Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

H.RES. 5
RULES OF THE HOUSE FOR THE 109th CONGRESS

January 4, 2005

Mr. Speaker, as has been the case for a number of years, the rules package put forward by my Republican colleagues continues to trample on the rights of the minority. It will do nothing to stop the abusive practices in this House such as the three hour vote on the Medicare bill in the middle of the night. In fact, it allows the Speaker added discretion to reconsider votes that the Republican majority loses. In addition, the new rules require an affirmative vote by the Ethics Committee before any action can be taken. This, in effect, gives my Republican colleagues the right to block any investigation.

I would like to focus on one portion of the package that will create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security. While I am sure some of my colleagues believe that the new committee will improve our security, unfortunately this new committee will be nothing more than a costly addition to the expenditures of the legislative branch, and it will likely breed a new wave of "turf warfare" among the committees of the House. We simply do not need a special committee every time we face a crisis.

The process under which we are being asked to approve this change is particularly troublesome. I call your attention to the last time the House felt compelled to create a new committee. In 1980, some Members of the House believed that it would be wise to create an energy committee. It used a careful process in which a Committee on Committees was created, consisting of Democrats and Republicans. When that committee reported its recommendations to the House, substitutes were permitted, and the result reflected a thoughtful understanding of how best to achieve the objectives.

In contrast, we are now being asked to consider a proposal which was sent to us just yesterday. It was hatched in secret by our Republican colleagues without the input of any Democrats. While many of my Democratic colleagues may agree with the need for a new committee, the right of the minority to have their views considered and voted upon has been trampled once again.
I also oppose the notion that a new committee is needed. If the main concern is one of oversight, we can use our existing committees to do the job. If Members still believed that a new committee was necessary, it need not have legislative jurisdiction.

I am certain that if such a committee had legislative recommendations of merit, the appropriate committees along with proper actions by respective party leaders would ensure the bill would come to the Floor.
Instead, I foresee a new committee that will seek to increase its powers by introducing bills granting all manner of new authorities to the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, thoughtful bills addressing aspects of homeland security reported by the existing committees will now be delayed as the new committee will seek referrals. And needed responsiveness by the Executive Branch to the existing committees may be hindered.

While the 9/11 Commission urged a reorganization of Congressional Committees to deal with homeland security, it is odd that this new committee will have no jurisdiction over the issues that were identified by the Commission that led to 9/11 tragedy. The new committee will have no jurisdiction over the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, or immigration enforcement.
It is a shame that the first day of this new Congress should be marked by an attempt to authorize a new committee without so much as an open markup to consider its merits. Moreover, it would be extremely unwise to ignore the expertise and experience of existing committees as we address homeland security issues, but we are starting down that path today.