David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the remarks of my returning colleague from Georgia. I certainly welcome her back to this great deliberative body. She began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we are a nation at war, and it is very clear that we are. We are in the midst of a global war on terrorism and the people who are leading that war on terrorism clearly have no confidence whatsoever in the process of self- determination. And that is why I think that this exercise which we are going through today clearly emboldens those who would, in fact, want to undermine the prospect of democracy because there is no evidence whatsoever, no evidence whatsoever that the claims that are being made are valid. The vote in Ohio has already been recounted. There is no doubt President Bush won the election. He won with historic margins, and millions of first-time voters in Ohio were participating. John Kerry has accepted this fact. Even those foreign officials who many of our colleagues invited to the United States as election observers have come to the conclusion that George Bush won the election. We as a Nation are regularly encouraging elections all over the world. We just observed this amazing exercise that has taken place with the election of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine. Now, it is true that no election is perfect. We have seen this since the beginning of our democracy. But small imperfections here and there do not a mass conspiracy make. In fact, we have had a number of people quoting newspapers. I am not an expert on the newspapers in the State of Ohio, but I have been told by more than a few people that the Dayton Daily News, which is sometimes named something else, actually endorsed John Kerry and on December 3 they said the following: ``Some people will take advantage of the inevitable flaws of elections to confuse other people, to sow doubts. Those people do harm, not good. They undermine the legitimacy of every close election outcome.'' The fact is the system worked pretty well. People should know that. Now, that came from what I am told is one of the most liberal newspapers in the State of Ohio and a newspaper that endorsed John Kerry. I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well as those on the other side of the Capitol, that what makes our system great is our willingness to accept the legitimate results of an election, whoever wins, and move forward together for the good of the American people. I would remind them once again, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the results of this election were anything other than legitimate. We know how difficult it is to lose an election. I am here with my colleague returning also, Dan Lungren. He lost his first election in 1976. I lost my first election in 1978, and Dan likes to regularly remind me that he was the first one to come and campaign and encourage me to run again in 1980. Losing an election is disappointing, no doubt about it whatsoever; but moving forward in defeat is just as critical to the integrity of our democracy as claiming victory itself. It has been said that democracy still represents the best hope for mankind. Sowing seeds of doubt about a legitimately decided election threatens to unnecessarily dim that hope. This objection is without any merit whatsoever, Mr. Speaker; and we should move on together as we look towards the inauguration which will be taking place on the 20th of this month and as we proceed to implement the agenda of the American people.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. DREIER

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

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

Mr. DREIER. It is a violation of the law.

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

Mr. DREIER. 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.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DREIER. 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. DREIER. 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. DREIER. 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. DREIER. 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. DREIER. 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. DREIER. 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. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), my very good friend from Rocklin.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my California colleague (Mr. Stark). We have worked jointly on this resolution, and it is with a great deal of sadness obviously that we are here at this moment. We just completed the debate on the resolution that had to do with the loss of now it appears about 150,000 lives from the tsunami that has taken place in South and Southeast Asia. And then we come to the next resolution, talking about one man, an individual who has made a great contribution. And when you juxtapose the resolution with the loss of 150,000 lives and now we are talking about Bob Matsui, we cannot help but think about the fragility of life. Bob Matsui is an individual who offered so much to this institution, but he offered so much to me personally, just as I know he did to others of my colleagues who are going to be speaking tonight and many of those who are not going to be able to be here this evening. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in her statement when she was turning the gavel over to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) this morning I think said it very well when she talked about the combination of intellect and passion that Bob Matsui demonstrated in his life. We all know that Bob was a tremendous intellect, very thoughtful, very deliberative on issues that he tackled, but he also at the same time had a deeply felt passion in the pursuit of his agenda, and I will tell my colleagues that I shared that agenda in some areas and I shared his passion. I do not know that I have quite the intellect that Bob had, but I shared his passion. We worked together through the 1980s and the 1990s in pursuit of the global trade agenda, and I know there is a lot of controversy in this House on that issue, but Bob and I worked arm in arm to try and get Bill Clinton trade promotion authority. I remember the kind of energy and the thought that Bob put into this, and he had boundless energy when it came to this. He was a slight person, but boy, I will tell my colleagues, when he put his mind to an issue, he really was very, very diligent in pursuit of that. We worked together on a wide range of individual trade agreements, going back to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Every single year, Bob Matsui and I worked together to try and grant what we used to call most-favored nation trading status for the People's Republic of China, and then ultimately we worked together on the granting of permanent normal trade relations. I happen to believe that that vision that Bob had was a very positive one and has played a big role in improving the quality of life and the standard of living for people all over the world, and I think that when we look at this institution it is a tragic irony, I mean, that this has come. We are not only sad but we are very shocked. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and I, Mr. Speaker, were just talking about the news and what Bob went through at the end because it did come as a great surprise to him and to Doris and to Brian and Amy and little Anna that he was going in for a checkup, and then it ended up, of course, that because of this infection he was going to not survive. So when this news came out it was a shock to all of us. I heard it just as I was getting on the airplane to fly back here on Sunday, and I was just taken and I could not help but think about immediately all of the great experiences that I had traveling, working on joint California issues, working, as I said, on the trade agenda and realizing how dedicated this guy was and what a horrible loss this will be for this institution and for us as individuals. So I join, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has just said, in extending personally my thoughts and prayers to Doris and Brian and his family as well. We all got that picture of their family that was just sent to us, and we could not help but be moved seeing that photograph of them, knowing what a wonderful, wonderful family they are. I just have to say that I am very, very saddened, and my thought and prayers go to those family members. We have learned how fragile life truly is. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 8) and ask for its immediate consideration.