Floor Statements

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.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, our panel has authorizing responsibilities over much of the legislative-branch portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. Like the rest of the omnibus, the legislative portion is not perfect, but the sundry agencies under our jurisdiction will generally have the resources they need to continue providing their services to the Congress, and to the American people.

Of course, as a procedural matter, I am disappointed that a freestanding legislative appropriation did not become law in a regular process, before the start of the fiscal year. Such a bill, H.R. 4755, passed the House in July and later passed the Senate in plenty of time for conferees to report. I recognize that this was not the fault of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] or the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I hope they and all Members have the opportunity to consider the fiscal 2006 bill in a timely, orderly and ordinary process.

With respect to specific agencies under the jurisdiction of my committee, I am pleased that this bill funds a staff fitness facility for the House. This important facility will provide a way for our employees to remain fit and healthy. None of us can properly discharge our duties without the support of our staffs and the other House employees. This long-awaited facility will be a tremendous addition to the House, making it, as well as our employees, stronger.

I am disappointed that the bill does not include a House provision, authored by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Kirk], eliminating funding for the Capitol Police mounted unit. In my judgment, the police have failed to articulate a sufficient rationale for spending hundreds of thousands, millions over time, for this purpose. There is little doubt that the U.S. Park Police can benefit from maintaining a mounted unit, since the Park Police must patrol thousands of acres of parkland in the District of Columbia, much of it well off-road. The Capitol Police faces no such situation, and in fact, will have to spend tens of thousands each year simply to remove the manure from the carefully manicured and fairly small Capitol grounds. Absent a sufficient justification that the Capitol Police mounted unit was worth its cost, I supported the efforts of my Illinois colleague to save the taxpayers' money. I look forward to the important report by the Government Accountability Office, due in March, on this subject.

I share the concerns expressed in the conference report about the ongoing efforts to reorganize the police. I look forward to reviewing the results of the GAO's contributions in this area. The conferees also directed the Capitol Police to review all existing operations and general expenses to determine whether any ``outsourcing'' opportunities may exist. That term has come to mean the wholesale transfer of jobs overseas, and as a result, its use in the report may disturb many. Naturally, I am eager to review the Capitol Police's report to the appropriators on this subject, and on the USCP's expensive but mechanically unsound Command Vehicle. It seems that these subjects, and many others related to USCP operations and expenses, would make excellent subjects for formal hearings next year in our committee.

In connection with the Capitol Police, I am greatly concerned that several legislative provisions within the jurisdiction of the House Administration Committee found their way into this appropriations bill. In November, I joined my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, in a joint letter to the Capitol Police Board directing the Board not to request further such provisions in its future budget requests, and reminding the Board that it should bring proposed legislation to those committees for consideration. Only in this way can the authorizing and appropriations processes work as designed, and for the good of the men and women of the Capitol Police and the people they serve. The Capitol Police was certainly not the only agency within our jurisdiction which asked for legislative provisions in its budget request this year. The others should similarly heed the message we conveyed to the Police Board.

With respect to the Library of Congress, while I am pleased that the Congress will extend temporarily the authorization for the National Film Preservation Board and Foundation, which enabled the funding of this important work for another 2 years, I am dismayed

that separate reauthorization legislation, under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and House Administration, has not passed. I trust these committees can quickly address this matter next year. I agree with the conferees, who lauded the work of the Copyright Office with respect to digitizing future and historic copyright records. The Copyright Office, which depends on the public to defray a portion of its expenses, is headed in the right direction in this regard. I also note the continuing good work of the Congressional Research Service, without which none of the Members of either House could do his or her work effectively.

I am hopeful that our committee can authorize a student-loan repayment program for the Office of Compliance. This important tool has helped numerous Federal agencies, including the House, to attract and retain the staff needed to build an effective organization.

With respect to agencies within our committee's jurisdiction and funded in bills other than the legislative appropriations bill, I am glad to see that the conferees agreed to fund the Election Assistance Commission above the amount proposed by the Senate. The $14 million appropriated will help continue the work started by the EAC to serve as the clearinghouse for Federal elections. Although, the EAC got a late start, with the commissioners not taking office until December 2003, they must continue working to improve the election process. If Congress considers a supplemental appropriations bill next spring, the EAC should consider requesting additional resources.

Yet again, I am not pleased that the majority bypassed the committee and inserted into this bill a provision allowing contributions to campaigns for Federal office to be diverted to campaigns for State or local office. While this may be a meritorious idea, I certainly believe it should have been considered in an orderly process in the committees of jurisdiction, and not simply added to a massive appropriations bill.

Finally, the Smithsonian Institution received an increase of 3.1 percent over the fiscal 2004 budget, an increase of more than $19 million, but still 2 percent below its request. The funding level was reasonable given the overall budget constraints this year, but, as in the past, will not fund an aggressive approach to the Smithsonian's aging infrastructure and inadequate maintenance. I hope that Congress will soon recognize that its year-by-year, finger-in-the-dike approach to budgeting actually accelerates the deterioration of the physical plant of our nation's greatest repository of knowledge and ongoing research.

Congress last year finally authorized the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is in preliminary phases of engineering studies, staffing and planning, and which does not yet have a location or director. The $5 million request to continue the start up process was reduced to $3.9 million, which will impede the process. The Board of Regents expects to make a site recommendation to relevant committees, including House Administration, late next year.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work of the Appropriations Committee and look forward to working with the committee on matters of common concern next year.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on House Administration, our panel has authorizing responsibilities over much of the Legislative-branch portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. Like the rest of the omnibus, the Legislative portion is not perfect, but the sundry agencies under our jurisdiction will generally have the resources they need to continue providing their services to the Congress, and to the American people.

Of course, as a procedural matter, I am disappointed that a freestanding Legislative appropriation did not become law in a regular process, before the start of the fiscal year. Such a bill, H.R. 4755, passed the House in July and later passed the Senate in plenty of time for conferees to report. I recognize that this was not the fault of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] or the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I hope they and all Members have the opportunity to consider the fiscal 2006 bill in a timely, orderly and ordinary process.

With respect to specific agencies under the jurisdiction of my committee, I am pleased that this bill funds a staff fitness facility for the House. This important facility will provide a way for our employees to remain fit and healthy. None of us can properly discharge our duties without the support of our staffs and the other House employees. This long-awaited facility will be a tremendous addition to the House, making it, as well as our employees, stronger.

I am disappointed that the bill does not include a House provision, authored by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Kirk], eliminating funding for the Capitol Police mounted unit. In my judgment, the Police have failed to articulate a sufficient rationale for spending hundreds of thousands, millions over time, for this purpose. There is little doubt that the U.S. Park Police can benefit from maintaining a mounted unit, since the Park Police must patrol thousands of acres of parkland in the District of Columbia, much of it well off-road. The Capitol Police faces no such situation, and in fact, will have to spend tens of thousands each year simply to remove the manure from the carefully manicured and fairly small Capitol grounds. Absent a sufficient justification that the Capitol Police mounted unit was worth its cost, I supported the efforts of my Illinois colleague to save the taxpayers' money. I look forward to the important report by the Government Accountability Office, due in March, on this subject.

I share the concerns expressed in the conference report about the ongoing efforts to reorganize the Police. I look forward to reviewing the results of the GAO's contributions in this area. The conferees also directed the Capitol Police to review all existing operations and general expenses to determine whether any ``outsourcing'' opportunities may exist. That term has come to mean the wholesale transfer of jobs overseas, and as a result, its use in the report may disturb many. Naturally, I am eager to review the Capitol Police's report to the appropriators on this subject, and on the USCP's expensive but mechanically unsound Command Vehicle. It seems that these subjects, and many others related to USCP operations and expenses, would make excellent subjects for formal hearings next year in our committee.

In connection with the Capitol Police, I am greatly concerned that several legislative provisions within the jurisdiction of the House Administration Committee found their way into this appropriations bill. In November, I joined my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, in a joint letter to the Capitol Police Board directing the Board not to requests further such provisions in its future budget requests, and reminding the Board that it should bring proposed legislation to those committees for consideration. Only in this way can the authorizing and appropriations processes work as designed, and for the good of the men and women of the Capitol Police and the people they serve. The Capitol Police was certainly not the only agency within our jurisdiction which asked for legislative provisions in its budget request this year. The others should similarly heed the message we conveyed to the Police Board.

With respect to the Library of Congress, while I am pleased that the Congress will extend temporarily the authorization for the National Film Preservation Board and Foundation, which enabled the funding of this important work for another two years, I am dismayed that separate reauthorization legislation, under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and House Administration, has not passed. I trust these committees can quickly address this matter next year. I agree with the conferees, who lauded the work of the Copyright Office with respect to digitizing future and historic Copyright records. The Copyright Office, which depends on the public to defray a portion of its expenses, is headed in the right direction in this regard. I also note the continuing good work of the Congressional Research Service, without which none of the Members of either House could do his or her work effectively.

I am hopeful that our committee can authorize a student-loan repayment program for the Office of Compliance. This important tool has helped numerous federal agencies, including the House, to attract and retain the staff needed to build an effective organization.

With respect to agencies within our committee's jurisdiction and funded in bills other than the Legislative appropriations bill, I am glad to see that the conferees agreed to fund the Election Assistance Commission above the amount proposed by the Senate. The $14 million appropriated will help continue the work started by the EAC to serve as the clearinghouse for Federal elections. Although, the EAC got a late start, with the commissioners not taking office until December 2003, they must continue working to improve the election process. If Congress considers a supplemental appropriations bill next spring, the EAC should consider requesting additional resources.

Yet again, I am not pleased that the majority bypassed the committee and inserted into this bill a provision allowing contributions to campaigns for federal office to be diverted to campaigns for state or local office. While this may be a meritorious idea, I certainly believe it should have been considered in an orderly process in the committees of jurisdiction, and not simply added to a massive appropriations bill.

Finally, the Smithsonian Institution received an increase of 3.1 over the fiscal 2004 budget, an increase of more than $19 million, but still 2 percent below its request. The funding level was reasonable given the overall budget constraints this year, but, as in the past, will not fund an aggressive approach to the Smithsonian's aging infrastructure and inadequate maintenance. I hope that Congress will soon recognize that its year-by-year, finger-in-the-dike approach to budgeting actually accelerates the deterioration of the physical plant of our nation's greatest repository of knowledge and ongoing research.

Congress last year finally authorized the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is in preliminary phases of engineering studies, staffing and planning, and which does not yet have a location or director. The $5 million request to continue the start-

up process was reduced to $3.9 million, which will impede the process. The Board of Regents expects to make a site recommendation to relevant committees, including House Administration, late next year.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work of the Appropriations Committee and look forward to working with the committee on matters of common concern next year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2845, that would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. At long last bipartisanship and the will of the American people are at the brink of success here in the House of Representatives. This reform is now long overdue and this issue is too important to suffer the petty partisan games the House leadership have played with this bill. I only hope that our delay does not come at a higher cost than the few bruised egos of those unwilling and unable to work in a bipartisan manner the way our country's Framers always intended when the national security of this great Nation was threatened.

It should also not be lost on any Member of this Chamber that we are here debating this legislation today, December 7, on the anniversary of another day of infamy, which like 9/11 forever changed the future course of this country and generations of Americans. As we honor and discuss those who were lost on 9/11 today, I would like to take a moment to also remember those lost today at Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the sacrifices made by so many families and Americans since then to defend this Nation.

The recommendations the bipartisan Commission released in July 2004 will help prevent future terrorist attacks by offering a global strategy to dismantle terrorists and their organizations, prevent the continued growth of terrorism, and prepare for future terrorist attacks. In October, the other body overwhelmingly passed the National Intelligence Reform Act, S. 2845, by a vote of 96 to 2. The Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission chairmen, and families of many September 11 victims fully endorsed the Senate's intelligence reorganization bill.

Unfortunately, there in the House, the People's Chamber, the Republican leadership chose a different path, a path that strayed far from the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In yet another example of party politics over public interest, the Republican majority drafted a 609-page intelligence bill, H.R. 10, without any input or support from the Democratic leadership, including in it controversial provisions not recommended by the Commission on immigration and surveillance, and even went as far as to exempt the United States from certain applications of the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture. When Democrats put forward the bipartisan Senate bill as an amendment during the debate, it was defeated along party lines 203-213. Only 8 Republican Members of this House voted for the bipartisan bill.

For over a month, no interest was shown by House leaders in negotiating with the bipartisan supporters backed by President Bush and the 9/11 families, and the bill languished in the conference committee. Finally in November, blowing to public pressure, House Republican leaders worked out a compromise with the President and the bipartisan supporters of the Senate bill, and many of us thought that finally we would see action on this needed reform. However, several Members of the Republican House majority refused to accept the compromise and despite overwhelming support in the House and no question that the bill would pass if brought to the floor, the Speaker refused to allow a vote on the bill rather than have it pass with more Democratic support than Republican.

Instead, we waited nearly another entire month, while public pressure forced the President to finally personally work to try and convince enough Republican holdouts to support the bill, no not that it will pass, because there have always been enough votes to pass the bill, but to ensure that at the end of the vote there would be more Republican yes votes, who hold the majority anyway, than Democratic yes votes

While we waited for Republicans to be able to say they passed the intelligence reform bill themselves without needing any Democratic support, another U.S. Consulate office, this time in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia was attacked by terrorists, killing five people and wounding thirteen others. I fear how many more such attacks our enemies have been able to organize while we have delayed enacting intelligence reform needed to combat their activities.

This effort should mark a beginning, not the end, of our efforts to protect the American people by strengthening the systems by which we collect, process, and disseminate intelligence. However, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and as this Congress works to balance the need for greater security while protecting liberty, I would remind my colleagues of the words of one of our nation's greatest founders, Benjamin Franklin, who said, ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

I hope that the Republican leadership will not tarnish this achievement today by agreeing to vote in the next Congress on efforts that will weaken and undermine Americans' liberties.

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 2004, I introduced House Resolution 623. This was a one-line resolution which stated: ``. . . That the House of Representatives should address issues relating to the potential incapacity of its Members.'' I did this to make an important jurisdictional point.

The resolution, which was referred solely to the Committee on House Administration, served to highlight the committee's jurisdiction over how to deal with the status of incapacitated Members, and, by implication, more broadly with certain other matters relating to the continuity of Congress. The committee already has principal jurisdiction over the conduct of congressional and Presidential elections, the qualifications and credentials of House Members, and administrative control over the internal operations of the House, including Chamber security.

I would hope that in the 109th Congress, our committee, where I serve as the ranking minority member, will more forcefully exercise the authority it has to address a range of issues which threaten the ability of Congress to function in the event of a national catastrophe. We need to develop specific, and constitutional, proposals to address the potential absence of incapacitated Members. If the only effective way is through a constitutional amendment, as I suspect it is, then that argument should be clearly made.

Much attention in the 108th Congress has gone to other committees, such as Rules and Judiciary, which have specialized roles in considering certain types of continuity measures. If a proposal is introduced as a House rule, it will be referred to the Rules Committee; if it is a constitutional amendment, it will go to Judiciary. The Rules Committee held a useful hearing this year on incapacity, but its ability to deal with elements of the issue beyond changes to the rules of the House is limited.

This Congress has been 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 earlier this year 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 an alternate 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, preferring instead to misrepresent the various proposals which were introduced and to mock the sponsors. Even though prospects for passage of such an amendment at the time 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 provided impetus in a search for alternatives.

Instead, the House passed, but the Senate subsequently killed, 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 point out 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 succession 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.

The House is apparently planning to paper over its failure to effectively address congressional continuity by passing a blatantly unconstitutional new House rule when the 109th Congress convenes. It would pretend that a rump group of Members, acting with a ``provisional quorum,'' could exercise the full powers of the House even though a majority of the membership might still be alive but unable to reach the place the House was meeting in a timely manner.

The proposal pretends to address the problem of incapacitated Members by effectively ignoring it, and by allowing the Speaker to deprive them and other absent Members of their constitutional authority by adopting an unprecedented and radical procedure to declare a quorum present when it clearly isn't. The proposed rule would ignore the explicit constitutional prohibition against less than a majority of the Members of the House taking any action except to adjourn, or to compel the attendance of absent Members. It would also demolish the century-old precedent, based on the Constitution, that a quorum of the House consists of a majority of the membership chosen, sworn and living.

It is likely that this unconstitutional proposal will be shoehorned into House Resolution 5, the traditional opening-day resolution through which the House adopts its rules, to be considered on January 4, 2005. Parliamentary practices in effect at that time would allow only one hour of debate on the resolution, no matter how numerous or how controversial the rules changes contained within it might be. At a minimum, the House should debate the provisional quorum issue separately, following hearings by the Rules Committee through which Members could better inform themselves, I would hope, of the truly dangerous ramifications of this idea.

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 the other relevant committees to do the same. We need both more effective action, and better internal cooperation, to accomplish these goals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Oil Price Safeguard Act for 2004, a bill that would tackle the problem of petroleum market manipulation and today's skyrocketing oil costs.

Specifically, the Oil Price Safeguard Act would require the President to make a decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if prices stay above $35 per barrel for two consecutive weeks (last year's average daily price was about $31 per barrel), and require direct oversight reporting to the House Commerce Committee and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The U.S. government currently keeps oil in the strategic petroleum reserve for national security purposes, and to deal with short-term economic problems that could arise from oil shocks. Currently, there are 669 million barrels of oil in the reserve--enough to last 90 days if all foreign sources of oil were denied to the United States. Since the creation of the SPR in the early 1970s, it has only been used once--during the first Gulf War. After the SPR was drawn down during the first days of the Gulf War, crude oil prices dropped nearly $10

per barrel, which at the time was nearly a 50 percent price reduction.

We must take action on this today, because the future energy outlook is grim. Consistently high oil prices have a devastating effect on Americans simply trying to heat and cool their homes, on small businesses just trying to keep up with the cost of doing business, and on the overall economy as more and more disposable income from people and business is bundled off to foreign countries to pay for oil. Future predictions are so dire that the October 2004 Short-term Energy Outlook published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the Department of Energy is predicting that in 2005, high world oil prices will begin to slow the pace of world economic growth and that high current and projected crude oil costs suggest that large reductions in average gasoline prices are unlikely anytime soon.

The United States economy should not be held hostage to foreign oil interests. The effect of using the SPR during the early 1990s was clear. I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure that the President has every tool available at his disposal to fight rising oil prices that impact our economy and provide relief to the millions of Americans and small businesses affected by skyrocketing oil prices.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to introduce the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2004.

According to the October 2004 Short-Term Energy Outlook published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the Department of Energy, residential heating expenditures are projected to increase for all fuel types compared to year-ago levels and are even likely to generate higher expenditures even in regions where demand for fuel is expected to fall. The average residential natural gas prices are expected to be 11 percent higher than they were last winter, and household expenditures are expected to be 15 percent higher. Heating oil prices are expected to average 29 percent higher compared with last winter and household expenditures are expected to be 28 percent higher. Propane prices are expected to average 17 percent above last winter, with 22 percent higher expenditures for propane-heated households.

The high and rising costs of oil, natural gas, and propane, and other petroleum distillates, can have a significant economic impact on small businesses, farms, and distributors, as well as a larger overall negative impact on the economy. In fact, the future energy outlook is so grim that EIA is predicting that next year high world oil prices will begin to slow the pace of world economic growth.

We must take action today to ensure relief to America's farms and small businesses before the worst of winter and the coming energy crisis is upon us. That is why I am proposing an expansion of the Economic Injury Disaster

Loans (EIDLs) at the Small Business Administration and the Emergency Loans at the Department of Agriculture so that small businesses and farms that suffer direct economic injury by, or are likely to suffer direct economic injury by, significant increases in the prices of heating oil, propane, kerosene, natural gas, or electricity are eligible to apply for those loans.

The United States economy should not be held hostage to foreign oil interests. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our small businesses and farms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Energy Independence Act, a bill that would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and transmit to Congress a strategic plan to ensure that the United States is energy self-sufficient in 10 years.

Like an investment portfolio, a successful national energy portfolio must be a balanced and diverse portfolio. It should include traditional fossil fuel sources like oil, coal, and natural gas; emerging technologies like fuel cells; and traditional alternative energy sources such as solar and wind generation. It should balance incentives for efficiency and conservation with innovative methods of new generation.

However, the United States imported an average of over 12 million barrels of oil per day in 2003 from foreign countries to meet our domestic energy needs, totaling nearly 4.5 billion barrels during all of that year. Even at last year's comparatively modest average price of $31 per barrel, that adds up to almost $140 billion spent on foreign oil.

Today, with the average price of a barrel of crude oil up another $10 from last year to about $40 and with average daily imports remaining roughly the same, America's expenditures to purchase foreign oil increased to more than $180 billion this year. This is clearly not a balanced approach to energy.

Today, we have before us, for the first time in human history, the technology to provide clean, reliable energy for every person, home, business, and vehicle in America. With this technology, we have the opportunity to end once and for all America's reliance on foreign energy sources while at the same time creating quality, highly skilled jobs for the next century in a new and expanding technological field.

This proposal returns to the American people one of the fundamental rights defining this nation: independence. Through it we can establish long-term energy independence for individual Americans, specifically, independence from foreign energy sources, independence from the current over-burdensome and inefficient energy infrastructure, and independence from environmentally destructive energy sources.

It will provide for the security of the country in both economic and military terms by eliminating our reliance on foreign energy sources.

The Energy Independence Act requires the Secretary of Energy to examine and report on the status of existing energy technology and domestic resources as well as developing energy generation and transmission technologies, focusing on their integration into an overall national energy portfolio to meet the stated goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency within 10 years.

It also requires that the plan include recommendations to Congress for targeted research and development in promising new energy generation and transmission technologies, and funding levels necessary for specific programs and research efforts necessary to implement a plan providing for the energy self-sufficiency of the United States within the next 10 years.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and make energy independence a reality for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 1350, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA is a fundamental civil rights program that provides funds to states for the education of children with disabilities. As the world of education faces the challenge of leaving no child behind, this program takes on extra importance. Children with disabilities should have as much opportunity as any child to reach and even exceed their potential. However, since 1975, Congress has placed yet another unfunded mandate on local communities. Since IDEA became law, Congress has authorized spending of up to forty percent of the cost of the average per pupil expenditure on special education. We in Congress have failed to meet that commitment time after time. Fiscal Year 2004 meets 18.6 percent of that commitment, not even half of what we have promised. And this represents the highest percentage since the law was passed.

As a former teacher, member of a school board, State Senator, and now Congressman, I have heard for years from numerous local officials, school administrators, and teachers about the burden IDEA has placed on their budgets and their classrooms. Our communities are dedicated to meeting their moral obligation to provide an appropriate public education for children with disabilities, but they must face the difficult decisions of cutting nonessential school programs like arts, music, and sports or raising property taxes. They would not be faced with these decisions if the federal government lived up to its promises and obligations.

At the beginning of this Congress, I introduced legislation, H.R. 823, to fully fund IDEA now because we have abdicated our responsibility to fund this mandate for three decades. While I feel strongly that we should reach full funding sooner rather than later, I am pleased that H.R. 1350 provides a timeline towards full funding by 2011. However, I worry that the omnibus appropriations bill that we will be voting on later today will fail to meet the figure authorized for Fiscal year 2005 in the legislation we now debate. I hope the positive legislating that we partake in now will be remembered later today and in the coming years when IDEA funding is debated.

While we may focus on the financial impact of this legislation, it has many important educational and moral implications. It aims to improve the collaboration between parents, administrators, educators, and students to provide the best possible education. This legislation will help schools better identify students with disabilities and get help to them sooner. It reduces unnecessary paperwork for teachers so they can spend more time teaching and aims to cut down on litigation between parents and school districts with early, effective dispute resolution. The conferees wisely removed controversial discipline provisions from the House bill while still achieving the goal of improved and streamlined disciplinary procedures.

Yet, despite all the good provisions in this bill, the fact remains that Congress and the President have a moral obligation to live up to what has been promised and neglected for so long. Yet, once again, Congress and the President are neglecting their moral obligation to live up to their words.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill achieves its goal of improving special education and truly leaving no child behind. However, I am cynical that the goal of full funding will be reached in the timeline provided by this bill. You can be assured that IDEA will be on my mind later today when voting on the omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005 and that I will continue to be a strong advocate and a active voice for children with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Res. 848 in order to conform the pertinent House Rule with the underlying statutory provision governing use of the congressional frank during the period preceding elections.

When the pertinent predecessor provisions of House Rule XXIV, clause 8, were originally adopted, the pre-election cut off was statutorily set at 60 days. However when the pre-election cut off was changed in 1966 to 90 days in the underlying statute, the House did not amend its rules to conform with that change. Thus the House Rule today is out of date.

39 U.S.C. 3210(a)(6)(A) currently reads, in pertinent part:

(6)(A) It is the intent of Congress that a Member of, or

Member-elect to, Congress may not mail any mass mailing as

franked mail--

(i) if the mass mailing is postmarked fewer than 60 days

(or, in the case of a Member of the House, fewer than 90

days) immediately before the date of any primary election or

general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) in

which the Member is a candidate for reelection; or

(ii) in the case of a Member of, or Member-elect to, the

House who is a candidate for any other public office, if the

mass mailing--

(I) is prepared for delivery within any portion of the

jurisdiction of or the area covered by the public office

which is outside the area constituting the congressional

district from which the Member or Member-elect was elected;

or

(II) is postmarked fewer than 90 days immediately before

the date of any primary election or general election (whether

regular, special, or runoff) in which the Member or Member-

elect is a candidate for any other public office.

H. Res. 848 provides a conforming amendment to make Rule XXIV, clause 8, consistent with the underlying statute. What follows is the pertinent language of the statutory change:

Amendment to the 60 day rule--1996--Subsection

(a)(6)(A)(i). Pub. L. 104-197, Sec. 102(a)(1), inserted

``(or, in the case of a Member of the House, fewer than 90

days)'' after ``60 days''. Subsection (a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). Pub.

L. 104-197, Sec. 102(a)(2), substituted ``90 days'' for ``60

days''.

The text of H. Res. 848 follows:

H. Res. 848

Resolved, That clause 8 of rule XXIV of the Rules of the

House of Representatives is amended by striking ``60'' and

inserting ``90''.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the invaluable service and support we receive every day from the knowledge, experience, and hard work of the Congressional Research Service--CRS. This dedicated team of policy analysts, administrators, and support staff provides us with information services and policy analysis that is accurate, timely, and impeccably balanced and nonpartisan.

The Congress, and this people's House, are not the only beneficiaries of CRS's expertise. At times over the years, we have authorized CRS to provide temporary support for the parliaments of several nations as they worked to join the ranks of the world's democracies. In the 1960s and 70s, Congress authorized exchange programs between CRS and the Japanese and German national legislatures that helped them establish professional parliamentary research departments that are the envy of their neighbors. More recently, in the early 1990s, as the dawn of freedom broke over the nations of Eastern Europe, the Speaker's Task Force on Parliamentary Reform in Eastern Europe provided invaluable expertise and perspective to the newly emerging free parliaments of these nations.

Mr. Speaker, the seed was sown, and today we see the inspiring results, as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, and other countries have joined the family of democratic nations. CRS provided vital assistance in this effort, and today, I am pleased to note that one of our own, CRS Specialist Paul S. Rundquist, has been honored by the Republic of Poland for his work with the Sejm (``SAYM''), the Polish Parliament: he has been awarded the Knight's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland.

Mr. Speaker, when I was first appointed to the position of Ranking Minority Member of the House Administration Committee by Democratic Leader Pelosi, I called CRS for information about internal House operations and organization. Dr. Rundquist was the first person to respond, and he demonstrated why CRS is held in such high regard--he was prompt, thorough, and professional. Later, when I needed information on congressional continuity, Dr. Rundquist was again there with the needed research and information. I'm certainly glad Dr. Rundquist has remained a Congressional asset all these years, and I hope he stays on for many years to come.

Dr. Rundquist is a son of Illinois; born in Chicago, he holds a Bachelor's degr from Loyola University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Appointed to the staff of CRS in 1974, he is a nationally renowned expert on legislative procedure, the structure, organization, and functions of the United States Congress, and congressional history. One of several CRS analysts assigned to assist the Speaker's Task Force from 1990 to 1994, Dr. Rundquist has continued to provide invaluable assistance to the members and staff of the Polish Parliament, while maintaining the full schedule of his duties at CRS.

He gave generously of his knowledge and perspective, providing information and analysis to the Sejm as it developed the institutions, policies, and procedures so necessary to a vital, democratic national legislature. During several missions to Poland, he advised on the establishment of parliamentary rules and procedures, committee structure and function, and support services to members, committees, and party organizations.

In 1996, Dr. Rundquist was appointed a Fulbright Professor of Politics at Warsaw University, and also served as a visiting professor at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. During the following two years, he lectured widely and continued to provide support and analysis for the Polish Parliament and its members, providing informal assistance to the Sejm as it drafted a new constitution, and even advice on the official translation of the new constitution into English.

His service to the United States Congress has continued uninterrupted throughout this period. His recent projects and publications have included authoritative studies on guaranteeing the continuity of Congress, especially the House of Representatives, in the event of terrorist attacks, and ground-breaking analysis of the Senate power sharing agreement of 2001-2002.

Accompanied by his wife, Ellen, and CRS colleagues and friends of many years, Dr. Rundquist was awarded the Order of Merit at a ceremony held at the Polish Embassy on September 29. 1 extend my sincere congratulations to this dedicated servant of Congress and the American people for his many distinguished accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, I rise today in support of the two provisions in the DoD Authorization Conference Report for FY05 that are under the jurisdiction of my committee. The first provision addresses an innovative electronic voting project and the other highlights the need to support absentee voting.

Earlier this year, the Department of Defense cancelled the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment SERVE project. SERVE is a $22 million pilot program that was designed to test the reliability of Internet voting for 100,000 military personnel and civilians living overseas. Some academics have questioned the security of the system. I agree that any problems should be addressed before we move forward with Internet voting, but this is a very worthy project. If the military can send coded information to installations and battlefields around the world, we should be able to send votes across a secure, private system.

Fortunately, the Election Assistance Commission EAC is now charged with moving the SERVE project forward. Formed by the Help America Vote Act to serve as the clearinghouse for matters relating to elections and the voting process, the EAC is certainly the body best suited for this task. Specifically, it is responsible for establishing guidelines and helping the Secretary of Defense in carrying out the project.

Historically, it is our military that has led the way for our country. Not only in times of trouble, but it has also led the way in technological advances. The military has the opportunity to lead the way again in technology, but this time, in the voting booth. It deserves the opportunity to participate in this landmark electronic voting program.

I encourage the Secretary of Defense to provide the EAC with the additional funding

needed to carry out this directive. I also encourage the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to continue working with the EAC on electronic absentee voting by absent uniformed service and overseas voters casting ballots abroad and others areas where they may have expertise.

The second provision will expand the use of the federal write-in absentee ballot to absent uniformed service voters that have not received voting materials from their state within the deadline prescribed by their state. This will give the absent uniformed service voter the opportunity to participate in the democratic process that they are defending.

Mr. Speaker, I support the inclusion of these provisions in the Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Better Future for American Families Act. This legislation will help increase access for low- and moderate-income American families to private retirement investments. Families are struggling to make ends meet and this tax credit will give them an extra incentive to invest in their future.

Since Social Security was created in 1934, the model for retirement savings has been a three-legged stool. The three legs of that stool are: Social Security benefits, private pensions, and personal savings and investment. Without one of those legs, the stool wobbles. As Reinhard A. Hohaus, an early private-sector authority on Social Security, explained, ``Each (leg) has its own function to perform and need not, and should not, be competitive with the others. When soundly conceived, each class of insurance can perform its role better because of the other two classes.'' Unfortunately, some are advocating for a significant weakening of Social Security by taking funds away from this leg of the stool by allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts. Instead of weakening Social Security, I propose that we strengthen incentives for all Americans to invest in their retirement.

For years, Americans worked their entire careers with one company and could rely on a generous pension coupled with Social Security benefits to provide for a comfortable retirement. This is no longer the case. Workers change jobs more often, pensions have become less reliable in this world of Enron accounting, and the Social Security trust fund will be strained by the retirement of the baby boomers. In this environment, workers should be investing in individual retirement accounts, but due to rising costs in housing, health care, and other necessities, many families are no longer able to save for the future. While Congress has passed laws to create IRAs and 401(k) plans to encourage investment, more than 90 percent of the tax benefits the federal government offers to help families save go to households earning more than $50,000. We need to broaden these incentives to include all Americans, especially those whose struggle to cope with the costs of living here and now are causing them to ignore their future financial security.

One of the most sensible tax credits enacted by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was the Saver's Credit, which offered low- and moderate-income workers up to a dollar-for-dollar credit for contributions to an individual retirement account or a qualified employer-sponsored plan. The credit phases out rapidly as income rises, so this is truly a tax break for middle class Americans. Unfortunately, this tax credit is scheduled to expire in 2006. Even worse, as the Republican majority tries to extend every other tax cut from 2001, to the benefit of the wealthiest, this expiring tax credit for middle class Americans is being ignored.

My legislation would make the Saver's Credit permanent and would significantly expand the program to give help to millions by increasing benefits for families earning less than $50,000. Additionally, although 57 million taxpayers are eligible for the maximum credit on paper, 80 percent of them cannot actually benefit because they do not have income tax liability. These families need as much help as anyone and my legislation would make them eligible for the Saver's Credit by making it a refundable tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this tax credit is the most fiscally responsible avenue for Congress to encourage personal savings and ensure that American families have financial security during their retirement years. Stripping money from Social Security only shifts the wobbling leg of the stool. This legislation would strengthen all legs and provide a solid foundation for retirement for all Americans. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and offer my congratulations to Mr. Michael (Mike) W. Nye, Director of Investigations, Office of Inspector General of the House of Representatives, for his outstanding career and service to the House of Representatives for the past six years, and to the Federal Government for thirty-two years. Mike will be retiring from the House this month after previously serving as a judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force, from which he retired in the rank of Colonel. Prior to joining the House Office of Inspector General, he also served as Counsel to the Inspector General of the Marine Corps. During his career, he gained widespread legal experience and has provided invaluable counsel to the House Inspector General and his colleagues at the House on a wide range of legal issues.

Mike put his skills to good use at the House and his advice and counsel has been widely sought as we strive to continuously improve controls and security over the financial and administrative operations of the House. His energy and ``can do'' attitude were an example to all of us and his keen insights into legal matters helped assure that the Office of Inspector General's reports consistently met our needs by providing candid and reliable advice on all aspects of House operations.

Always the consummate professional, Mike will be sorely missed by all of his colleagues, but he can take pride and satisfaction in his service to our great nation. Truly, Mike was one of those rare individuals who made a real difference by improving every organization in which he served. Once again Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mike on his career and outstanding service to the House, and to wish him, and his lovely wife Judy, much happiness as they pursue new challenges in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to thank the chairman for his timely handling of this matter.

I also wanted to ensure that the legislative purposes of this resolution are clear.

One purpose of this resolution is to continue the practice of allowing the House party leaders to call an early organizing caucus of their respective party members, and to do so before the statutorily established date of December 1st. Each party leader can schedule the caucus to begin on any date of his or her choosing after the date of the election. While it is customary to schedule the caucuses to begin at the same time, it is up to each party leader to make that decision for his or her party caucus. If the House has adjourned sine die, then each incumbent Members-elect, and a designated staff person, can be paid for their transportation expenses to attend the caucus. If the House has not adjourned sine die, then there are no travel expenses paid for incumbent Members-elect or their staff. New Members-elect, and a designated staff person from the district, can also attend with all attendance expenses paid by the House.

The resolution also has the purpose of continuing the practice of allowing the House Leadership's orientation program(s), hosted by the Committee on House Administration, to be conducted at any time, or at multiple times, after the date of the election, and allows each Member- elect, and a designated staff person, to be reimbursed for the expenses of attendance. The orientation program has usually been conducted as a part of, and during the same time period as the party caucuses. However if the caucuses are conducted at different times, then the orientation program could be conducted before, during, or after each caucus, with the Member-elect's, and designated staff person's expenses of attendance paid by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his expeditious handling of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during earlier debate on this bill, I believe that the Members of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance should be eligible for a second term of service. The current Board has constructively served Legislative Branch employees, the Members of this body, and the public, by applying the same workplace laws to the Legislative Branch, and to the Congress, that are applied to the private sector. The Board has promoted educational opportunities for both employees and managers, and has undertaken outreach efforts to promote life-safety awareness, and to raise workplace consciousness.

The Board should be congratulated for taking a positive approach to the tasks of education and enforcement. A Government Accountability Office audit has confirmed that the Board, and the Office of Compliance, are operating efficiently and consistent with their statutory mandate.

However, the GAO audit also found that the efficiency of the Office would be greatly impaired by the loss of institutional memory and operational continuity. To remedy this situation, the GAO recommended that both the board, and the four statutory executive officers of the Office, each of whom is appointed by the Board, be eligible for an additional term of service. By allowing the Board an additional term, but denying the Board the opportunity to reappoint their executive staff, much of the efficiency and continuity recognized by the GAO may be lost.

It is my continued hope that a way can be found allow the Board to reappoint their management team to a second term of service. I do not know what concerns led the drafters of the Congressional Accountability Act to limit the Compliance Office's executives to a single 5 year term of service, but it now appears that dropping that limit will make for a better and more efficient Office. So I hope that we will consider implementing the GAO's full recommendation, and lift the term limit on the executive officers, as we are lifting the term limit on the Members of the Board.

Again, I want to recognize my chairman, and thank him for his cooperation in taking this first step to maintaining the efficiency and continuity of the Office of Compliance.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.