Adopting rules for the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that the gentleman is absolutely right when he states that the Chair does not rule on questions of constitutionality.

I would also like to say that on this question that is being brought forward by my friend, it is very clear to me based on statements that have been made by a wide range of constitutional scholars that what we are doing in the rules package that we are about to consider is in fact constitutional. In fact, before the Committee on Rules the very distinguished former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said the following: ``It is simply inconceivable that a Constitution established to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare would leave the Nation unable to act in precisely the moment of greatest peril. No constitutional amendment is required to enact the proposed rule change because the Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to ensure the preservation of government.''

Let me further, Mr. Speaker, say that the Committee on Rules intends to conduct further examination of the best way for the House to assure a continuity of government during a national emergency, and it is our hope that as we proceed with this work that further discussions will take place with the members of that very distinguished panel, the Continuity Commission, which included our former colleague, Senator Simpson, and Speakers Foley and Gingrich and former minority leader Bob Michel, Leon Panetta, Kwasi Mfume, and I believe we will have a chance to proceed with this; but I think it would be very appropriate for us to proceed with consideration of the rules package that we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his fine statement and for yielding me the time to discuss this opening-day rules package.

Mr. Speaker, the House is an institution built upon its rules. Accordingly, it is very appropriate that one of the first orders of business for this 109th Congress will be to adopt a rules package which is both true to the traditions and very forward thinking in its outlook for the work of this Congress that lies ahead.

The package we have before us represents the work product of many Members. During the initial stages of compiling this rules package back in November, the Committee on Rules received 40 different proposals from both Democrats and Republicans. In addition to that, our committee staff has actively sought the input of the officers of the House, its committees and its caucuses to get their perspectives on the kinds of changes we can make to facilitate the work of the House.

All of the ideas contained in this resolution reflect the considered judgment of our colleagues and will ultimately improve our ability to carry out our constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record at this point detail on each of these changes in a section-by-section analysis.

Section-By-Section Summary of H. Res. 5, Adopting House Rules for the

109th Congress

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

I just want to say to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) that every single Member of this institution, Democrat and Republican alike, is very concerned and focused on the integrity of this institution; and I believe that that is something which is an extraordinarily high priority for all of us. I believe that the package that we have coming before us is one which addresses many of the concerns that frankly were raised by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

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

Let me say after having heard from two of my Committee on Rules colleagues that I anxiously look forward to working with them in a bipartisan way to try to proceed with the deliberations in consideration of measures of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

I would like to respond to my very good friend from Maryland by saying that I may not be as eloquent today as I was when I was in the minority, but I continue to share my very strong commitment to ensure the integrity and the behavior of Members of this institution. I also will say as my friend said, it is very clear that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has made it clear that he is supportive of this package. I and my colleagues looked at these recommendations, all of which emerged from members and former members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I also believe that it is very possible for us to maintain the highest ethical standards and to continue to ensure, to now ensure that due process is entitled to Members of this institution as they proceed with matters before that committee.

So I believe that this package is one which should enjoy strong bipartisan support, because when it comes to matters of ethics it will address the concern and the protection of Members of both the minority and the majority, as well as this institution as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to respond to the gentleman.

Let me say we are in the midst of a discussion about ethics at this point. Obviously, it is our goal to maintain the highest ethical standards. We have a law, which is actually a criminal law, which states that it is a violation of 18 U.S. Code 607 for the solicitation of campaign contributions from Federal property.

The idea behind this change that is included in this rules package is that Members should not be required to carry two separate cell phones with them. This would allow campaign funds to be used for the purchase of a cell phone that might be used for calling your office or other official purposes. But the law which prevents the solicitation of campaign contributions from Federal property in fact is maintained and is one we that feel very strongly about.

In any Federal building whatsoever. On Federal property is what the law says. It is a violation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the motion to commit and the vote on the adoption of H. Res. 5 if the votes immediately follow a 15-minute vote, notwithstanding intervening proceedings attending the administration of the oath of office to Members-elect.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this rules package.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a great rules package that is coming before us, a rules package which I believe is deserving of bipartisan support. The reason I say it is deserving of bipartisan support is that is the word that has been used by Members on both sides of the aisle to describe exactly what we have been doing here and should be doing here.

Mr. Speaker, this package includes a number of very important provisions. It allows us to deal with the prospect of a horrendous attack on this institution, and it allows us to continue this institution's operations so the American people will understand that this institution stands even at a time of great crisis. This rules package allows for the establishment of a new permanent standing committee on homeland security, as the Speaker outlined in his opening remarks here today. I believe that is something that will allow Democrats and Republicans to spend time working on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a rules package which allows for bipartisan process at the ethics committee level. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the committee which has the responsibility of working to ensure the integrity of all of the Members of this institution. The package we have before us does just that.

I believe that the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), is very clear. He understands that the provisions included in this package will in fact maintain the integrity of this institution. He was not going to support the earlier package; he is supporting this package. The issue of bipartisanship is important because in this package we ensure that we will not see the politicization of the ethics process which tragically we have seen in the past, because it will require bipartisanship, which all Members are talking about, if we do proceed with the investigatory process.

That is the right thing to do, and I believe this package should in fact enjoy the support of Democrats and Republicans alike because it is designed to protect this institution and its Members.

Mr. Speaker, the House is an institution built upon its rules. Accordingly, it is appropriate that one of the first orders of business of the 109th Congress will be to adopt a rules package which is both true to its traditions and forward-thinking in its outlook.

The package we have before us represents the work product of many Members. During the initial stages of compiling this package, back in November, the Rules Committee received 40 difference proposals form both Democrats and Republicans.

In addition, our committee staff has actively sought the input of the officers of the House, its committees, and its caucuses to get their perspectives on the kinds of changes we can make to facilitate the work of the House.

While not every proposal we received was incorporated into this package, I assure you that each received substantial consideration by the Speaker and the Rules Committee. And, as always, the Rules Committee will continue to review our rules and operations to see where other improvements can be made.

Mr. Speaker, all of the ideals contained in this resolution reflect the considered judgment of our colleagues, and will ultimately improve our ability to carry out our constitutional responsibilities. While I will detail each of these changes in the section-by-section that I will place in the Record, I want to elaborate on just a few of these changes.

The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) is the author of one important provision directing committees to review matters within their jurisdiction to ferret out duplicative government programs as part of their oversight planning at the beginning of each Congress.

There are a number of instances where we are conforming the rules to reflect current House practice, such as with the designation of leadership members of the Budget Committee and the taking of recesses in committee to allow flexibility on our schedules.

We are also making the ability to consider suspensions on Wednesdays permanent in

this Congress after our successful experiment in the 108th Congress.

The package includes important provisions to allow us to function in situations where large numbers of Members are incapacitated. The ``provisional quorum'' language includes a number of safeguards to ensure that this institution can continue to operate during times of turmoil and democracy will be preserved.

As we search for permanent solutions to the problems facing us in the post-9/11 era, this is an important step in meeting our responsibilities.

We will also eliminate the Corrections Calendar. While this was originally intended to make it easier to consider legislation making corrections to outright errors in law, it turned out to be more cumbersome than other procedures, such as consideration under suspension of the rules.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, in a change guaranteed to draw applause from my colleagues, the House rules will now allow us to make reference to the Senate and its Members, so long as those references are confined to the question under debate and avoid personality. The Senate has long had similar provisions and this new rule merely conforms our rules to theirs.

I know that my colleagues and I share the desire to maintain our traditions of dignity and decorum in proceedings, and will do so even with this rules change.

On another topic, the package makes a series of changes to our ethics rules.

We included two provisions suggested by the chairman and ranking member of the Standards Committee: (1) clarifying the rule on officially connected travel to allow a family member other than a spouse or child to travel with the member at the sponsor's expense, and (2) conforming the rules of the House to current law which allow the use of campaign funds to pay for certain official expenses, such as a cellphone.

We also included provision suggested by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to conform the rules of the House to current law with regard to the 90-day pre-election limit on franked mail.

The package also includes two other provisions addressing our ethics rules. The first gives Members the same rights to choose their counsel before the Ethics Committee that they would enjoy if they were a respondent in a court case.

The second change addresses an inequity in the Standards Committee process requiring an investigative subcommittee if the chairman and ranking member don't act within 45 days. This change restores the presumption of innocence in our process.

As important as each of those changes are, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important change in this resolution will be the creation of a new standing Committee on Homeland Security.

It represents a far-reaching and critically important part of our overall strategic effort to protect the American people. The 9/11 Commission unanimously called for this action. They saw the need, and we believe most Members do, too.

Over the past 3 years, the Congress has asked the American people to accept change in countless ways. We have mandated change at the Federal, State, and local levels. We have asked for change from our allies and forced change upon our enemies.

And we saw the need for change over 2 years ago, and we responded, first with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and then with the formation of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Their final report, a thorough and complete study of homeland security jurisdiction as it relates to House rules, was transmitted to my committee at the end of last year.

These measures made it clear to me and many other Members that steps need to be taken to further ensure the safety of the American people. The Rules Committee thoroughly reviewed the Select Committee's report and recommended a comprehensive and thoughtful reform effort that mirrors the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission: the formation of a permanent Committee on Homeland Security.

This change in House rule X, which governs the committee and their legislative jurisdictions, is delicately crafted architecture. It draws to the new committee only jurisdiction directly related to our defense against terrorism. Thus, it creates a primary committee while recognizing the other legitimate oversight roles of existing committees. It acknowledges the expertise and experience residing in other committees and leaves with them jurisdiction that may have a homeland security implication but not a direct policy relationship.

The House must have one central point where we, as national legislators, sort out the critical questions of securing our homeland without sacrificing our free society or a stable economy.

However, we envision a system of ``purposeful redundancy.'' By that we mean more than one level of oversight and an atmosphere in which the competition of ideas is encouraged.

With this jurisdiction and the legislative history that I will place in the Record, the Department of Homeland Security will have more certainty as to which committee has the primary responsibility for homeland security. At the same time, the American people will live with the assurance that we are working to prevent anything from falling through the cracks.

Mr. Speaker, the new committee will have jurisdiction over: (1) Overall homeland security policy; (2) the organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security; and (3) functions of the Department of Homeland Security relating to border and port security (except immigration policy and non-border enforcement), customs (except customs revenue), the integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland security information, domestic preparedness for and collective response to terrorism, research and development, and transportation security.

By approving this resolution, the House will do what the Speaker and the 9/11 Commission has asked it to do: consolidate jurisdiction of the House in one committee. This committee will be dedicated to setting national homeland security policy and to effectively overseeing that the Department of Homeland Security carries out its mission.

Mr. Speaker, in making these changes, I want to note several points for the record.

First, referrals to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the 108th Congress will not be considered a precedent for referrals in the 109th Congress.

Second, at the request of Mr. Thomas, I am placing a document into the Record regarding understandings between the Department of Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security.

Third, because the Department continues to evolve, references to a department, agency, bureau, office, or subdivision include a reference to successor entities to the extent that the successor engages in homeland security activities now conducted by the department, agency, bureau, office, or subdivision referred to in the legislative history.

For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the Office of Domestic Preparedness to the Department of Homeland Security, to ``have the primary responsibility within the executive branch of Government for preparedness of the U.S. for acts of terrorism.'' Subsequently, its name has been changed by the Department to ``Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)'' although its mission stays the same.

Finally, I welcome questions from my colleagues about jurisdictional matters related to this change. However, I want to caution all Members that referrals are solely within the Speaker's power, and, in my answers, I will not infringe upon the power.

Once again, I appreciate the input from all of you regarding the 109th rules package, and I feel that with your assistance, we will make the rules of the House stronger and make for a safer country.

Mr. Speaker, I am inserting for the Record the following legislative history regarding the changes made by this resolution to Rule X, along with supporting materials.

Legislative History To Accompany Changes to Rule X

rule x and the committee on homeland security

Legislative history

Overall homeland security policy--The jurisdiction of the

Committee on Homeland Security over ``overall homeland

security policy'' is to be interpreted on a government-wide

or multi-agency basis similar to the Committee on Government

Reform's jurisdiction over ``overall economy, efficiency, and

management of government operations and activities. . . .''

Surgical addresses of homeland security policy in sundry

areas of jurisdiction occupied by other committees would not

be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security on the

basis of ``overall'' homeland security policy jurisdiction.

For example, the Committee on Homeland Security shall have

jurisdiction over a bill coordinating the homeland security

efforts by all of the critical infrastructure protection

sectors. Jurisdiction over a bill addressing the protection

of a particular sector would lie with the committee otherwise

having jurisdiction over that sector.

Organization and administration of the Department of

Homeland Security--The jurisdiction of the Committee on

Homeland Security would apply only to organizational or

administrative aspects of the Department where another

committee's jurisdiction did not clearly apply. The

Committee's jurisdiction is to be confined to organizational

and administrative efforts and would not apply to

programmatic efforts within the Department of Homeland

Security within the jurisdiction of other committees.

Homeland Security Oversight--This would vest the Committee

on Homeland Security with oversight jurisdiction over the

homeland security community of the United States. Nothing in

this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise

restricting the authority of any other committee to study and

review homeland security activities to the extent that such

activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the

jurisdiction of that committee.

Individual committee concerns

Agriculture--The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland

Security over ``border and port security'' shall be limited

to agricultural importation and entry inspection activities

of the Department of Homeland Security under section 421 of

the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Committee on

Agriculture shall retain jurisdiction over animal and

plant disease policy including the authority reserved to

the Department of Agriculture to regulate policy under

section 421 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the

Animal Health Protection Act, the Plant Protection Act,

the Plant Quarantine Act, and the Agriculture Quarantine

Inspection User Fee Account. The Committee on Agriculture

shall retain jurisdiction over the agricultural research

and diagnosis mission at the Plum Island Animal Disease

Center.

Armed Services--The Committee on Armed Services shall

retain jurisdiction over warfighting, the military defense of

the United States, and other military activities, including

any military response to terrorism, pursuant to section 876

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Energy and Commerce--The Committee on Homeland Security

shall have jurisdiction over measures that address the

Department of Homeland Security's activities for domestic

preparedness and collective response to terrorism. The words

``to terrorism'' require a direct relation to terrorism. The

Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdiction over

``collective response to terrorism'' means that it shall

receive referrals of bills addressing the Department of

Homeland Security's responsibilities for, and assistance to,

first responders as a whole. The Committee on Energy and

Commerce (and other relevant committees) shall retain their

jurisdiction over bills addressing the separate entities that

comprise the first responders. For example, the Committee on

Energy and Commerce shall retain its jurisdiction over a bill

directing the Department of Health and Human Services to

train emergency medical personnel.

Financial Services--The Committee on Financial Services

shall retain jurisdiction over the National Flood Insurance

Program and Emergency Food and Shelter Program of FEMA, and

the Defense Production Act. The Committee on Financial

Services shall retain its jurisdiction over the anti-money

laundering, terrorist financing, and anti-counterfeiting

activities within the Department of the Treasury and the

financial regulators.

Government Reform--The Committee on Homeland Security shall

have jurisdiction over ``the organization and administration

of the Department of Homeland Security.'' The Committee on

Government Reform shall retain jurisdiction over federal

civil service, the overall economy, efficiency, and

management of government operations and activities, including

Federal procurement, and federal paperwork reduction. The

Committee on Government Reform shall retain jurisdiction over

government-wide information management efforts including the

Federal Information Security Management Act. The Committee on

Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction over integration,

analysis, and dissemination of homeland security

information by the Department of Homeland Security, and

the Committee on Government Reform shall retain

jurisdiction over measures addressing public information

and records generally including the Privacy Act and the

Freedom of Information Act. The Committee on Government

Reform shall have jurisdiction over the policy

coordination responsibilities of the Office of

Counternarcotics Enforcement.

Intelligence--The Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence shall retain jurisdiction over the intelligence

and intelligence-related activities of all departments and

agencies of the Federal Government, including the Office of

the Director of National Intelligence and the National

Counterterrorism Center as defined in the Intelligence Reform

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Judiciary--The Committee on the Judiciary shall retain

jurisdiction over immigration policy and non-border

enforceme4tn of the immigration laws. Its jurisdiction over

immigration policy shall include matters such as the

immigration and naturalization process, numbers of aliens

(including immigrants and non-immigrants) allowed,

classifications and lengths of allowable stay, the

adjudication of immigration petitions and the requirements

for the same, the domestic adjudication of immigration

petitions and applications submitted to the Department of

Labor or the Department of Homeland Security and setting

policy with regard to visa issuance and acceptance. Its

jurisdiction over non-border enforcement shall be limited to

those aspects of immigration enforcement not associated with

the immediate entry of individuals into the country,

including those aspects of the Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement. The Committee on Homeland Security shall

have jurisdiction over border and port security including the

immigration responsibilities of inspectors at ports of entry

and the border patrol. As used in the new Rule X(1)(l)(9) and

this legislative history, the word ``immigration'' shall be

construed to include ``naturalization'' and no substantive

change is intended by the new rule's not containing the word

``naturalization.''

Science--The Committee on Science shall retain some

jurisdiction over the research and development activities of

the Department of Homeland Security as such matters are

incidental to the Committee on Science's

existing jurisdiction (except where those activities are in

the jurisdiction of another committee).

Transportation and Infrastructure--The Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure shall retain jurisdiction

over the Coast Guard. However, the Committee on Homeland

Security has jurisdiction over port security, and some Coast

Guard responsibilities in that area will fall within the

jurisdiction of both committees. Jurisdiction over emergency

preparedness will be split between the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on

Homeland Security. The Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure shall retain its jurisdiction under clause

1(r)(2) over ``federal management of emergencies and

natural disasters.'' This means that the committee retains

its general jurisdiction over the emergency preparedness

and response operations of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA). Bills addressing FEMA's general

preparation for disaster from any cause shall be referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The

Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction

over the Department of Homeland Security's

responsibilities with regard to emergency preparedness

only as they relate to acts of terrorism. Thus, the

Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction

over the responsibilities of the Office for Domestic

Preparedness, in accordance with section 430 of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002.

As indicated earlier, the Committee on Homeland Security's

jurisdiction over ``collective response to terrorism'' means

that it would receive referrals of bills addressing the

Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities for, and

assistance to, first responders as a whole and not over

measures addressing first responder communities individually.

The Committee on Homeland Security shall have jurisdiction

over the functions of the Department of Homeland Security

relating to transportation security, while the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure shall retain its

jurisdiction over transportation safety. In general, the

Committee on Homeland Security would have jurisdiction over

bills addressing the Transportation Security Administration

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would

have jurisdiction over bills addressing the various entities

within the Department of Transportation having responsibility

for transportation safety, such as the Federal Aviation

Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland

Security does not include expenditures from trust funds under

the jurisdiction of other committees, including but not

limited to the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway

Trust Fund, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Federal

Buildings Fund, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

Ways and Means--The jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways

and Means over ``customs revenue'' is intended to include

those functions contemplated in section 412(b)(2) of the

Homeland Security Act of 2002 and includes those functions as

carried out in collection districts and ports of entry and

delivery.

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

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am submitting the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services for printing in the Congressional Record.

These rules were adopted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at a public meeting of the full committee, with a quorum being present.

Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Armed Services

rule 1. application of house rules

The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of

the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in

these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so

far as applicable.

rule 2. full committee meeting date

(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,

and at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of

the Committee (hereinafter referred to in these rules as the

``Chairman''), or by written request of members of the

Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives.

(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed

with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a

written request of a majority of the members of the

Committee.

rule 3. subcommittee meeting dates

Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters

referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the

Committee and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A

subcommittee chairman shall set meeting dates after

consultation with the Chairman, the other subcommittee

chairmen, and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee

with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of

committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever

possible.

rule 4. subcommittees

Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(b), relating

to Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of

Representatives on January 4, 2005, the Committee shall be

organized to consist of six standing subcommittees with the

following jurisdictions:

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army and

Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and

lift programs, special operations and information technology

accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible

for all Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National

Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and

ammunition programs.

Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training,

logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition,

the subcommittee will be responsible for all military

construction, installations and family housing issues,

including the base closure process.

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and

Capabilities: Department of Defense counter proliferation and

counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the

subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations

Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,

information technology and programs, force protection policy

and oversight, and related intelligence support.

Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel

policy, reserve component integration and employment issues,

military health care, military education and POW/MIA issues.

In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale,

Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except

deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile

defense and Department of Energy national security programs

(except non-proliferation programs).

Subcommittee on Projection Forces: Navy and Marine Corps

programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations

and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and

related systems, and strategic lift programs.

rule 5. committee panels

(a) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee

consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and

take testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the

jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee and to report to

the Committee.

(b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for

more than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the

expiration of six months, be reappointed by the Chairman.

(c) No panel so appointed shall have legislative

jurisdiction.

rule 6. reference and consideration of legislation

(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters

to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.

(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup

only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or

subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of those

present and voting.

(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a

quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a

subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter

referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered

by the Committee.

(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not

be considered by the Committee until after the intervention

of three calendar days from the time the report is approved

by the subcommittee and available to the members of the

Committee, except that this rule may be waived by a majority

vote of a quorum of the Committee.

rule 7. public announcement of hearings and meetings

Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee or of

any subcommittee or panel shall make public announcement of

the date, place, and subject matter of any committee or

subcommittee hearing at least one week before the

commencement of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the

Committee or of any subcommittee or panel, with the

concurrence of the respective ranking minority member of the

Committee, subcommittee or panel, determines that there is

good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee,

subcommittee or panel so determines by majority vote, a

quorum being present for the transaction of business, such

chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible

date. Any announcement made under this rule shall be promptly

published in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the

committee scheduling service of the House Information

Resources, and promptly posted to the internet web page

maintained by the Committee.

rule 8. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings

Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

rule 9. meetings and hearings open to the public

(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of

business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by

the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public

except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session

and with a majority being present, determines by record vote

that all or part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting

on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure

of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered

would endanger the national security, would compromise

sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate any

law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding

the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of

those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two

members of the Committee or subcommittee, may vote to close a

hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether

testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the

national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of

Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive

session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session,

a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being present.

(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee

that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to

defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted

by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness

would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or

incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of

(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or

testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a

majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no

fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the

Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may

tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. A majority

of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two

members of the Committee or subcommittee, may also vote to

close the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of

discussing whether evidence or testimony to be received would

tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. The

Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to receive such

testimony in open session only if the Committee or

subcommittee, a majority being present, determines that such

evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade or

incriminate any person.

(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of

the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by

letter to the Chairman, a member of that member's personal

staff with Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings

of the Committee, or that member's subcommittee(s) (excluding

briefings or meetings held under the provisions of committee

rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the provisions of

rule 9(a) above for national security purposes for the taking

of testimony. The attendance of such a staff member at such

hearings is subject to the approval of the Committee or

subcommittee as dictated by national security requirements at

that time. The attainment of any required security clearances

is the responsibility of individual members of the Committee.

(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or

Resident Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory

attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee,

unless the House of Representatives shall by majority vote

authorize the Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a

particular series of hearings on a particular article of

legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to

close its hearings to Members, Delegates, and the Resident

Commissioner by the same procedures designated in this rule

for closing hearings to the public.

(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same

procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five

additional consecutive days of hearings.

rule 10. quorum

(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving

evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.

(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or

subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action,

with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of

the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:

(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;

(2) Closing committee or subcommittee meetings and hearings

to the public;

(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;

(4) Authorizing the use of executive session material; and

(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to close

to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be received would

tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.

(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the

House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee

is actually present.

rule 11. the five-minute rule

(a) The time any one member may address the Committee or

subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration

shall not exceed five minutes and then only when the member

has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman,

as appropriate, except that this time limit may be exceeded

by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall be

recognized for not to exceed five minutes to address the

Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the

member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The

five-minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee or subcommittee.

(b) Members present at a hearing of the Committee or

subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened shall be

recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as

appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving

subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the ranking

minority member will take precedence upon their arrival. In

recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion,

the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the

majority to minority members present and shall establish the

order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not

to disadvantage the members of either party.

(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in

or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, or

panel hearings and meetings.

rule 12. power to sit and act; subpoena power

(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions

and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee are

authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this

paragraph):

(1) to sit and act at such times and places within the

United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed,

or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and

(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the attendance

and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such

books, records, correspondence, memorandums, papers and

documents, including, but not limited to, those in electronic

form, as it considers necessary.

(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the

Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the

full Committee Chairman, under subparagraph (a)(2) in the

conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations or

activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members

voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being

present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the

Chairman, or by any member designated by the Chairman.

(2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued

by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph

(a)(2) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the

House of Representatives.

rule 13. witness statements

(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to

the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the

Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of

presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the

Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance of

presentation. A copy of any such prepared statement shall

also be submitted to the Committee in electronic form. If a

prepared statement contains national security information

bearing a classification of secret or higher, the statement

shall be made available in the Committee rooms to all members

of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance

of presentation; however,

no such statement shall be removed from the Committee

offices. The requirement of this rule may be waived by a

majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a quorum

being present.

(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each

witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee

in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of

the proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at

such appearance to a brief summary of his or her argument.

rule 14. administering oaths to witnesses

(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman,

may administer oaths to any witness.

(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following

oath:

``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you

will give before this Committee (or subcommittee) in the

matters now under consideration will be the truth, the whole

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?''

rule 15. questioning of witnesses

(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a

subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may

put questions to the witness only when recognized by the

Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that

purpose.

(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire

shall have not to exceed five minutes to interrogate each

witness or panel of witnesses until such time as each member

has had an opportunity to interrogate each witness or panel

of witnesses; thereafter, additional rounds for questioning

witnesses by members are discretionary with the Chairman or

subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.

(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or

subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that

may be before the Committee or subcommittee for

consideration.

rule 16. publication of committee hearings and markups

The transcripts of those hearings and mark-ups conducted by

the Committee or a subcommittee that are decided by the

Chairman to be officially published will be published in

verbatim form, with the material requested for the record

inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the

record, as appropriate. Any requests to correct any errors,

other than those in transcription, or disputed errors in

transcription, will be appended to the record, and the

appropriate place where the change is requested will be

footnoted.

rule 17. voting and rollcalls

(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote,

division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.

(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-

fifth of those members present.

(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a

subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be

cast by proxy.

(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in

attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or

conference committee meeting during that time, the necessary

absence of that member shall be so noted in the record vote

record, upon timely notification to the Chairman by that

member.

rule 18. committee reports

(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by

the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely

notice of intention to file supplemental, minority,

additional or dissenting views, that member shall be entitled

to not less than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays,

Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in

session on such days) in which to file such views, in writing

and signed by that member, with the staff director of the

Committee. All such views so filed by one or more members of

the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part

of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that

measure or matter.

(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report

any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the

measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and

against, the names of those voting for and against, and a

brief description of the question, shall be included in the

committee report on the measure or matter.

rule 19. points of order

No point of order shall lie with respect to any measure

reported by the Committee or any subcommittee on the ground

that hearings on such measure were not conducted in

accordance with the provisions of the rules of the Committee;

except that a point of order on that ground may be made by

any member of the Committee or subcommittee which reported

the measure if, in the Committee or subcommittee, such point

of order was (a) timely made and (b) improperly overruled or

not properly considered.

rule 20. public inspection of committee rollcalls

The result of each record vote in any meeting of the

Committee shall be made available by the Committee for

inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices

of the Committee. Information so available for public

inspection shall include a description of the amendment,

motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each

member voting for and each member voting against such

amendment, motion, order, or proposition and the names of

those members present but not voting.

rule 21. protection of national security information

(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security

information bearing a classification of secret or higher

which has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee

shall be deemed to have been received in executive session

and shall be given appropriate safekeeping.

(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval

of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as

in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized

disclosure of any national security information received

classified as secret or higher. Such procedures shall,

however, ensure access to this information by any member of

the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner of the House of Representatives who has

requested the opportunity to review such material.

rule 22. committee staffing

The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,

and any panel designated by the Chairman shall be subject to

the rules of the House of Representatives,

rule 23. committee records

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the ranking

minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee

for a determination on the written request of any member of

the Committee.

rule 24. hearing procedures

Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Committee on Rules. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the last Congress. It was an honor to serve with the gentleman from Colorado (Chairman Hefley), as he always managed to chair the committee in a completely bipartisan manner.

The headlines in this morning's paper say ``GOP Abandons Ethics Changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It is true that the most outrageous ethics undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions, provisions that would make major changes in the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct handles enforcements of the rules, they remain.

There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, but, and equally important, because of the partisan way in which they are being adopted. If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That

point should be self-evident. How could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it is absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What is more, because of the importance and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it is also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input, Democrats and Republicans.

Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party line vote.

It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Committee on Rules that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states, ``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.'' Fine. But that statement is incomplete and, therefore, misleading.

The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda and when either one of them does that, an investigative committee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee.

Another example, Mr. Speaker. Under the heading ``Due Process for Members,'' the Committee on Rules memorandum states that, ``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member or the committee may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''

This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with the rights for Members who are accused of any violation.

When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead on committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may be well that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be? They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process.

But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter or dismissing it entirely. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process.

I'd like to address the ethics-related provisions that are in this package at the insistence of the Rules Committee. I had the honor of serving as ranking member of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress, and I also served on the committee for 6 years during another time of controversy in the late 1980s. It was an honor to serve during the last 2 years with Chairman Hefley, as he always managed the committee in a completely bipartisan manner.

A headline in this morning's newspaper says, ``GOP abandons ethics changes.'' It turns out that the headline is at best only half right. It's true that the most outrageous ethics-undermining provision has been deleted from the rules package, but other provisions--provisions that would make major changes in the way the Ethics Committee handles enforcement of the rules--remain.

There should be no misunderstanding that these provisions that remain would seriously undermine the ethics process in the House, both because of the changes they would make in committee procedures, and, equally important, because of the partisan way in which they would be adopted.

If there is to be a meaningful, viable ethics process in the House, it must be a genuinely bipartisan process. That point should be self- evident--how could there be a legitimate ethics process that is operated on a partisan basis? And to have a bipartisan process, it's absolutely essential that any major changes in the rules be made on a truly bipartisan basis. What's more, because of the importance, and the sensitive nature of the ethics rules, it's also essential that any proposed changes be considered in a thoughtful, considered, and open way, with all Members being given the opportunity for input--Democrats and Republicans.

Until today, the House recognized these fundamental points. Until today, the House has not attempted to make major changes in the ethics rules or the Ethics Committee procedures in a slapdash way, with literally only hours of consideration, and on a party-line vote.

It will probably come as no surprise that the materials issued by the Rules Committee that attempt to justify these amendments are based entirely on misstatements of the current rules. For example, under the benign-sounding heading, ``Restore Presumption of Innocence,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states, and I quote:

``Currently, if the chairman and ranking minority member take no action on a properly filed complaint within 45 days, the matter automatically goes to an investigative subcommittee.''

That statement is incomplete--and therefore misleading. The rules that have been in effect since 1997 clearly provide that at any time that a complaint is before the chairman and ranking member for consideration, either one of them may place the complaint on the committee's agenda, and when either one of them does that, an investigative subcommittee cannot be established without a majority vote of the committee.

Another example: under the heading, ``Due Process for Members,'' the Rules Committee memorandum states that, and I quote:

``Under the current rule, the chairman and ranking member, or the committee, may take action against a Member without a complaint, notice, or the opportunity to be heard.''

This statement clearly implies that the committee may determine that a Member has committed a violation or impose a sanction without the Member having such rights, and that suggestion is flatly wrong. The rules are replete with rights for Members who are accused of any violation, and because of the bipartisan makeup of the committee, Members are typically accorded rights well beyond those required by the rules.

When you turn to the actual text of the ``due process'' amendments, you find that what these amendments are concerned with is not committee actions that impose sanctions or determine violations, but instead committee letters or statements that ``reference the official conduct of a Member.'' It may well be that the rules should provide certain rights to a Member whose conduct is going to be discussed in a letter or statement that the committee issues publicly, but what should those rights be?

They should be determined through a deliberative, fair, bipartisan process. But one specific right that this proposed rule provides to those Members is the right to demand an immediate trial in front of an adjudicatory subcommittee of the Ethics Committee. But in the circumstances that the rule addresses, that trial would take place before the committee has conducted any formal investigation of the matter. No committee that is serious about conducting its business would allow itself to be put in that circumstance. So the effect of this amendment would be that whenever any alleged misconduct is brought to the committee's attention, the committee may be forced to choose between either launching a formal investigation of the matter, or dismissing it entirely. There would be no chance for an expedited resolution of the case, even in those instances in which the committee believes it already has all the basic facts, and the conduct involved probably does not warrant a formal sanction. Both of these rule changes lack careful consideration and, more seriously, are brought to us today through a partisan process.

But the proposed amendment that raises even more concern is the one that provides for automatic dismissal of any complaint that

is not acted upon within a period as short as 45 days. When the House last considered Ethics Committee procedures, in 1997, it rejected, on a bipartisan vote, an amendment that would have required the automatic dismissal of any complaint that is not acted upon within 180 days.

The reason that amendment was rejected is that it was recognized that such a time limit would encourage deadlock on the committee, and partisanship among the committee members. Under a time limit, if one side or the other is uncomfortable about dealing with a particular complaint, those Members don't have to discuss it or otherwise try to deal with it--by their just doing nothing, the complaint will disappear. Yet now this provision for automatic dismissal has reappeared, and this time it has a far shorter time frame for committee consideration than the nearly identical provision that the House soundly rejected in 1997.

I want to close by asking all Members, including all Members of the leadership on both sides of the Aisle, to give some serious consideration--not just today, but in the weeks and months ahead--to whether you genuinely want to have a meaningful ethics process in the House, and what we as Members, individually and collectively, have to do in order for such a process to exist. As I said at the outset, for this process to exist, it has to be a truly bipartisan one, and it has to be treated with seriousness and respect. It has to be recognized that the basic purpose of the process is to consider and address legitimate ethics concerns, and if Members are successful in using the process for partisan, political purposes, it is going to fail. The approval of these amendments would seriously undermine the process and, for that reason alone, this rules package should be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, all over Washington and in the country, people are talking today about the majority's last-minute decision to abandon rules changes that would have eviscerated longstanding ethical guidelines in this House, and, with that, the integrity of the institution. And while in the end the majority was right to withdraw these provisions, they hardly deserve our congratulations. The Republicans simply succumbed to tough criticism from every major ethics group in Washington, several major news organizations and House Democrats. The rules changes in question were so egregious that rank- and-file Republicans would not support their leadership's plan. The proposals were so offensive that the Ethics Committee chairman broke with his own leadership on the issue.

One of the changes would have permitted Members, indicted by a grand jury on felony counts, to continue to hold House leadership positions. The measure was similar to a conference rule the House Republican Conference passed last fall to protect its leadership in the event that one of them is indicted. The fact that they ever considered changing the rules of the House in this disgraceful manner is a sad commentary on the ethical compass of this body's leadership.

They also planned to eliminate a 30-year standing rule that Members of Congress could be disciplined for actions that brought dishonor and discredit on this House, the people's House. This standard is similar to the one that exists for the men and women serving in our military. How could they even think about changing the House rules in this regard when to do so would mean demanding a higher ethical standard from an 18-year-old private in the Army than we who sit in this hallowed Chamber? How could we ask more from our young people than we ask of ourselves?

It is hard to believe that there was a time in the not too distant past when the Republicans touted their high ethical and moral standards. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this entire episode has been a violation of the public trust. When Americans enter their voting booths and cast their ballots for Congress, they give us a very precious gift, their trust. American voters expect, and rightly so, that we as Members of Congress will conduct ourselves at the highest ethical standard and uphold democratic principles such as integrity and accountability. How can we as the guardians of democracy spread the values of self-governance across the world if we refuse to govern ourselves right here in this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker, though we should all be relieved that the Republicans were shamed into abandoning the most overtly egregious provisions, the remaining ethics provisions in today's legislation will still destroy the House ethics process. I cannot say it more plainly than that. The ethics process will be destroyed. The tactics have changed, but the end result is the same. The House ethics system will be gutted.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is the only evenly divided committee in the House. As the rule stands today, if the five Republicans and five Democrats on the committee do not reach agreement about the merits of an ethics complaint, it is automatically referred to investigators. This approach was designed to take the partisan politics out of the equation and to ensure that meritorious complaints would be investigated regardless of the political winds of the day. Under the Republican rules package, one- half of the committee will now have the power to bury complaints, even the most meritorious ones. Under the rules package before us today, if the committee is deadlocked,

the ethics complaint dies. This one provision gives the Republicans an enormous amount of control over who is and who is not investigated by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

In practical terms, the Republicans have granted themselves veto power over any complaint it does not deem palatable. Mr. Speaker, this rules package would effectively eliminate the 45-day deadline the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct currently has to act on complaints. The 45-day requirement was designed to prevent ethics complaints from being buried away from public view and to ensure that those Members who should be held accountable for corruption would be. This provision ensures that no ethics complaint will move forward against a Republican without their leadership's consent.

Mr. Speaker, we can be sure that if these rules changes had been in place in the last Congress, no ethics complaints would have seen the light of day. Under the Republicans, the ethical climate in Washington has eroded enormously. When I speak to constituents, I find myself telling them to forget what they learned in school about how a bill becomes a law. In times past, our laws were written to serve the public interest. But today the sad reality is that corporations like Enron write our Nation's policies. The Medicare drug bill that was rammed through Congress in the dead of night stands as a potent example of the ethical erosion of the House of Representatives. When the dust settled on the prescription drug vote, former Representative Billy Tauzin, the key author and then chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, had himself a $2-million-dollar-a-year job lobbying with the drug industry. After the ethical circus surrounding the prescription drug vote, this body should be acting to strengthen the ethics systems in this House, not to destroy it. We were even unable, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain from any official of the Federal Government how much the bill actually cost.

The Republican rules package will reduce this committee to a paper tiger. The American people deserve much better than to have a ``for sale'' sign placed on the United States House of Representatives. They deserve to be able to trust their elected leaders and have faith in the integrity of this institution. They should be able to expect accountability from their government. Unfortunately, the lesson we have here today is if you have the power and you break the rules, you can just change the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are Members on the other side of the aisle, because I know them, who care greatly about the integrity of this Chamber, and I know that there are freshmen Members here today eager to cast their first vote on behalf of the constituents whose trust they hold and the Constitution they love. I challenge those new Members, and any other Republican who values integrity and the sanctity of the democratic process, to stand up for the values of those who trusted you to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, at the close of this debate, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can strike from the rules package language that would allow the Republicans to run out the clock on serious ethics complaints. Immediately following that vote, I will ask for a ``yes'' on a motion to commit the resolution so that we can add two important rules changes. The first would prohibit Members from negotiating lucrative job deals that capitalize on their committee membership. The other would guarantee that Members have at least 3 days to read a House report before voting on it. When bills are rushed to the floor, cobbled together at the last minute, warm from the machine, pages are missing or, worse, outrageous provisions are slipped in by committee staff.

Lest we forget, the provision that opened up private taxpayers' records that was sneaked into last year's omnibus spending bill was by just such a staff member.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to strike the egregious ethics changes in this package. We owe it to the constituents we serve, to this institution, and to the Constitution that we adore and revere to restore the ethics and integrity to the people's House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

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

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

I urge every Member of this House to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike from the proposed rules package a provision that effectively guts our already ailing ethics process. This provision would halt the investigation of properly filed ethics complaints if, after 45 days, the chair and ranking Member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct have not set up an investigation committee.

I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on this previous question so we can delete this offensive provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, after the vote on the previous question, I will call for a yes vote on the motion to commit. My motion to commit will prohibit sitting Members of Congress from negotiating for future employment with any person who has a direct interest in the legislation referred to any committee on which that Member serves.

It also includes a rules change that would require a two-thirds vote in the House to waive the requirement in our standing rules that Members must have 3 days to read the committee reports.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a statement as part of that immediately prior to the vote on the motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question.

I call on all Members of this House, particularly the freshmen casting their first vote, please vote for ethics today. Do not vote against the Constitution. Vote for this House that you will love and revere as all of us do on both sides of the aisle. Please vote no on the previous question and vote yes on the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the radical new provision included in this rules package resolution which would violate the Constitution by allowing the Speaker and a small group of Members to usurp the powers of a majority of the House and act with only a ``provisional quorum'' instead of the real thing.

The proposal would deny the plain language of section 5 of article I of the Constitution and create a new category of quorum--a ``provisional quorum''--which the Constitution expressly forbids. It destroys the very idea of the quorum. It would also demolish a 99-year- old precedent, based on the Constitution, that a quorum of the House consists of a majority of the membership chosen, sworn, and living.

For each House Member deprived of the right to exert an impact on the work of the House, either through physical presence in or absence from the Chamber, the approximately 600,000 persons represented by each Member would be deprived of their rights to democratic representation in the legislative body structured to be closest to the American people. This proposal transfers the rights of those ``closest to the people'' to those closest to the House floor.

The proposal takes the guise of a rules change which the House has no power to pass, since the Constitution determines what kind of body the House is, and what it can--and can not--do.

Under this proposal, a majority of Members of the House could be alive and well and fully cognizant, but unable to reach the floor, while the few who are present could usurp their authority and the powers of the House.

Article I, section 5 of the Constitution states that a quorum consists of a majority, and, in the absence of a majority, all that the remaining minority of Members of the House can do is either adjourn from day to day or vote to compel the attendance of absent Members. There are no other options--no matter how inconvenient that fact may be for any faction on the floor of the House during a time of emergency.

The fact that the Constitution authorizes a minority to compel the attendance of the absentees clearly indicates that the absentees are needed to conduct business. The Constitution does not guarantee that a minority of the House will necessarily succeed in compelling the attendance of absent Members to create a constitutional quorum. And such a result could indeed cause a crisis, which H. Res. 5 would do nothing to remedy. Unfortunately, during the last Congress the House refused to make serious progress toward ensuring continuity of government.

Let's consider how the plan before us today actually might operate.

Suppose that, in the aftermath of a catastrophic emergency which caused mass casualties and disrupted transportation and communications nationwide, a presiding officer existed in the House who might either be the Speaker or another Member of the House acting as ``Speaker pro tempore'' from a list of names left by a deceased Speaker.

Suppose that the presiding officer decided, if a quorum of the majority of Members failed to appear within a specified time period, that Members who weren't present on the House floor or any other designated place of meeting ceased to be Members for purposes of determining a quorum.

Suppose the rump minority of Members who had managed to reach the floor wanted to pass major legislation, including a declaration of war or authorization for use of military force, send constitutional amendments to the States for ratification, expel Members from their seats, or elect a new Speaker to become Acting President of the United States, all using a ``provisional quorum'' of one-half of the Members present, plus one.

Could they do these things? The proposed rule says they could. The Constitution says they could not.

The resolution gives the Member presiding the effective power to temporarily define out of existence those Members who don't respond to a specified series of quorum calls. These Members' seats would not be considered vacant, but they would fall into a kind of extra- constitutional limbo until the missing Members--or a majority of the total membership--reappeared in the House. It is even possible that some states might seek to replace Members who do not answer the ``provisional quorum'' call in the House by ordering special elections even though the Members might be known to be alive.

All Members are equal under the Constitution, and the right to membership in this House is not determined by a Speaker, Speaker pro tempore, or a rump of a minority of the body. It is determined by a vote of the people, and only a constitutionally constituted House may exercise the power to determine the qualifications of its Members and whether they have been duly elected.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the House may not add qualifications for membership beyond those expressly stated in the Constitution. If a Member has been duly elected and taken the oath, he remains a Member, and can only be removed through resignation, or through expulsion. There is no constitutional requirement that a Member must appear on the floor to maintain membership, or that House membership can somehow lapse.

It is surprising that some who only last year during debate on the ``Continuity of Representation Act'', H.R. 2844, spoke eloquently about the status of a House consisting only of Members elected by the people are now supporting a proposal to define those elected Members out of existence.

Members who are trapped at an airport because the transportation system is inoperative, for example, do not simply cease to exist, nor can their powers be vested in other Members, willingly or not. Their absence has potential consequences, including the inability of the House to act until the collective body is ``assembled'' again, as the Constitution requires.

The resolution would also do an end run around the issue of ``disability'', a matter not addressed in the Constitution and one which requires a constitutional amendment to resolve, as the 25th Amendment did in the case of the President. Disabled Members--whom we might describe as those either physically injured or mentally incapable so as to be incapable of participating in the work of the House--have the same status as those who are fully functional. The Constitution makes no mention of disabled Members, but it does not give the House the power to pretend they don't exist. The House has never expelled or otherwise attempted to remove a sitting Member on the grounds of disability.

Proponents of the proposal before us today claim to address the problem of incapacitated Members, but only by effectively ignoring it. Under the provisional quorum rule, these Members would presumably not be able to appear on the floor and would be automatically excluded from the provisional quorum. It's a very convenient solution to the disability problem, though blatantly unconstitutional.

The House could adopt the provisional quorum plan as a House rule if the Constitution were amended to authorize it to do so; however, the Constitution does not.

The argument that the House is somehow exercising a constitutional power to make its own rules is also spurious. The House may only make rules which the Constitution permits it to make. The House may not reinvent itself at will as a different kind of legislative body by pretending that it is simply changing its rules.

At the very least, the House should debate the provisional quorum issue as a separate resolution, following hearings by the Rules Committee, with the Speaker in the chair to signal the historic nature of the debate and the radical action proposed to be taken. Burying the issue within this resolution with other controversial rule changes is an outrage.

The 108th Congress proved to be a huge disappointment because of its failure to effectively address many issues involving the stability of our structure of government, deficiencies brought to the forefront by the September 11 attacks, as well as a disturbing tendency to paper over controversies with legislation which fails to substantively address the problem.

For example, the House rejected a constitutional amendment offered by Representative Baird of Washington which would have reconstituted the House quickly through temporary appointments, pending special elections, if a large number of Members were killed. I had introduced a different version of the proposal, H.J. Res. 89. Members opposed to the concept--which is admittedly extremely controversial--refused to allow real hearings and debate. Even though prospects for passage of a constitutional amendment were extremely slim, a substantial debate would have served to educate the Congress and the American people on the importance of these issues, and perhaps provide impetus in a search for alternatives. A major effort like this has to start somewhere.

Instead, the House passed, but the Senate subsequently did not consider, H.R. 2844, the

``Continuity of Representation Act'', which created an unrealistically fast, unfair, undemocratic and unworkable scheme to fill vacant House seats through a mandatory national 45-day special election period. This bill was referred principally to the House Administration Committee, where I was able to make an official record of its many flaws.

Neither House passed simple legislation which would have corrected an oversight in the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, which failed to place the supposedly critical new cabinet officer somewhere--anywhere--in the statutory line of success to the Presidency.

Though hearings were held, neither House addressed significant issues of Presidential succession, such as the role of the Speaker and President pro tempore and lame duck Cabinet members in the succession lineup, and the ability of some officials to ``bump'' others serving as acting president under the current Federal statute.

Mr. Speaker, I plan to urge further action on congressional continuity issues in the new year, to work with my colleagues on the Committee on House Administration to assert our own jurisdiction more effectively and to push other relevant committees to do the same. We need both more effective action, and better internal cooperation, to accomplish these goals.