so in my view they voted that way;) the House has rejected providing those dollars four times in the past year, and this bill does absolutely nothing to change that. On that score, this bill is simply an empty institutional press release.

When this bill is corrected on those three fronts, and on others, I will be happy to vote for it, but not until.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 868 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to the same day consideration against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives a requirement for a two-thirds majority vote by the House to consider a rule on the same day that it has been reported by the Committee on Rules.

This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day of December 7, 2004, providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill S. 2845 to reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government and for other purposes.

I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in approving H. Res. 868. We are close to completing the 108th Congress, and the passage of this rule will help expedite the consideration of sweeping reform of our security and intelligence operations to keep America safe. Representatives from multiple committees have been working tirelessly to negotiate the best possible legislation, and they have completed their work on this legislation today. By approving this same-day rule, the House will ensure that we can move forward expeditiously in making the substantive changes that will inevitably help better protect the citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this same-day waiver rule provides for prompt consideration of important legislation before the adjournment of this Congress. The Committee on Rules approved this rule late yesterday afternoon. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.