Providing for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 437) to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 439, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 437) to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 437.

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

Madam Speaker, this debate that we are beginning here is about a very clear choice that is before us. Will we take the responsibility delegated to us as Members of the People's House by the framers of our Constitution to ask the hard questions, admit our mistakes and improve our Nation's government for the benefit of all? Or will we rely on proxies to do our work for us because we have judged ourselves incapable of carrying out our constitutional duty to ensure that we are providing for the general welfare, which is what the preamble of the Constitution clearly states we have a responsibility to do.

I, for one, believe as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, did, that the Constitution vests this responsibility with us. I am ready to accept the challenge as a Member of the House of Representatives. I believe that we have already started this work.

Last night, in the Committee on Rules, many of my Democratic colleagues asked excellent questions. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend from Rochester, asked very thoughtful and important questions that need to be raised. I noted that the gentlewoman from Sacramento, California (Ms. Matsui) similarly asked some very, very good questions that should be posed to those dealing with the preparation for and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Just yesterday the governor of my State, Pete Wilson, and I should say the former governor of my State, Pete Wilson, testified. I do know very well that we have a new governor. His name

is Arnold Schwarzenegger, I should say for the Record. But Pete Wilson testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It was a hearing that they held on recovering from Hurricane Katrina, and he did this to share his experience and very valuable lessons that he learned from dealing with many, many very, very difficult challenges, disasters that we faced in California, earthquakes, fire, mudslides, the devastation that we faced.

I will tell Members that Pete Wilson handled every single one of those challenges in his 8 years as governor extraordinarily well, and we learned tremendously from the tragedies that we faced in those instances.

As he said, obviously while nowhere near the scale of Hurricane Katrina, and we all know that Hurricane Katrina has been described as the worst natural disaster to ever hit our country, some of the things that were faced in California, there were terrible California floods in January of 1997 that resulted in eight deaths, the evacuation of 120,000 people, relocation of 55,000 people to 107 shelters, damage or destruction of 30,000 residences and 2,000 businesses, and total damage estimates at about $2 billion. That in 1997.

I talked earlier today, during the rule considering the establishment of this committee, about the Northridge earthquake in 1994, and it resulted in 51 deaths and injured over 9,000 people, left 22,000 people homeless.

The interesting thing, as we look at these figures, is we all know that they pale in comparison to the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. But, Madam Speaker, I will tell the Members that these were learning experiences for us. One of the things that was most impressive to me and one of the things that we have already found here to be very beneficial was the fact that the private sector has stepped forward and is in many ways doing things the government cannot do. And I think it is often joked about the fact that the private sector is there, ready to meet a need, a need that the government in no way could meet.

We know that for an emergency response like that we faced, clearly the government had to step in. When I say government, I am talking about the local government, the State government, and the Federal Government as well. The Federal Government, obviously, is not the first. It is really the last step. We know that State and local governments have the responsibility to make those recommendations to the Federal Government and then bring them in. We also know that at virtually all these levels of government, we have heard the leadership, from President Bush when it comes to the Federal Government, to Governor Blanco in Louisiana, state that things were not handled as well as they could have been; and both President Bush and Governor Blanco, Republican and Democrat, have taken responsibility for dealing with this situation.

I mentioned the fact that we learned things, and I mentioned the private sector. And one example that I like to point to, and I have got this right here, is in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, we had the Santa Monica Freeway collapse over La Cienega Boulevard. The Santa Monica Freeway is the most traversed interstate in the country. A quarter of a million vehicles a day go on the Santa Monica Freeway right over the La Cienega off-ramp. And the earthquake took place in January of 1994, and I happened to be by there, and one of the police officers let me go up, and I actually took a chunk of the Santa Monica Freeway. This has been sitting in my living room out in California for a long period of time. Most people think it is a piece of the Berlin Wall, but it is actually from the Santa Monica Freeway. We can see the rebars here, and this is obviously the freeway itself. And when it collapsed, we saw Southern California, clearly the most populous spot in the Nation, come to a standstill because of the importance of Interstate 10, the Santa Monica Freeway there.

Some projected that it would take as much as a year or 2 years to repair this freeway that had collapsed over La Cienega Boulevard. And Governor Wilson stepped up to the plate and did everything that he could to provide incentives to ensure that it got completed. He wrote a piece on this the day before yesterday in The Wall Street Journal in which he referred to the fact that people said it would take a long period of time.

They looked and established this contract with the Myers Company and they were told that they would have a $200,000 fine for every day beyond what they had contracted for if they did not complete it, but they got a $200,000 bonus, Madam Speaker, for every day that they got this completed earlier than had been projected.

As I said, some predicted it would take a year or 2 years to complete this. Madam Speaker, in 66 days the Santa Monica Freeway reopened, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

This is the kind of incentive that we need to put in place to ensure that they deal with this circumstance. And, ironically, Interstate 10 is the exact same route that is going into New Orleans that collapsed following Hurricane Katrina and the breaking of the levees.

So I think that we have the ability to respond, to deal with this, and the United States Congress is in a position to make sure that we look at encouraging the most creative ways to address this challenge, look in a bipartisan way at these problems.

And we have set guidelines. We have got deadlines. But, obviously, if it is necessary, those can be moved if it is essential. But we have a desire to ensure that, as an institution, we come together as the elected representatives of the American people to do our job. And I am convinced that we are going to have the ability to do that, and we look forward to seeing Members of both political parties join this very important effort, and I am convinced that they will be able to look at all levels of government and the private sector and get to the bottom of that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Pasco, I would just like to say over the last 24 hours I have been hearing about this ABC/Washington Post poll to which my friend from Rochester has regularly referred, and I have actually taken the opportunity to look closely at the poll itself.

We all know that when one looks at a public opinion poll, it depends on how the question is asked. We continue to hear that 76 percent of the American people support an independent commission and they do not want Congress to take this action. Actually, I looked at the poll itself, and I would like to enlighten my friend from Rochester, if I might. Question No. 19 says: ``The Republican leaders of Congress have called for a full-scale congressional investigation of the government's hurricane preparedness and response effort. Apart from this investigation, would you support or oppose an investigation by an independent commission like the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks?'' Seventy-six percent support that. Well, of course. Who would not support that? Who would not be supportive of that notion? But we continue that somehow the American people oppose having Congress do its job and they only want this independent commission of unelected people to do their job.

Then one has to look at Question No. 18 just before that. And I hesitate to raise this, but the fact that this public opinion poll has been continually utilized as the bible when it comes to consideration of our legislative proposal here, Question No. 18 says: ``Do you think Democrats who criticize the way the Bush administration has handled the hurricane response mainly want to find out what went wrong or mainly want to use the issue for political advantage?'' And, Madam Speaker, 60 percent said that Democrats want to use this issue for political advantage rather than trying to get at what went wrong.

I would have never brought this up, Madam Speaker, had I not heard that 76 percent of the American people are opposed to having Congress do its job and instead want an independent commission.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings), subcommittee chairman from the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

Let me just respond to a couple of points. First of all, under consideration of the establishment of this select committee, we will be operating under the standard rules of the House. The standard rules of the House allow not individuals, but allow a committee to come together and determine who is subpoenaed. And I will tell my colleagues that I know with absolute certainty that the people who are providing the leadership of this committee will clearly want to be in consultation with the Democrats, with members of the minority to ensure that any witness who could help get to the bottom of this problem, to the root of this problem is called before the committee.

And I will tell my colleagues why. I do not represent Hollywood, California, by the way, I should say for the record; I represent areas around Hollywood in suburban Los Angeles, an area that has been impacted by a wide range of disasters.

I think it is absolutely reprehensible to believe that any Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, would want to do anything that would jeopardize the ability to find out exactly what happened leading up to Hurricane Katrina and exactly what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. So I can assure my colleagues that I am convinced that everyone is determined to do that.

I should say that, as I sat down, one of my staff members reminded me that I mentioned this poll from The Washington Post and ABC that is the model, I guess, that we are following for the establishment of this committee; and even though it said that 60 percent of the American people believe that the Democrats would use this issue for political advantage rather than trying to get to the root of this problem, I do not believe it for one minute. I hesitate to say that the American people are wrong, but I will tell my colleagues this: I do not believe that the American people are right when they claim, to a number of 60 percent, that Democrats do not want to get to the root of this problem, which is what they have said in this much-hailed ABC News-Washington Post poll.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will say that that is exactly what exists. The rules of the House that apply for the subpoena process for other committees in the House will apply similarly for this new select committee that is charged with dealing with this circumstance.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), another individual who was victimized by Hurricane Katrina.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to these terms: ``sticking our head in the sand''; ``ignoring the problem.'' I have no idea what anyone is talking about when they say things like that. It is absolutely absurd to believe that any Member of this institution does not want to do everything possible to ensure that we find out what happened leading up to Hurricane Katrina and what has happened since Hurricane Katrina has hit.

Because we, at this moment, live with the threat of Hurricane Ophelia off the Carolinas, so we are moving as expeditiously as possible to get this bipartisan committee put together, where the committee itself will determine how someone is subpoenaed, just as is the case with every committee.

I hope very much that the gentleman from Mississippi is appointed to serve as a member of this select committee. He obviously has strong feelings. He has made it very clear that, as someone who was victimized by Hurricane Katrina, he should in fact be able to subpoena; and I can assure him, under the standing rules of the House, as a member of the committee, if the minority leader chooses to appoint him to that committee, he will be able to participate in determining who testifies before that committee.

So we are in this together, Madam Speaker, whether Members like it or not.

Again, I do not believe that Washington Post poll that the Democrats want to use this for political gain. I believe the Democrats, along with Republicans, want to find out exactly what has created this challenge at all levels of government and even in the private sector, with which we are contending at this point.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Madam Speaker, coming together is what this is all about. This is a bipartisan committee that has been proposed by the Speaker, and we look forward to seeing those minority Members who are going to be part of this process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the very distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Budget and Process Reform.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has gone through the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. Time and time again, we have been hearing people say that. It is unimaginable what people have gone through. I have to admit I cannot imagine the suffering. I have seen it on television, I have heard it reported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been victimized themselves, but it is impossible, it is impossible to imagine how horrible this has been.

We do know one thing, both President Bush, Republican, and the Democratic governor of Louisiana, Governor Blanco, said that mistakes were made

leading up to Hurricane Katrina and mistakes were made in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone has acknowledged that.

We have an opportunity, we have an opportunity to come together, as we have in previous disasters, and deal with it, meet our constitutionally mandated responsibility for oversight of the executive branch to investigate and look at what happened at all levels of government, local government, State government, the Federal Government, even the private sector. We have a chance, Mr. Speaker, now to do that.

That is exactly what the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has proposed, working with our colleagues in the other body, to come together with a committee that will allow Members of both political parties to raise any question that they want, to allow this committee to have the authority to subpoena witnesses, bring them forward. I have to say that it is very obvious to me that this is our chance to do it.

We are dealing with a hurricane right now in the Carolinas. We are dealing with other potential disasters on the horizon. I believe I have a responsibility to the people whom I represent, I have a responsibility to all the American people, just as we all do, to make sure that the problems that we faced leading up to and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina never happen again.

Mark my words, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, wants to ensure that we are able to address those concerns. That is exactly what the establishment of this commission will do.

I am perplexed, Mr. Speaker, with the arguments that I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They want to increase their level of participation, they want to be able to get to the bottom of this, and yet they are saying let us give up our responsibility under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that charges us with this duty.

This is our responsibility. This is a very important part of the reason the American people elected us as representatives, to come here and do their bidding, to do their job, to make sure that we find the answers to these very important questions.

I hope that we will be able to have that sense of solidarity, and so I am saying on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), I know that he looks forward to having our colleagues on the other side of the aisle appointed, along with those who he will appoint to serve on this very important committee, and with that, with our quest of trying to ensure that we never go through what we have gone through in the past several weeks, I urge support of this very important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 439 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 439 is a closed rule providing for 1 hour of debate for consideration of H. Res. 437, a resolution establishing a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the human suffering and physical damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina is heart-wrenching and overwhelming. We all know that very well. Lives have been lost and uprooted. Families are separated without homes and without jobs.

Our initial focus has been on restoring hope and rebuilding community on the gulf coast. With great urgency Congress came together and with virtual unanimity passed legislation to fund the very important relief efforts. Over $60 billion has been appropriated so far. Also critical has been the outpouring of support and generosity from fellow Americans and very importantly from 94 countries around the world. From small businesses to large corporations, people are pitching in.

That said, as President Bush has stated, there were aspects of the immediate response to Hurricane Katrina that were not acceptable. He said that this week, and I am sure that it will be made clear in the remarks that he gives to the Nation this evening.

Already we have seen the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resign. Clearly, many lessons are to be learned from what has happened. As debris is removed, water recedes and homes are rebuilt, we in Congress must now assume our very serious and consequential constitutional oversight role of the executive branch and Federal agencies so that we can find out exactly what went wrong and what went right in the early response to Hurricane Katrina.

We need to get to the bottom of what happened, when it happened and why it happened.

Mr. Speaker, to fulfill our oversight responsibility, we are following precedent and honoring tradition by creating a bipartisan select committee to look at the response of the government to Hurricane Katrina. This select committee will allow us to take a sober, serious, nonpartisan look at the development, coordination and execution of relief by State, local and Federal authorities.

At the same time, we must take great care not to interfere with the ongoing Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Critical personnel are still on the ground and actively involved in a time-sensitive, decision-making process. Congress can help uncover a better way forward, but it should not disrupt the progress that is being made at this moment.

Mr. Speaker, this rule serves as the most practical vehicle by which to consider this critically important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

As I prepare to yield to my friend from Charleston, let me just say that the short answer to the question posed by my friend from Rochester about why it is we would not establish a commission, it is very clear. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution states it, that we have to do our job. We have the responsibility to deal with this issue.

There are very important questions that have been raised by Democrats and Republicans and people from the outside community; and we, as the representatives of the people, have the responsibility to get to the bottom of this. That is what the establishment of this bipartisan committee is, in fact, going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Charleston, West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my very good friend and hardworking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and as I prepare to yield to my friend from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), I want to say to my good friend from Massachusetts that it is very clear that Members of the United States House of Representatives do have the ability to deal with a disaster and at the same time engage in a very, very important investigatory process.

It is also very important to note that this is not going to simply be Republicans asking questions of other Republicans. As I said earlier, and I know my friend from Rochester raised this when she said it was nice of me to say that Democrats would have the opportunity to ask questions, but we know that Democrats, by virtue of this being a bipartisan committee, will be able to be deeply involved and engaged in this process as well.

Once again, I think it is important to note, as my colleague and friend from West Virginia said, that we are the elected representatives of the American people and this is our constitutionally mandated responsibility which we should not pass on to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we deal with this great challenge, one cannot help but think back to the days following one of the most tragic events in our Nation's history, that being, of course, the attacks on the World Trade Center, flight 93 going down in Pennsylvania and, of course, the plane hitting the Pentagon. We all know that, following that tragedy, Democrats and Republicans came together. They came together committed to ensuring that we would never see the kind of terrorist threat that happened on September 11 hit the United States or our allies or anyone in the world again. And that really embarked us upon this massive global War on Terror, and that has been the focus of the Federal Government. We know that the top priority on September 11, 2001, became this bipartisan goal of trying to deal with the global War on Terror.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Democrats in this House who have come together in a bipartisan way to work with Republicans in our shared goal of winning the global War on Terror. It is an important struggle, and it is one which many say will last beyond our lifetimes, but I am convinced that Democrats and Republicans will continue to work together to ensure that we win that global War on Terror.

We know that 2\1/2\ weeks ago we faced another kind of disaster. It was a natural disaster that hit our fellow Americans, our fellow citizens, on the gulf coast. And we know that, as we sit here today, another hurricane, Hurricane Ophelia, continues to pose a threat in the Carolinas. And I will tell the Members, as I stand here at this moment, Mr. Speaker, I live constantly with the prospect of a massive earthquake hitting the largest, most important State in the Union, which I am proud to represent here.

We in California deal with the threat of fires on a regular basis. I represent the Angeles National Forest, and that threat is a very serious one. And in the wake of those fires following that, we, of course, have terrible mudslides which impact tremendous numbers of people.

We have gone through disasters in the past. Obviously, as President Bush has said, this is the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history, Hurricane Katrina. But we have faced many, many struggles. In California, one of the most prominent was the Northridge earthquake on January 16 of 1994. I know my friend from San Francisco, the distinguished minority leader, suffered the Loma Prieta quake.

And I will say that, having gone through all of this, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely absurd, it is absurd, to believe that any Member of this House, that any Member of this House would not want to get to the truth of exactly what happened in the case of Hurricane Katrina.

Now, earlier this week, President Bush came forward and said that he takes full responsibility for the Federal Government's problems when it came to the preparation for and the response to Hurricane Katrina. Just yesterday, Governor Blanco, the Democratic Governor of Louisiana, said that she takes responsibility for what took place in her State.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a Republican President and a Democratic Governor coming forward and saying they take responsibility for their roles in the governments that they serve, the Federal Government and the State government.

The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has come forward saying that it is very important for us to work in a bipartisan way. He has tried to work with the minority leader to make sure that, in appointing this select committee, we will have a chance to work in a bipartisan way. Speaker Hastert has just called for members of the Committee on Appropriations to go to the gulf coast to look at this situation and to report back to us, because the very important responsibility of oversight right now that the Committee on Appropriations has over the $60 billion-plus that we, in a bipartisan way, have appropriated to deal with this, needs to be addressed. So this notion that there is not a bipartisan commitment to get to the bottom of this is absolutely ludicrous.

I want to make sure that if my State faces an earthquake, a fire, a mudslide that we are able to have the best response possible. I will tell my colleagues that this bipartisan committee is something that I think can play a very important role in ensuring that for all of us who face the prospect of a disaster in our States that we will be able to address it in a better way.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud institutionalist. I know that is not a popular thing to say; but I serve on the Committee on Rules, and by virtue of that, I think it makes me an institutionalist. This is my 25th year serving here, and I am proud of the role that I have been able to play in trying to address very important institutional concerns, and we have been able to address many issues in a bipartisan way.

Now, I will acknowledge that, on occasion, the Committee on Rules can be a very partisan place; but on occasion we also can be very bipartisan. We just reported out a rule that enjoyed strong bipartisan support dealing with Coast Guard reauthorization, and passage of rules like that are noncontroversial, they do not get attention, and those are things that we have worked on. In fact, I would argue that we do more things coming out of even the Committee on Rules in a bipartisan way than we do the things that we do that are very, very strident and partisan. But if you look at other committees around this place, Mr. Speaker, such as the Committee on Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, you can go right down the line, Democrats and Republicans come together to address major public policy concerns that are out there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to make sure that no one suffers again as the people have along the gulf coast. I do feel for our colleague Mary Landrieu in the other body, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor); but I also think it is important for us to note that in the other body, our colleague Trent Lott lost his home. We have seen tremendous loss from people like the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) on our side. So the point is that this is a disaster which has impacted Democrats and Republicans, and that is why I believe that it is incumbent upon us.

Because article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear that we have the responsibility for congressional oversight, oversight of the executive branch; and this bipartisan select committee, Mr. Speaker, will focus not just on the Federal Government. It will focus on State government, on local governments, on even private entities that have been involved in this process.

Accountability is something that an independent commission will not have anything to do with. The 9/11 Commission was not accountable at all. We are

accountable as the elected representatives of the American people to the American people. And I think that it is very clear that moving quickly is the right thing to do. The reason that I believe that it is important for us to move quickly is that, as I said, Hurricane Ophelia is at this moment posing a threat to the Carolinas, and there are other disasters on the horizon.

I believe that Democrats and Republicans should come together. The Speaker, again, has reached out to the Democratic leader and very much wants to have appointments made, and Democrats will be able to ask any question that they want; they will be able to participate in the process of bringing witnesses before the committee. Again, everyone wants to make sure that we take the steps to ensure that this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation which will establish this very important committee so that we can address this question and ensure that the American people will not go through what we have seen happen in the last several weeks.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, President Bush said that he took responsibility for the recent failure of the Federal Government to fulfill its ultimate duty of saving the lives of its own people within its own borders.

But what does responsibility mean? If it means anything, it means the sincere concern for what has happened under his watch. It means stopping at nothing to find out why a Nation led by officials who claim to care about keeping Americans safe presided over a recovery effort which left behind so many innocent men, women and children as they were crying out for help. It means caring about the truth, and it means putting people before politics.

Today, this Congress has to offer the American people its own definition of responsibility. The appalling aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which swept over citizens from Louisiana to Alabama to Mississippi, was the product of a combination of failures: failures of planning, failures of execution, failures of accountability. It is the responsibility of this body to examine why our Federal Government was behind so many of those failures.

There is only one way to do this and only one path the public will respect, only one route to producing real answers to real questions which the American people will trust. We need a 9/11-type commission for Hurricane Katrina. The 9/11 Commission was our government's response to the tragedy of September 11, 2001; and after an exhaustive study, it produced a report that was trusted by the American people and by the members of our government.

This trust was earned. The 9/11 Commission was not beholden to any interests besides those of its own integrity and the good of the country.

This honorable response to the tragedy of September 11 puts to shame what has been proposed today in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. What was perhaps our Federal Government's greatest failure to date to defend life at home is being met with a failure of leadership and openness and honesty in this Chamber today.

The Republican leadership of the House and Senate has called for the creation of an overtly partisan congressional committee to investigate the government's pre- and post-Katrina actions. They have specified that it would be a committee appointed by Republicans, with a Republican majority. They would give Republicans control of every aspect of the proceedings, and they alone would control who would be subpoenaed. They alone would control which documents could be examined, and they alone would control the scope of the investigation. They would have the power to take the investigation in any direction they chose, with no checks, no balances and no incentives to get real answers. They have nominated the fox to guard the hen house.

Mr. Speaker, I do not object to such a plan because Republicans would be in control as opposed to Democrats. I object to it because it is the Republican Party which controls the levers of government and, as such, manages FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security and every other Federal institution which must be examined.

The conflicts of interest that are present are so obvious that it is incredible anyone would deny them, but the members of the majority do not only do this, but they put forth one justification after another for their plan, each one less convincing than the one before it. They tell us that the structure of the committee is based on precedent and cite the bipartisan commission which investigated the Iran-Contra affair as evidence of this. Never mind that in that situation a Republican President was being investigated by a Democratically controlled committee, eliminating the political pressure to sweep truths under the rug.

Last night, in the Committee on Rules, they told us, rather incredibly, that nobody is better to evaluate in this body than its own Members. But the American people do not believe that. After all, accountability has not exactly been the hallmark of this Republican leadership.

This majority did not investigate those who concealed the Department of Health and Human Services' real estimate of how much the 2003 Medicare legislation that we passed would cost. It did not investigate the role of top Bush campaign contributors in writing Vice President Cheney's energy plan. It did not investigate the Valerie Plame scandal. It did not investigate what led to our dehumanizing and shameful treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

Why did these investigations not take place? The majority has no answer, except promising to us that this time things will be different.

Last night, the chairman did offer his personal assurances again and again that the commission would allow the Democrats to ask questions. It probably never occurred to us that we would not have been able to do that, but this is ultimately a promise that he cannot keep.

Only allowing a hand-picked group of witnesses to be questioned prejudices the investigation before it has even begun. If a true interest in a fair, open, thorough and independent investigation runs that deep with my Republican colleagues, why not just create the independent panel?

That is the central question I have for my colleagues today. Why will you not support the creation of an independent commission? What are you afraid of? The American people clearly had faith in the 9/11 Commission model. Why do you not?

A commission controlled by the politicians of one party charged with investigating itself will face tremendous internal political pressure to eliminate embarrassing truths from the public eye, to defer blame and to hide facts. That is the fundamental truth, because we all know how politics works.

Politics, by the way, is exactly why those recent scandals I just mentioned were never investigated.

Is the creation of an independent commission an abdication of our responsibility? Absolutely not. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. If we intentionally create a partisan, political investigation, that, Mr. Speaker, would be an abdication of our responsibilities.

The American people need answers, they need true accountability, and the only way that we can live up to our responsibility and give them answers they can trust is through an independent commission.

The public already overwhelmingly supports the creation of such an independent commission by 76 percent, and over 160 Members of this body, representing more than 100 million of our Nation's people, have already supported the creation of such a commission through a substitute resolution by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague. Its findings would not just help us to prevent another terrible disaster from taking place, they would also help our government to regain its credibility in the eyes of the public.

A Newsweek poll from earlier this week found that fully 57 percent of the general population has doubts that government officials will respond well the next time a disaster strikes. Those doubts would not be reduced until people believe that a real, independent investigation of Katrina has taken place. But the findings of the congressional commission being proposed by the Republican leadership will be forever tainted by the pervasive public belief that details were overlooked or truths hidden for political reasons. We have plenty of evidence to believe that.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, our government missed an opportunity to rise to the occasion when it was sorely needed. The consequences were worse than we could have imagined. We cannot afford to miss another opportunity here today, and we object to the fact

that this resolution is titled ``bipartisan commission'' because, truly, there will not be one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, if an independent commission is an abdication of our authority, why did we all vote unanimously to establish the 9/11 Commission?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

(Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

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

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House, instead of H. Res. 437, to consider H.R. 3764, which creates an independent 9/11-like commission to investigate the events involving Hurricane Katrina. I offered this amendment in the Committee on Rules last night, but, sadly, it was rejected.

I want to reiterate that 76 percent of Americans in a recent ABC/ Washington Post poll preferred that a commission of outside experts, similar in nature to the 9/11 Commission, and, in fact, I wish for the same people, to investigate the devastating events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and that is not just Democrats that were asked. Sixty-four percent of Republicans in that same poll said they, too, supported an independent commission to investigate the government's preparedness and response effort.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can authorize an independent commission that will not be influenced by partisan politics instead of a Republican-controlled committee investigating the failings of a Republican-controlled administration. Too many people's lives were turned upside down because of the failure of governmental officials to adequately prepare for and respond to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Let us not fail them a second time.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me this time and commend the members of the Committee on Rules for their important work on this subject, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) who is the author of the legislation, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of our caucus, on legislation which will bring truth to this situation, an independent commission, modeled after 9/11, respected by the American people.

Following the tragedy of 9/11, the American people expected and deserved

the truth. People of New York and New Jersey were strong advocates for such a commission. The people in Louisiana and Mississippi and the gulf region are displaced. They are trying to put their lives back together. They have lost their homes, their jobs, their livelihoods, their communities. They really do not have time to lobby Congress for an independent commission.

But our country is grateful to the 9/11 families because they not only gave us that commission to review that terrible tragedy that befell our country, they gave us a tradition of transparency and finding the truth and holding people accountable and hoping to do so in a way that prevents future loss of life.

We endanger the American people when we ignore the truth. So on behalf of the people in the region, I plead with my colleagues in this body to reject any sham committee. Supposedly bipartisan; not so. Supposedly bicameral; not so. One thing we know, it is a vehicle to whitewash, to whitewash, and not have a true look into what went wrong.

There was a natural disaster, a terrible natural disaster in the gulf coast States. It was compounded by a manmade disaster because the Federal response of FEMA fell so very, very short. And FEMA, now its Director has resigned, but FEMA is fraught with problems systemically throughout it.

That does not mean that many, many people who work for FEMA and many people, our first responders, police and fire, health care providers in the area and volunteers from every walk of life did not rise to the occasion. They certainly did, and we commend them for the sacrifice they were willing to make to rescue others in the time of the immediate recovery. But there are so many unanswered questions; and instead of having a sham, why can we not have a real commission to look into this?

So the choice on the floor today, we have heard all of this discussion over and over. The fact is that we should be spending our time figuring out how we are going to help the people of the region rebuild their communities, to create jobs, to educate their children, to rid themselves of the toxic, literally toxic, environment, and that is the situation that they are in there. Instead, we are wasting the public's time on a subject that is unworthy of this tragedy, and it did not have to be.

I certainly respect the congressional role of oversight. We have called for it over and over again, whether it was the war in Iraq or the price gouging at the pump of gasoline for America's consumers, whether it is Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Name it. There are so many subjects that this Congress has been delinquent in its duty in doing oversight. So I fully support congressional oversight by the committees of jurisdiction.

In order to expedite help to the region, I suggested to the Speaker that we have a truly bipartisan committee that could streamline how we would go forward. At the time, I intended it just to be on the positive side, and that was early, when Katrina was just hitting, and then when we saw things go wrong, we added the charge that we would see what went wrong. So the idea of this Congress having a role in terms of oversight in a bipartisan special committee is one that I supported. I suggested it.

But what the Republicans came back with was really a slap in the face to the people who were affected in the region. We owe them the truth. Why is this Congress afraid of the truth? Over and over again, Iraq, name it, price at the pump, why is this Congress afraid of the truth? Sometimes it is really important, as we try to find our common ground, we stand our ground where we cannot find that common ground, but we always have to come down in favor of the people, to yield on points. Because we are here to get a job done. Maybe not exactly the way we would want to get it done, but get a job done. So now, today, the Republicans are putting up an obstacle to doing just that.

So I urge my colleagues to honor the sacrifice, the situation, that has affected the people in the region by at least telling them the truth and vote against this committee today, to vote against this committee, to say come back to the drawing board when they want to have honesty in what we are doing. But, first and foremost, we must have a truly independent commission, again, in the manner of the 9/11 Commission that took testimony, that issued a report, that gave transparency and openness to the process and gave some level of truth to the American people.

Because the people in the gulf States, many of them affected are poor and economically disadvantaged and not as sophisticated, perhaps, as some of the people stricken with grief in the New York/New Jersey area at the time of 9/11, and in Pennsylvania and in the Pentagon. Because these people are of a different economic status and because they are living in shelters and the rest and not really able to speak for themselves to the Congress of the United States, we, the House Democrats, will speak for them in asking for the truth and appealing to our Republican colleagues for us to work together in a completely nonpartisan way to help meet their needs.

I know that some Members have visited the region, certainly those affected. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) spoke with such eloquence on the floor yesterday. Senator Landrieu, in the Senate last week, brought the Nation to tears with her presentation on what she saw in her beloved State of Louisiana. And the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) has told us firsthand of what he has seen there. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), our ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security, spoke from authority in standing on the committee but experience as a Mississippian. They know because they see firsthand.

I could only see secondhand, joining the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), going to Houston to meet with the victims of Katrina in the Astrodome and also in the George R. Brown Convention Center. We saw children, little children, adorable little babies that we could hold in our arms, and 90-year-old great grannies, all of them, not the little babies, they did not speak for themselves, but their older siblings said, ``We want to go home.''

They praised the hospitality, the warmth, the generosity of the people of Houston. And they are to be commended. As I said when I was in Houston, I do not know of any city in America that could have risen to the occasion so quickly and so compassionately as Houston. Mayor White, Judge Eckels, the Commissioner of Harris County; Representative Noriega, so many people in the community came together to help the victims of Katrina. But still, with all of the respect that they extended to their guests, with all the health care, with all the care and feeding, still, of course, there is no place like home.

So let us find out how we can bring these people home. And a good way to have them come home and have confidence in the future that, should another hurricane strike, and we know that it will, that the precautions will have been taken, the accountability will be assigned, and that the people will be protected. We can do that by finding the truth. We can find the truth with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Menendez) commission, Senator Clinton leading the way in the Senate on this important issue, and we can do it by rejecting this committee.

I stand open and welcome to any cooperation with the Republicans when the Speaker is ready to cooperate on true bipartisanship, true openness, and true accountability to the American people.

With that, I just close again to say that our hopes and prayers are always with the people of the region. It is our resolve that they will be made whole as soon as possible, and that has to be a bipartisan commitment.

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

Madam Speaker, high talk from the majority follows the abysmally low performance of the Federal organizations that they oversee and that our people trusted to protect them in their hour of need. And today we are told it is our constitutional duty to find out why the government was so unable to protect life here at home during and after Hurricane Katrina.

I would like to remind our friends on the other side that one of our constitutional duties as representatives of the will of the people is actually to represent the will of the people of the United States. So let the record show that as of today, according to the Republican leadership, the will of the American people no longer matters.

The fact that 76 percent of the citizens of our Nation want an independent commission to investigate the Katrina disaster does not mean a thing. The fact that over 60 percent of Republicans want an independent commission does not register with them either. Apparently, the people of the United States are to be patted on the head and told, Do not worry. We will find out what happened here.

The fact that thousands of men, women, and children are dead; the fact that hundreds of thousands more have become evacuees in the richest country in the world shows that we do not have everything under control. The fact that we cut corners and underfunded those responsible for maintaining the levees that protected New Orleans by tens of millions of dollars only so that later thousands of lives would be needlessly lost, tens of billions of dollars would have to be spent cleaning up the mess left behind shows that we do not have anything under control. That is really a case of being penny wise and pound foolish.

And now, to show how seriously it takes its constitutional responsibility to get the government back on track, to show that it is not interested solely in rhetoric but also in results, the majority has seen fit to create a partisan political body, which we all know will care more about the political survival of the leadership than the actual survival of the people.

How do we know this? Because the committee put forth by the majority is intentionally designed to be partisan. It has a Republican majority. It includes subpoena power controlled by the majority. And the scope of the investigation will be the whim of the

leadership of the majority. The idea of having a truly bipartisan commission to investigate the tragedy was never seriously entertained. If it was, joint subpoena power would exist in this bill, as would joint control of the committee's operation, scope, and direction.

Instead of this, platitudes promising cooperation and shared power have filled this hall, leaving no room for a resolution calling for either a truly bipartisan committee or, what would be infinitely better, the creation of an independent commission which will actually eliminate politics from what will otherwise be an incredibly politicized investigation.

All of this is obvious to nearly every observer, and yet the leadership tells the Democrats if we are objecting to their Republican- first agenda, we, the Members of the minority, are being partisan. Apparently, in the wake of disaster comes hypocrisy.

Along with its assurances of a fair and honest investigation of the failures of the Federal response to Katrina, assurances which are the product of wishful thinking as opposed to a sincere review of recent history, the majority puts forth empty arguments in favor of this bill.

We created the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, so only we can investigate it, they argue. That means that this leadership also helped to create the systemic problems which caused DHS and FEMA to fail. What exactly is their incentive to publicize their lack of vision and errors in judgment?

As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said earlier today, it would be like nominating Enron to investigate stock fraud because they helped to perfect it, and it would not make much sense.

But the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) told us this morning that none of this matters. It would be absurd, he says, to think that any Member of this body would not want to get to the bottom of the failures. Madam Speaker, more absurd things happen in this House all the time. For example, some might say that appointing a man with absolutely no experience in emergency management to head the Federal Emergency Management Association was absurd, and yet nobody challenged that appointment until it was far too late.

Madam Speaker, I do not mean to say that the chairman and his colleagues do not care about improving our national preparedness for a future emergency, because I know that they do; but the fact that political pressures have in the past and will again in the future distort and in some cases destroy investigations of government failings when the investigations are carried out by us, this is so obvious that it should be beyond question.

The only real question left before us today is why does the majority find an independent commission to investigate the tragedy so objectionable? Would any of them like to claim here that the 9/11 Commission was a mistake? They all voted for it. Should we reject the findings of that body? Should we here and now state that because it was not run by those managing the government on September 11, 2001, for that reason, what it discovered was illegitimate? Is there anyone here who would like to state for the record that the creation of the 9/11 Commission was an abdication and denial of our constitutional responsibility as Members of the House of Representatives?

Not one Member of this body would make such a claim, and yet the majority makes this claim about the creation of a similar body to investigate what happened on the gulf coast.

There is only one explanation for it. Dare I say this absurd stance is control. The majority wants to keep the investigation under its control so it can make sure that the answers that the committee produces toe the party line. Thinking about crass political considerations when Americans are dying and are homeless, that, and only that, is an abdication of our constitutional responsibilities as Members of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a man who knows of what he speaks.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and ranking member of the First Responder's Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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 North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).