David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Before I begin, I cannot help but think of one of Thomas Jefferson's great lines, the author of our Declaration of Independence. I have got to sort of extrapolate from that when Thomas Jefferson said two thinking men, and in this case it is two women, but he said, ``Two thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.'' Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the very eloquent remarks by my good friend from Ohio, the author of this legislation who chairs our Republican Conference, and I listened to the equally eloquent remarks from my friend from the 28th District of New York who just entered that editorial in the Record, and I said that just to let her know I was listening very, very carefully. It is to me very difficult to believe that we are talking about the same piece of legislation and the same kind of program. We obviously in this country are faced with serious economic challenges. There are people who are hurting out there. We know that. But as I listened to the reports of the failure of welfare reform, I am reminded that it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I say it was bipartisan because clearly at the end of the day, after two tries, on the third, President Clinton proudly signed and embraced welfare reform in 1996. We enjoyed strong economic growth through the 1990s. Many people tried to make the claim that the only reason we saw the success of welfare reform is that we were dealing with a strong, vibrant, growing economy; when in fact I looked at and talked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee on Ways and Means that deals with this, and he pointed out that during the 1980s, when we saw an equally strong economy, we witnessed a 25 percent increase in the numbers on the welfare rolls. We saw strong, bold economic growth during the Reagan years, as we know, yet the numbers of people getting into what my friend from Ohio appropriately described as that generational cycle of dependence continued to grow more and more. And then during the 1990s we again saw strong economic growth, but at the same time we saw implementation of the welfare reform legislation and we have seen tremendous improvement. We all know that an economic downturn began in the third and fourth quarters of the year 2000. We also know that we suffered tremendously from the tragedy of September 11, 2001. What we found, Mr. Speaker, was that during that period of time, we obviously witnessed a recession. We saw two quarters of negative economic growth. That was last year. But then the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) reported to us that even during that period of time, we saw a 10 percent reduction in the numbers on welfare, meaning that we have been able to very boldly encourage and move people out of that generational cycle of dependence. If we look at this measure and the steps that are being taken to ensure that those who are truly in need are not going to be suffering, it is very, very impressive. We obviously provide a caveat which allows those parents with children who are in need an opportunity to have consideration for that. We allow in this measure an opportunity for those who are suffering from drug addiction to have an opportunity to deal with that need. We clearly are providing States with flexibility. That is something they said they needed. In my State of California, we have extraordinary extremes from one end to the other. So to provide that opportunity for flexibility is very important. As we look at the structure of the rule for consideration of this, I am somewhat struck with the arguments that were made by my friend from New York. She said that they advocated an open rule, and it is true that an open rule was moved up in the Committee on Rules last night when we pursued this bill; and if an open rule had been made in order, these very thoughtful substitutes, one of which has come forward from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my very good friend, and I am happy he is offering it in the name of our late former colleague, Patsy Mink, from Hawaii, and the other substitute which was made in order under this rule is being offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I said when I announced that we would be considering this measure that we lean towards making substitutes in order, and we have provided waivers and protections so that those substitutes are, in fact, in order. So that is why we clearly should have, I believe, strong bipartisan support for this rule. Mr. Speaker, we have had story after story told of the families who may not be making as much money today while they are working as they were when they were receiving welfare, and yet they have a level of dignity and pride in what it is that they are doing that makes them happier and more fulfilled. We obviously want to ensure that they have an opportunity to make many times, many times what they were making when they were on welfare and we believe that if we can put into place President Bush's program for economic growth, we can get this economy going so that we can take this number that we have today which was at one point 12 million and because of the success of welfare reform has dropped down to 5 million; and we can, I believe, bring that number even lower. People talk about compassionate government and the fact that we need, as we look at legislation like this, to demonstrate compassion. And I would remind my colleagues of something that is oft said and that is the level of compassion of the government should not be based on the number of people who are on welfare, but instead on the number of people who do not need to be on welfare. And that is really what we are trying to do with this legislation; and I hope very much that we can move ahead, pass this rule, make sure that we consider these substitutes, which I believe are very well intentioned but need to be defeated, and then pass this very important legislation that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has offered to us.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have taken this time during 1-minutes to simply rise in strong support of some very important work that is taking place, and that is the prospect of confirming Miguel Estrada. I do not personally know this man, but I wanted to say, Madam Speaker, that I have read about his record and I have talked to many people who know him very well; and I happen to believe that he would be a superb jurist. And having spoken with people of both political parties, I have heard very good things about him. And I would simply like for the record to make it clear that I believe that he would be a phenomenally good jurist, and I hope very much that will take place.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of February 10, although I think it is pretty obvious that we are anticipating our meeting in the week of February 10, to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by, as I said earlier, 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as it was introduced on February 4. Members should be aware that the Committee on Rules intends, as I said earlier, to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. By 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. I know the gentleman did.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and appreciate the kind remarks from the distinguished majority leader. I just want to say that I am prepared, when this colloquy comes to an end, to make an announcement that we are going to be considering this. What I will tell the gentleman is that, while we cannot at this juncture anticipate exactly what the structure of the rule will be, we clearly do plan to offer the opportunity for Members to submit their amendments. I will say right now, as I will in the announcement, the formal announcement that I will make in a couple of minutes, that we will really have a preference for amendments in the nature of a substitute, which is what we have traditionally done on the issue of welfare reform. Until our committee works its will on this issue it would be early to say, but as the majority leader has said, we clearly want to ensure that the minority has an opportunity to be heard on this question. I am hoping very much that we will have strong bipartisan support at the end of the day for what will be truly an historic welfare reform measure that will do exactly what the leader has said; that is, to take advantage and encourage people to get into the work force and create a modicum of responsibility, which is what this is all about.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his fine management on this very important rule. I will begin by saying that none of us is enthused by the prospect of having to extend unemployment benefits. Why? Because we want to focus on job creation and economic growth; and we know that the people who are out there who, unfortunately, are suffering, want to have opportunity, and that is why we are bound and determined to do everything possible to ensure that they have it. But I see what we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, as really part of our national security responsibility. We all know that on September 11 of 2001 we had the worst attack and the loss of civilian life in our Nation's history. We know that the aftermath of that has cost us over $100 billion in direct appropriations. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that it has created a very, very large drain on our Nation's economy, and there are people out there who are hurting. Last November 14, we passed out of the House of Representatives a bill to make sure that there would be no interruption in unemployment benefits that were provided. Unfortunately, the Senate did not bring that measure up. But they did, however, pass a bill that is identical to this. A bill that is identical to this measure passed the Democratic-controlled United States Senate. This is the measure which was known as the Clinton-Nichols bill. Senator Clinton from New York who got her start in elective office thanks to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who encouraged her from the outset, as the author of this measure that we are going to be voting on today. I believe that this is a measure which will go a long way towards mitigating the pain which has come about because of the aftermath of September 11 and the economic downturn. So that is why this measure should enjoy broad bipartisan support. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) pointed out, we do have, in fact, in the rules of the House, since this is the second day of the 108th Congress, I underscore again, we have guaranteed the minority the right to a motion to recommit, so they will have a chance to deal with this issue if they want to in a different way. But I underscore the fact that the measure we are going to be voting on today is a bipartisan measure. It passed unanimously, under unanimous consent in the Senate. So in light of the fact that it has passed there and we have this measure here, we want to make sure that there is no interruption. One of the reasons that we need to make sure that this is done today is so that there is not an interruption. We want to pass this bill so that we can get it to the President's desk, so that he can sign the bill to ensure that we get this much-needed assistance to those who are hurting. Now, a number of my colleagues have today gotten up and talked about the President's plan that he unveiled yesterday in Chicago to get the economy moving, and I heard criticism of the opportunity to eliminate double taxation of dividends. We know, Mr. Speaker, that more than half of the American people are members of the investor class. They have over the past several years been involved in some kind of investment. Guess what? Most of us who are members of the investor class have suffered because of the economic downturn. We all know that. One of the things we need to do is we need to encourage investment. I believe that the President's proposal that he unveiled yesterday will go a long way towards doing that. The by-product is that it will create jobs and opportunity out there for people who are hurting today, those people who we are going to be assisting with this plan that we have to extend unemployment benefits. I yesterday introduced legislation which I believe can help make the President's plan even better. It gets back to an issue that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I have worked on for years. That has to do with the capital gains tax. A lot of people say, when we talk about a capital gains tax, they laughingly say, who has capital gains? We have had tremendous losses. Why would you think about cutting the capital gains tax? H.R. 44, which I introduced yesterday, will bring about a halving of the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 10 percent, and from 10 percent to 5 percent for those in the 15 percent bracket for those who prospectively invest. We believe that having a 1-year holding period will guarantee that. While some argue that it creates a loss in revenues to the Federal Treasury, it in fact will not do that. It will create, obviously, that 1-year holding period, so we are going to see revenues increase to the Treasury, but there would be absolutely no cost regardless of how we score it in the first year because of the fact that we would have had that 1-year holding period. But it encourages people to get into the market, and allows them to have that top rate go from 20 percent down to 10 percent if they get in and realize some kind of capital gains during that period of time. It is during a 2-year window, and I think that is the kind of thing which, once again, can encourage savings, investment, and productivity. These are the kinds of things we are working on. So while we are unfortunately, unfortunately in a position where we have no choice but to extend unemployment benefits, and we very much want to do that because we know people are suffering, the key thing for us to do as a Congress is to make sure that we create incentives for people to invest and save and produce. So that is why this is a very fair rule. It is one which I believe will create a good opportunity for us to deal with the challenges that are out there. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to support it.

Mr. DREIER

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 House Resolution 5.

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. 9) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. Motion to Commit Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, we began today with wonderful bipartisan statements that came from both the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the new minority leader, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker, right behind me here in this Chamber; and we want to see that spirit continue today, and obviously we very much want to have that spirit continue through this 108th Congress because we have many very serious challenges that we face as a Nation. Number one, of course, is our national security and, along with that, homeland security, the challenges abroad. Right next to that, of course, is focusing on getting this economy moving, which the President talked about earlier today in Chicago; and as we look at this opening day rules package, I am very proud of the fact that it does more to focus on the very important issue of minority rights than anything that was done by my friends on the other side of the aisle during their 4 decades of uninterrupted, one-party control of this institution. If my colleagues look at the reforms that we have maintained we initiated once we became a majority and frankly built upon, they do, in fact, increase the accountability and the deliberative nature of this Congress. We have items that are included in this measure which guarantee the minority the right to offer a motion to recommit on legislation. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving for 14 years here in the minority until in 1994 we won the majority. During that period of time, there were numerous occasions when the then-Republican minority was denied the chance to even offer a motion to recommit. Something else that we have done that we are very proud of, Mr. Speaker, again focusing on minority rights, has been to ensure that one-third of the funding level for minority staffing on committees is provided to the minority. Once again, during the 14 years that I was privileged to serve here in the minority, we saw numerous occasions when the then-Republican minority was denied the chance to have even a modicum of investigative staff on certain committees; and the numbers were very, very heavily skewed against the then-Republican minority. We are providing a much higher level of funding for the Democratic minority. Also, we heard this discussion earlier about the issue of proxy voting. The issue of proxy voting had to do with committee chairmen arbitrarily utilizing the proxy of Members who were not even in the room, in the building, quite possibly they were not even in our Nation's capital; and yet their votes were being cast on issues that they may not have even known about. So we chose to bring an end to proxy voting. Mr. Speaker, one of the things is that we have learned that we do have a very narrow majority. It is a little greater than in the 107th Congress, I am happy to say; but it is still the second narrowest in recent times, and we do have the challenge of trying to manage and move very important legislation through this body. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have, as a Republican majority, learned from some of the actions of the Democratic majority; and we went, as I said, for 4 decades without being in the majority. We served in the minority. It took us time to learn about the process of governing. We were not able to do that overnight, and so I will admit there are some modifications that we have made, and providing the opportunity for committee chairmen, obviously working, as has been the case in the 107th Congress and earlier Congresses, with the minority to roll votes in committee while guaranteeing Members the opportunity to offer second-degree amendments is something that will again enhance the ability to move legislation effectively; and we hope, as has been the case in the past, that much of that will be done in a bipartisan way. We have established this Department of Homeland Security. We do have dynamic scoring. I know there was concern raised about that. It is a very, very small consideration. The Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office will not be engaged in this; but we will see the Joint Committee on Taxation doing it. Why? Very simply, because we believe that behavioral patterns should be taken into consideration when we look at the impact of a tax cut on the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Today, I introduced legislation which reduces the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent down to 10 percent. I introduced it perspectively, encouraging the American people to once again invest, to get into the market and to invest. What the bill that I have introduced basically says is that during a 2-year period, if people invest and they hold on to that asset for 1 year, they will be able to see a tremendous cut, a cut of one-half, from 20 percent down to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent for those in the 15 percent bracket. Mr. Speaker, I would argue and I believe that every shred of evidence over the past and with the scoring procedure that we have put into place will show that the rich pay more in taxes. Why? Because we have often a lock-in effect. More than half the American people are members of the investor class today. People are invested in markets through 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts. They have got some appreciated assets with real estate homes and all, and we know that the market has dropped tremendously, but the President's plan is encouraging economic growth. We, in the bill that I have just introduced in a bipartisan way, are encouraging economic growth with that as well; and with economic growth, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. That is what the scoring procedure that we have put into place for the Joint Committee on Taxation will do. It will simply provide that information, making that information available. So we have a very fair, balanced measure here which again increases the deliberative nature of this institution and does increase the accountability. On the issue of the debt limit, every Member will be accountable because that vote will be cast when we deal with the budget resolution itself. So we are going to see every Member accountable for their votes that they cast right here. We have spectacular leadership from Speaker Hastert. This is a measure that will allow him to deal with the very serious challenges that our Nation faces in the 108th Congress.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is very clear that the Speaker does have authority to refer legislation, and it is his intent to ensure that we maintain the jurisdiction of those committees. And the expertise that the gentleman offered on this very important issue, and I remember his testimony upstairs in the Committee on Rules on this, it will be very valuable as this issue is addressed. And it is quite possible that the gentleman may or a member of his committee may be a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. So I can assure the gentleman that we are going to do everything possible to keep the expertise that is out there involved in this process. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was inclined early on to believe that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), might be supportive of our package; but I have now come to the conclusion that he would at best be undecided on our package, and he has raised a number of questions. I believe that I should say that we clearly plan to work in the area of homeland security with my friend, the gentleman from Texas, and other members of the minority in addressing issues of concern when we proceed with this very important work. We want to work in a bipartisan way; and I happen to believe that this package which we have come forth with will, as I said, increase the accountability and deliberative nature of the institution. I would hope that we could have both Democrats and Republicans supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by extending congratulations to the Speaker, our majority leader, our friends in the minority and all of our colleagues on their election. The comprehensive changes that we are proposing in H. Res. 5 seek to build on the successful reform accomplishments of the last 8 years which have helped to make the House more accountable and deliberative and have strengthened our ability to govern effectively and responsibly. As my colleagues recall, Mr. Speaker, we overhauled the committee system, made Congress compliant with anti-discrimination and workplace safety laws, opened committee meetings to the public and press, modernized the Rules of the House to make them more understandable, and cut the number of standing rules nearly in half. In the 107th Congress, we created the Committee on Financial Services, enhanced oversight planning, strengthened performance goals and objectives, and created the Department of Homeland Security. Our continued investments in technology are transforming the culture, operations, and responsibilities of Congress in a very positive way. With that having been said, I want to describe some of the more significant positive rules changes we are proposing to the standing rules of the House, and those are contained in section 2 of this resolution. Section 2(A) and section 2(C), as well as section 2(L) stem from the recommendations made by the bipartisan Continuity of Congress Task Force, which was formed following the attack of September 11, 2001, which Speaker Hastert talked about, that was cochaired by my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and it reviewed the rules and procedures of the House to ensure that the appropriate institutional and mechanisms were in place to respond to a catastrophic event. The first provision amends rule 1, clause 8(b) to require the Speaker to provide to the Clerk of the House a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker. Section 2(C) provides new recess and convening authorities to the Speaker in the event of an imminent threat to the safety of the House by amending clause 12 of rule 1. Finally, Mr. Speaker, section 2(L) codifies the practice of adjusting the whole number of the House upon the death, resignation, expulsion, disqualification, or removal of a Member in rule 20, clause 5. In the 107th Congress, rule 18 was amended to allow the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. This procedure has been very helpful, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, in improving the management of the floor and in dealing with the challenges of our legislative schedule. In an effort to provide committees with similar management flexibility, section 2(G) proposes to amend rule 11, clause 2(h) to allow committees to adopt a similar rule authorizing the chairman of a committee or subcommittee to postpone certain votes and resume proceedings on a postponed question after reasonable notice. An underlying proposition would remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. During the 105th Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House adopted H. Res. 168, which included both changes to the standing rules of the House and freestanding directives to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. For the past two Congresses, these freestanding directives have been carried forward through a separate order. Section 2(H) codifies these directives which address committee agenda, committee staff, meetings and hearings, public disclosure, requirements to constitute a complaint, duties of the chairman and ranking member, investigative and adjudicatory subcommittees, standard of proof for adoption of statement of alleged violation, subcommittee powers, due process rights of respondents, and committee reporting requirements. Section 2(I) permits the joint referral of measures without designation of primary jurisdiction. This change is meant only as a minor deviation from the normal requirement under the rules for the designation of one committee of primary jurisdiction and should be exercised only in extraordinary jurisdictionally deserving instances. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to provide more realistic estimates of tax measures, section 2(J) requires the Committee on Ways and Means to include in reports on measures amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 an analysis by the Joint Tax Committee on the macroeconomic impact of such legislation. This is something also known, Mr. Speaker, as dynamic scoring. Mr. Speaker, section 2(O) of the resolution expands the application of clause 5(a) of rule 21 to include as a tax or tariff measure a floor amendment limiting funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff. The intent of this rules change is to ease the burden on the maker of a point of order from having to show a necessary, certain and inevitable change in revenue collections, tax statuses, or liability as previous precedents required, to one of showing a textual relationship between the amendment and the administration of the Internal Revenue or tariff laws. The resolution amends clause 7(c)(1) of rule 22 to permit further motions to instruct during conference to be offered after 20 calendar days, but not less than 10 legislative days. While continuing to afford a Member a timely opportunity to offer a further motion to instruct, the modification in section 2(P) provides a more realistic timetable, especially when a conference extends over a lengthy recess and is unable to meet. Section 2(T) creates a new rule 27 which provides for the automatic House passage of a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt when the House agrees to a budget resolution that requires such an increase. The amount of the increase in the joint resolution conforms to the level established in the budget resolution. The final House vote on the conference report on the budget resolution shall be deemed the vote on the joint resolution. The rule is similar to the former rule 23 of the 106th Congress and prior Congresses. The resolution also makes exceptions and clarifications to rule 25, also known as the gift rule, with regard to perishable food distributed in the office and charity travel, respectively. And, for the most part, the remaining provisions of section 2 are technical, conforming, or clarifying in nature. Mr. Speaker, section 3 of the resolution consists of ``Separate Orders'' which do not change any of the standing rules of the House. These are more or less housekeeping provisions which deem certain actions or waive the application of certain rules of the House. Section 3(A) provides for the continuation of certain budget enforcement mechanisms from the 107th Congress as well as deems the provisions of the budget resolution H. Con. Res. 353 as adopted by the House in the 107th Congress shall have effect in the 108th Congress until such time as a conference report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2004 is adopted. Also contained in section 3(B) is a separate order providing for the limited number of exemptions to clause 5(d) of rule 10 regarding a limitation on the number of subcommittees a committee may establish. This resolution grants the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure up to six subcommittees each. Mr. Speaker, recognizing that it takes time for committees to organize and report legislation at the beginning of a new Congress, section 3(D) provides that during the first session of this 108th Congress motions to suspend the rules shall be in order on Wednesdays from the beginning of the Congress through the second Wednesday in April, as though under clause 1 of rule 15. Mr. Speaker, section 4 of the resolution is very important and significant, and is aimed at ensuring effective oversight of a crucial national priority, and that is what was discussed in the Speaker's address to us; namely, homeland security. The security threats to our Nation are real and dangerous. Every branch of government, including the Congress, must be an integral part of the homeland security effort. In that regard, section 4 of the resolution establishes a Select Committee on Homeland Security for the 108th Congress with both legislative and oversight responsibilities. The select committee would have legislative jurisdiction over matters that relate to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. As the Act is the organic statute creating the new Department of Homeland Security, it is anticipated that the select committee would be the committee of jurisdiction over bills dealing with the new Department. Further, the select committee would have jurisdiction over legislation amending the Act such as a bill making technical corrections to that Act. In addition to the committee of primary jurisdiction, the Speaker would have the authority to refer bills to the select committee as an additional committee, either initially or sequentially. Otherwise, the existing jurisdictional rules of the House would continue to apply during the 108th Congress. The select committee would have oversight responsibility over laws, programs, and government activities relating to homeland security and is intended to serve as the primary coordinating committee of the House. Mr. Speaker, until the new Department of Homeland Security is up and running, it is difficult to predict how best to reflect legislative oversight and authorization functions for the Department in the House. Furthermore, during this transitional period, it is crucial that the White House and the new Department's leadership have a central point of contact with the House. This new select committee will provide this interim capacity. It will also conduct a study of the operation of the rules of the House, including possible changes in committee jurisdiction with respect to homeland security. Those recommendations would be submitted to the Committee on Rules by September 30, 2004. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a more detailed, section-by-section summary of H. Res. 5, as well as other relevant material. Section-By-Section Summary Section 1. Resolved Clause The rules of the House of Representatives for the 107th Congress are adopted as the rules of the House for the 108th Congress with amendments as provided in section 2, and with other orders provided in sections 3 and 4. Section 2. Changes in Standing Rules (a) Speaker succession. The Speaker is required to submit to the Clerk of the House a list of Members to succeed the Speaker in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Speaker until the House reconvenes in order to elect a new Speaker. [Rule I, clause 8(b)] (b) Repeal of Speaker term limit. This provision strikes Clause 9 of Rule 1, which limits a Member to no more than 4 consecutive terms as Speaker. [Rule I, clause 9] (c) Declaration of emergency recess. The Speaker may, when notified of an imminent threat to the House's safety, declare an emergency recess subject to the call of the Chair. Allows the Speaker to accelerate or postpone the reconvening of the House in the event of an emergency. [Rule I, clause 12] (d) Clarification of staff access to House Floor. The practice of allowing leadership staff with Floor responsibilities access to the House Floor is codified. [Rule IV, clause 2(a)(7)] (e) Rules Member on Budget Committee. The Committee on the Budget shall include one member of the Committee on Rules. Codifies action taken in the 108th Republican Conference organizational meeting requiring that one Member of the Rules Committee serve on the Budget Committee. [Rule X, clause 5(a)(2)] (f) Associate and professional staff. This change clarified that the professional staff of the Appropriations Committee shall comply with the same rules regarding their duties as the professional staff of all other House committees. Further clarifies that the associate or shared staff of the Appropriations Committee are not subject to the review of the Committee on House Administration in connection with the reporting of committee expense resolutions. This change is technical in nature [Rules X, clause 9(b)] (g) Postponing votes in committee. Committees may adopt a rule which allows the chairman of a committee or subcommittee to postpone votes on approving a measure or matter or on adopting an amendment and to resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time after reasonable notice. An underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. [Rule XI, clause 2(h)] (h) Incorporation of H. Res. 168 (105th) in clause 3 of Rule XI ``(Committee on Standards of Official Conduct).'' Over the last two consecutive Congresses the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's operating procedure has been carried over as a separate order referencing a resolution adopted by the 105th Congress. This modification codifies the aforementioned operating procedures. [Rule XII, clause 2(c)(1)] (i) Joint referral. Joint referral of measures without designation of primary jurisdiction will be permitted under `exceptional circumstances.' Under this designation, the Speaker may designate more than one committee as though primary. [Rule XII, clause 2(c)(1)] (j) Require dynamic scoring in Ways & Means reports. The Committee on Ways and Means is required to include in reports on measures amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 an analysis by the Joint Tax Committee on the macroeconomic impact of such legislation. The committee is not required to include such analysis if the Joint Tax Committee certifies that such analysis is not calculable. In addition, the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee may satisfy this requirement by inserting such analysis in the Congressional Record prior to the bill's consideration on the floor. [Rule XIII, clause 3(h)] (k) Personal electronic equipment on the Floor. This provision modernizes the rules of the House to prohibit only the use of wireless telephones and personal computers on the House floor, thereby permitting the use of unobtrusive handheld electronic devices. [Rule XVII, clause 5] (l) Accounting for vacancies. The practice of adjusting the whole number of the House in the case of vacancies in the membership is codified. [Rule XX, clause 5] (m) Proceedings during call of House. This change clarifies that a motion to adjourn retains its normal privilege and is in order during a call of the House under clause 6 of rule XX. The former language of the rule could be interpreted to five the Speaker the discretion to entertain such motion. This change is technical in nature. [Rule XX, clause 6(c)] (n) Five-minute voting in series. The Speaker's authority to reduce the minimum time for electronic voting following a fifteen-minute vote is expanded to include all succeeding votes provided no other business intervenes and notice of possible five-minute voting is given. This change is technical in nature. [Rule XX, clause 9] (o) Prohibition on limitation amendments for the administration of taxes and tariffs and on measures restricting imports. Expands the application of clause 5(a) of rule XXI to include as a tax or tariff measure a floor amendment limiting funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff. [Rule XXI, clause 5(a)] (p) Motions to instruct during conference. Permits further motions to instruct to be offered after 20 calendar days, but not less than 10 legislative days. [Rule XXII, clause 7(c)(1)] (q) Fiduciary relationship exemption for physicians. Redefines a fiduciary relationship as not including ``the practice of medicine,'' thereby allowing dentists and physicians to earn outside income up to $22,500. [Rule XXV, clause 2] (r) Perishable food as gift. Provides that the value of perishable food sent as a gift to an office shall be allocated among the individual receipts and not to the Member. [Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(1)(B)] (s) Gift ban exemption for charity travel. Clarifies the gift ban to allow Members to be reimbursed for travel and lodging expenses by a charity organization, in cases where the net proceeds of the event go to a qualified charity, and the invitation is issued by the charity. [Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(4)(C)] (t) Statutory limit on public debt. (reinstate ``Gephardt Rule'', former Rule XXIII of the 106th Congress.) Provides for automatic House passage of joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt when the House agrees to a budget resolution that requires such an increase. The amount of the increase in the joint resolution conforms to the level established in the budget resolution. The final House vote on the budget resolution shall be deemed the vote on the joint resolution. [New Rule XXVII, former Rule XXVII redesignated as Rule XXVIII] (u) Technical corrections. Technical and grammatical changes are made throughout the rules of the rules of the House, including those correcting changes that were made as a result of the recodification of the House rules. Section 3. Separate Orders (a)(1)-(a)(3) Continuation of budget enforcement mechanisms from the 107th. This order clarifies that section 306 of the Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of legislation within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction, unless reported by the Budget Committee) only applies to bills and joint resolutions and not to simple and concurrent resolutions. It also makes a Section 303 point of order (requiring adoption of budget resolution before consideration of budget-related legislation) applicable to text made in order as original bill by a special rule. Specified or minimum levels of compensation will not be considered as providing new entitlement authority. (a)(4) Continuation of budget ``deeming'' resolution from the 2nd Session of the 107th Congress. This order establishes that the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 353 as adopted by the House in the 107th Congress, shall have effect in the 108th Congress until such time as a conference report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2004 is adopted. (b) Extra subcommittees for Armed Services, International Relations, and Transportation & Infrastructure. A waiver of Rule X, clause 5(d), is granted for International Relations, Transportation & Infrastructure, and Armed Services for 6 subcommittees in the 108th Congress. (e) Numbering of bills. In the 108th Congress, the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) shall be reserved for assignment by the Speaker to such bills as he may designate when introduced during the first session. (d) Wednesday suspension day. During the first session of the 108th Congress, motions to suspend the rules shall be in order on Wednesdays through the second Wednesday in April. Section 4. Select Committee on Homeland Security This section establishes the Select Committee on Homeland Security for the 108th Congress. It establishes that the Select Committee will have legislative jurisdiction to develop recommendations and report to the House by bill or otherwise on such matters that relates to the Homeland Security Act of 12002 (P.L. 107-296). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about a good friend and respected colleague, Congressman Steve Horn, who is retiring from this body after 10 years of unwavering integrity in service. And though we wish our friend nothing but the absolute best as he leaves Washington, we will miss Steve immensely, and are sad to see the parting of this true Californian. Congressman Horn has served with diligence on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on behalf of his constituents in Southern California. His Congressional District benefitted greatly from his leadership, especially in the areas of environmental stewardship and infrastructure investment. He consistently championed projects critical to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, preserving local wetlands, and supported the need for new technologies to advance ocean water desalination. Congressman Horn has been an unsung hero on federal government accountability for which I thank and commend him. Chairing the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, Congressman Horn dedicated his committee's jurisdiction to making federal agencies more accountable to the taxpayer, ensuring that our government was open and accessible to the public, and demanding that red-tape and other bureaucratic excesses were eliminated. Many of us can only look with awe at Congressman Horn's distinguished and vast public service career. He served in the Eisenhower Administration under Labor Secretary James P. Mitchell, and then got his legislative feet wet while working for California Senator Thomas Kuchel on historic legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In addition, Congressman Horn dedicated 18 years to the California State University, Long Beach, where he was recognized as one of the most effective college presidents in the country. There is no doubt that Congressman Horn has accomplished a great deal. However, I believe his greatest accomplishment lies in not just what he has been able to do, but in the person that he is. He is a man of character who never allowed partisan politics to triumph over personal integrity, who sought real answers to real problems for the benefit of strangers, and whose watchful gaze held us all to the same higher standard he set for himself. I will miss seeing him in the halls of the Capitol, but will look forward to seeing him and his lovely wife, Nini, at home in California.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about a good friend and respected colleague, Congressman Steve Horn, who is retiring from this body after 10 years of unwavering integrity in service. And though we wish our friend nothing but the absolute best as he leaves Washington, we will miss Steve immensely, and are sad to see the parting of this true Californian. Congressman Horn has served with diligence on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on behalf of his constituents in Southern California. His Congressional District benefitted greatly from his leadership, especially in the areas of environmental stewardship and infrastructure investment. He consistently championed projects critical to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, preserving local wetlands, and supported the need for new technologies to advance ocean water desalination. Congressman Horn has been an unsung hero on federal government accountability for which I thank and commend him. Chairing the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, Congressman Horn dedicated his committee's jurisdiction to making federal agencies more accountable to the taxpayer, ensuring that our government was open and accessible to the public, and demanding that red-tape and other bureaucratic excesses were eliminated. Many of us can only look with awe at Congressman Horn's distinguished and vast public service career. He served in the Eisenhower Administration under Labor Secretary James P. Mitchell, and then got his legislative feet wet while working for California Senator Thomas Kuchel on historic legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In addition, Congressman Horn dedicated 18 years to the California State University, Long Beach, where he was recognized as one of the most effective college presidents in the country. There is no doubt that Congressman Horn has accomplished a great deal. However, I believe his greatest accomplishment lies in not just what he has been able to do, but in the person that he is. He is a man of character who never allowed partisan politics to triumph over personal integrity, who sought real answers to real problems for the benefit of strangers, and whose watchful gaze held us all to the same higher standard he set for himself. I will miss seeing him in the halls of the Capitol, but will look forward to seeing him and his lovely wife, Nini, at home in California.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in extending congratulations. We have just talked about two of our colleagues who are retiring. They were not in the Chamber. We actually have three of our colleagues in the Chamber at this moment at 2:22 in the morning as we retire. Of course, we have our friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who is always in this Chamber, no matter what; and our friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen); and our friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), here as well. I would like to say to all three of our colleagues who are retiring how much we have appreciated their extraordinary service to this institution. I had the privilege of being elected in 1980 with Jim Hansen. He came as a former speaker of the House of Representatives of the State legislature in Utah and did a phenomenal job there, and came in with a class that was actually larger than the one that will be coming in for the 108th Congress. We ended up with a class of, in a bipartisan way, I think about 76 Members or so. We had 53 Republicans who came in, and it was the day that Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States that Jim Hansen and I were elected to the House of Representatives. He provided just extraordinary leadership to us. I want to say on this issue that he has dealt with on the Committee on Resources dealing with the challenges that especially those of us in the West face, that I have appreciated his great service and his wonderful friendship; and I would like to say he will be missed, along with our friends, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and, of course, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), who we are going to be hearing from I expect before too terribly long. He has just informed me he will be in both Oklahoma and Washington, D.C., and I am not going to say exactly why he will be in both locations. His wife told him that there is a reason for that, but I am not going to state it right now. But his service here has been extraordinary, working very hard in his work on the Committee on Ways and Means. I thank all of our friends who are retiring, but especially those three who are here at now 2:25 in the morning.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my friend is absolutely right reminding us of the fact that Steve Horn took copious notes in a wide range of meetings, and I want to say that sometimes even when I was having conversations with my friend Mr. Horn he was taking notes, and I would like very much to go on record saying that I hope he never publishes those particular notes that he has taken in a number of conversations we had.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield briefly for one comment?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to join in this tribute to our friend George Gekas, and my friend from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) just mentioned the fact that Mr. Gekas regularly talked about the need for us to have an automatic continuing resolution, and it was the Committee on Rules that he came before on a regular basis, and I remember one time where on every single appropriations bill, he would come before the Committee on Rules making the case. So he was dogged in his pursuit of that just as he was in his pursuit of bringing about bankruptcy reform, and we all know that this process has been a very messy, difficult one, but it is exactly as James Madison envisaged it, and I think that he was looking down and saw George Gekas work through this process over a long period of time. Mr. Speaker, I would also, when I think about George Gekas, like to take a moment to mention another of our colleagues who is retiring, my very good friend from California, Steve Horn. When I think of George Gekas, I think of Steve Horn, another well-educated work horse. Steve Horn is an individual who came to this institution with an amazing background, having been a college president, and he is someone who, because of his tremendous institutional memory having worked as an aid to former Senator Tom Kuchel of California, he brought an understanding of the work of the other body and an expertise which will be sorely missed. As I think back and I see my friend from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) here, I am reminded of the work that we did on the issue of Y2K, and he will recall that our colleague Mr. Horn began very early having a wide range of hearings focusing on the governmental challenge of dealing with the turn of the century and the Y2K issue. And I want to say that he and his wonderful wife Nini have worked night and day representing a very difficult and challenging area in southern California but at the same time understanding the responsibility that they have had in this institution. So I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that he will be sorely missed and I certainly wish him well in his retirement. And I thank my friend for yielding.