Text
Speech by Congressman Joe Moakley (D-MA)
Opening Day Rules Package
January 3, 200~
THANK YOU AND HAPPY NEW YEAR, M SPEAKER.
M SPEAKER, LAST FALL'S ELECTION WAS A RECORD BREAKER,
VOTES FOR EVERYTHING FROM PRESIDENT DOWN TO STATE
LEGISLATORS WERE CLOSER THAN EVER BEFORE. IF THE
VOTERS TOLD US ANYTHING ON NOVEMBER 7TH, IT WAS TO
WORK TOGETHER. THE ONLY MANDATE THIS CONGRESS AND
THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE IS TO PUT ASIDE OUR DIFFERENCES
AND GET THINGS DONE.
BUT, M SPEAKER, THAT MANDATE OF COOPERATION IS NOT
REFLECTED IN THIS REPUBLICAN RULES PACKAGE.
THIS RULES PACKAGE SKEWS COMMITTEE RATIOS SO MUCH IN
FAVOR OF THE REPUBLICANS YOU WOULD THINK THEY HAD
WON BY A LANDSLIDE WHILE IN FACT, M SPEAKER, THEIR
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE IS LESS THAN 2°/o.
MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS IN
CONGRESS HAVE BARELY MORE THAN 50o/o OF THE SEATS, THE
REPUBLICANS SHOULD GET NO MORE THAN 51 °/o OF THE
COMMITTEE SLOTS AND RESOURCES. ONE LOOK AT THIS
RULES PACKAGE SHOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
-1-
M SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INSERT 2 CHARTS
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD DETAILING THE SKEWED
COMMITTEE RATIOS.
LAST CONGRESS, WHEN THEY WERE ENTITLED TO 51 °/o OF THE
SEATS, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TOOK 59°/o OF THE SEATS
ON WAYS AND MEANS,
THEY TOOK 57%, OF THE SEATS ON JUDICIARY,
AND THEY TOOK ALMOST 56°/o OF THE SEATS ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
M SPEAKER, IN ADDITION TO BEING UNFAIR, THOSE
COMMITTEE RATIOS DENIED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THEIR
RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION ON CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES. AND, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE ABOUT
TO DO IT AGAIN THIS CONGRESS, WHEN THEIR MAJORITY IS
EVEN SLIMMER.
LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, MR. SPEAKER: IF THE RATIOS ON THE
COMMITTEES WERE TO REFLECT THE RA TIO IN THE HOUSE
THIS CONGRESS, 58 MORE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS WOULD
HAVE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SEATED AT THE COMMITTEE
TABLES.
-2-
EVEN MY DEAR FRIEND, MY CHAIRMAN, MR. DREIER, SIGNED A
JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT SAYING THAT "COMMITTEE SEATS
SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO REFLECT THE OVERALL RATIO" IN
THE HOUSE.
UP UNTIL 6 YEARS AGO, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
REGULARLY INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR COMMITTEE
RATIOS IN THEIR RULES PACKAGES. THAT IS, M SPEAKER,
UNTIL THEY WERE IN THE MAJORITY.
AND, M SPEAKER, WHILE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL LOSE
THEIR VOICE IN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, MILLIONS
MORE LOST THEIR VOICES DURING THIS ELECTION.
PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE DO IN
WASHINGTON WILL BE RESTORING AMERICANS' CONFIDENCE
IN THE ELECTION PROCESS. BUT, M SPEAKER, THAT TOO IS
MISSING FROM THIS REPUBLICAN RULES PACKAGE.
NOWHERE IS THERE A MENTION OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING
THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
NOWHERE IS THERE A CALL ON CONGRESS TO FIX OUR FLAWED
ELECTION PROCESS. NOWHERE IS THERE A RECOGNITION OF
THE URGENT NEED TO RESTORE PEOPLE'S CONFIDENCE IN
AMERICAN ELECTIONS.
-3-
M SPEAKER, IN JUST 3 DAYS, A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
WILL COUNT THE VOTES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS AND
DECLARE THE WINNER OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE QUESTIONING OUR ELECTIONS
AND DEMANDING ACTION AND, M SPEAKER, THIS RULES
PACKAGE FAILS TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THEIR BEHALF.
THAT IS WHY, M SPEAKER, I AM URGING MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC RULES PACKAGE. OUR RULES
PACKAGE INCLUDES THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS FOR
COMMITTEE RATIOS FROM THE 102N° AND 103RD CONGRESSES.
OUR RULES PACKAGE ALSO TAKES STEPS TO REFORM OUR
ELECTION PROCESS. IT GIVES THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
UNTIL MARCH 1 TO RECOMMEND WAYS TO ENSURE THAT ALL
ELIGIBLE AMERICANS WHO VOTE SHALL HAVE THEIR VOTES
COUNTED -- ESPECIALLY OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO VOTE
BY ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
M SPEAKER, EVEN THOUGH THE NEXT SET OF FEDERAL
ELECTIONS IS 2 YEARS OFF, WE NEED TO GET STARTED RIGHT
AWAY MAKING SURE EVERYONE'S VOTE IS COUNTED AND
COUNTED FAIRLY. FAIR ELECTIONS ARE THE FOUNDATION ON
WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY IS BUILT AND THERE IS NOTHING
-4-
THE GROWING DISPARITY IN COMMITTEE SLOTS UNDER
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
51 . DEMOCRATIC
I
49
I
MAJORITY
MAJORITY
,
•
I
-
/
47
I
I
.
45 .
~
"
431
41
I
39 I
37
·' /I
-
II\\
1/
-
\ \
-
•
f
A
::ia...
~
,
-,,.,
~
I
-
..
11
I
I
I
I
-+----+-~~~_..__,_~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~--1
35 ......----....,------------------~---,-----~---~----,---..---------------,--~
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105 106
107
CONGRESS
•MINORITY
PARTY
HOUSE
SEATS 0/o
-MINORITY
PARTY
COMMITTEE
SLOTS 0/o
January 3, 2001
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
have votes on matters of important
questions.
You have also done some other
things. You have continued to constrain the minority in its ability to
write reports critical of what they conceive to be wrongdoing or failures in
legislation by saying to it that only 2
days will exist for the minority to
come forward with complaints with the
content of legislation. Is this the kind
of good will? Is this the kind of cooperation, conciliation, and is it the
kind of action that we are hearing
when we are talking about having compromise and cooperation and bipartisanship? I think not. If we are to work
together, and I would remind my colleagues on the majority side, there are
only a few seats' difference between the
Members on this side and on the other
side. If you want to have a President
who was elected by the narrowest margin in history and whose tenure as a legitimate President is, in fact, open to
question because of the curious manipulations of the Supreme Court and because of the way in which the election
in Florida was conducted and counted
and handled to succeed and to be able
to talk about bipartisanship and cooperation, this is not the way that you
begin the affairs of this Congress.
I did not intend to make an angry
speech, and I would like my colleagues
to know this is not an angry speech.
This is a speech of sorrow and sadness
because the majority is throwing away
the good will that they are going to
need to have a bipartisan Congress run
with cooperation, conciliation, and
compromise which the American people both need and want.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 21/2
minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. CASTLE).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask some questions, perhaps in
the form of a colloquy, of the chairman
of the Committee on Rules about the
changes which we are facing between
committees. I am a member of the
Banking Committee and the details
elude me. First about the insurance
question. In establishing the question
on financial services, this resolution
:1.dds a term, and I quote, "insurance
5enerally" to the jurisdiction of that
committee. However, no such jurisdiction existed in rule X in the 106th Con~Tess.
Can you describe for me what the
term "insurance generally" is intended
to convey?
D 1500
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the
~entleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gen~leman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Let me say, and I
~hank the gentleman for his question,
natters relating to insurance generally
1.re intended to include matters, for ex-
that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity; the national treatment of insurance companies, auto insurance, life insurance and
property and casualty insurance.
However, as I mentioned previously
in my statement, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as a
result of this change. Furthermore, the
existing jurisdiction of other committees with respect to matters relating to
crop insurance, worker's compensation,
insurance antitrust matters, veterans'
life and health insurance and national
social security are not affected by this
change.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me
ask next about some securities issues.
Regarding securities and exchanges,
does the transfer of this jurisdiction to
the Committee on Financial Services
include underwriting, dealing, and
market making?
Mr. DREIER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. Another question. Does
it include accounting standards applicable to capital raising under applicable securities laws and the Securities
Act of 1933?
Mr. DREIER. Once again, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. Does it include exchanges, investment companies, and
investment advisors?
Mr. DREIER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. Does it include jurisdiction over the Public Utilities Holding Company Act?
Mr. DREIER. As I mentioned previously in my statement, this change is
not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC oversight of multistate
public utility holding companies and
their subsidiaries which remain essentially matters of energy policy.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman
very much for clarification on these
issues.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), the co-chair of the
Democratic Steering Committee and
the ranking member on the Committee
on House Administration.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as all of us
know, this House is now divided by its
narrowest margin since the 83rd Congress when Republicans held 221 seats
and Democrats 213. Today, our Republican friends hold a bare five-seat majority, 221 to 212. Thus, if we are to accomplish anything, bipartisanship, as
President-elect Bush talked ad nauseam about in the campaign, is a sine
qua non. It cannot be mere rhetorical
window dressing.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I regret
to say the first day of the 107th Congress we have missed an opportunity to
demonstrate our commitment to bipar-
H13
and the committee slots available to
its Members elected by the American
public, Republicans and Democrats, to
represent them. Simply put, there are
not enough committee slots available
to the minority party, which now controls 49 percent of this body. Nevertheless, the allocation of committee slots
has remained unchanged, 55 percent for
the majority, 45 percent for the minority.
Now let me call attention to this
chart. It is probably a little difficult to
understand, but what it tracks is minority representation, not majority;
whether Democrats were in the majority or Republicans were in the majority. One will note, up to the 104th Congress, when Democrats were in control,
the percentage of committee slots allocated and the percentages in the House
tracked one another. One will note
that when the minority got more slots
in the House, they went up. When they
got less, they went down.
The point is, it was fair. It was representative and it gave to minority
members the opportunity to do what
they said they wanted to do, represent
Americans.
Now I would call the attention of my
colleagues, and I would hope the
former governor of Delaware, who is
one of the fairest members in this
House, would look at this stark contrast; and I would say here is the 104th
Congress, the 105th, the 106th, the
107th. One will note that the minority
line has been flat lined, notwithstanding the fact that we have picked
up in each of the last four elections additional seats and made the difference
between the majority and minority
parties smaller; but the line has not
changed.
The majority line has gone up in
terms of their percentage, and the variance. That is not fair. It is also, I
would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
California (Mr. DREIER), contrary to
his representations when he was in the
minority. In my calculations, we would
need an additional 64 seats in order for
us to be allocated the number of seats
that we are entitled to as a result of
our percentage in the minority.
What is being done is contrary to the
rhetoric. It will not further bipartisanship, and I would ask that that be corrected as we move ahead in the next
few days.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from
Thibodaux, Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me
first acknowledge, as did the ranking
minority member of the Committee on
Commerce, our extraordinary disappointment in the jurisdictional
transfer from the Committee on Commerce to this new Committee on Financial Services. It is important, as
the chairman has said. to know. how-
RATIOS
Last Congress
Republicans
Democrats
223
212
51.3%
Agriculture
27-24
53%
Appropriations
34-27
55.7% (+4.4% instead of +2.2%)
Armed Services
32-28
53.3% (+2% instead of 1.2%)
Banking
32-28
53.3% (+2% instead of 1.3%)
Budget
24-19
55.8% (+4.3% instead of 1%)
Commerce
29-24
54.7% (+3.4% instead of 1.9%)
Education
27-22
55.1% (+3.8% instead of 5.5%)
Government Reform
24-20
54.5% (+3.2% instead of +3.3%)
(+ 1.7% instead of .9%)
House Administration 6-3
66.7% (+15.4% instead of3.6%)
International Relations 26-23
53.1% (+1.8% instead of .5%)
Judiciary
21-16
56.8% (+5.5% instead of .5%)
Resources
28-24
53.8% (+2.5 instead of 5.5%)
Rules
9-4
69.1% (+17.9% instead of 9.5%)
Science
25-22
53.2% (+1.9% instead of .5%)
Small Business
19-17
52.8% (+1.5% instead of .5%)
Transportation
41-34
54.7% (+2.4% instead of 3%)
Veterans
17-14
54.8% (+3.6% instead of .5%)
Ways and Means
23-16
59%
(+7.7% instead of 3.5%)
18
. Committees 1999 Republicans took a greater share than 1993 Democrats.
14 where
. 4 where l 993Democrats took a greater share from 1999 Republicans.
. 15 of 18 committees in 1999 exceed 2% over House %.
•
8 of 18 committees in 1993 exceed 2% over House % .
RATIOS
1993-994
Democrats
Republicans
259
176
59.5%
Agriculture
29-19
60.4% (+.9%)
Appropriations
37-23
61.7% (+2.2%)
Armed Services
34-22
60.7% (1.2%)
Banking
31-20
60.8% (+1.3%)
Budget
26-17
60.5% (+ 1.0%)
Education
28-15
65%
Energy and Commerce
27-17
61.4% (+1.9%)
Foreign Affairs
27-18
60%
Government Operations
27-16
62.8% (+3.3%)
House Administration
12-7
63.1% (+3.6%)
Judiciary
21-14
60%
(+.5%)
"N"aturalResources
28-15
65%
(+5.5%)
Rules
9-4
69%
(+9.5%)
Science
33-22
60%
(+.5%)
Small Business
27-18
60%
(+.5%)
Transportation
40-24
62.5% (+3%)
Veterans
21-14
60%
(+.5%)
Ways and Means
24-14
63%
(+3.5%)
Under 2% overage
Over2% overage
10
8
(+5.5%)
(+.5%)
W fa11
·1
IN Io L-
Aff/or
co,w0
If Republicans, with a 51.3% majority in the House, maintain the same committees
at the same size they were in the 1061h Congress but used a committee ratio
reflecting the ratio in the House (and keep all Republicans currently on each
committee), the following numbers of additional Democrats would have committee
seats:
ADDED
DEMOCRATIC SEATS
COMMITTEE
NEW
RATIO
Agriculture
27-26
+ 2 Democrats
Appropriations
34-33
+6 Democrats
Armed Services
32-31
+ 3 Democrats
Banking
32-31
+ 3 Democrats
Budget
24-23
+4 Democrats
Commerce
29-28
+4 Democrats
Education
27-26
+4 Democrats
Government Reform
24-23
+4 Democrats
House Administration
6-5
+ 2 Democrats
International Relations
26-25
+2 Democrats
Judiciary
21-20
+4 Democrats
Resources
28-27
+ 3 Democrats
Science
25-24
+ 2 Democrats
Small Business
19-18
+1 Democrat
Transportation
41-40
+6 Democrats
Veterans
17-16
+ 2 Democrats
Ways and Means
23-22
+6 Democrats
s!
~
House Committee Party Ratios
106thC
ss
101S1 Mouse Memoers
Total Committee Seats
DJfferenceln
D lstrlbutlon of seats
Members
Percent
Percentage
IUI.AI
""'-All 1.11an NlaJornv (Rl Mtnorltv (D)
MaJorl~ (R) Mlnorltv (DJ maemncent
,w,:,
~~;:ii
l~
:, l •.ia>
~11
4U.:»l
1
835
83
458
375
54.BS
44.91
51
3
7
27
34
24
52.94
65.74
4
5
5
32
32
5.
29
19
24
5
5
3
3
5
4
27
22
55.10
24
19
64.55
6
a
66.67
47.06
44.26
46.67
45.00
44.19
45.28
44.90
43.18
33.33
5
3
% Commfttee m1.Jarlty
% House maforltv
2
3.59
1
1.68
4.,47
2.07
2.07
Committee
Aarlcullura
atfons
Armed Serdces
Banklna & Financial SiJrvices
.
~
;
Budaet
-Cmrmmce
61
60
60
43
53
49
44
Education & the Workforce
Govemmsn I Reform
House Adm lnlslrat1011
lnlematfcnal RelsWons
JudJclsrv
Resources
I
9
49
37
62
Rutes
Sc.'ence
Sma/J Buslr1ess
Smndaros of Qffk{al Conduct
Tnmsoortation & Jnfrastructu.ra
Veterans' Arratrs
Wavs & Me,ans
Permanent Seled on Jnte/Naence
13
47
36
10
75
2
0
7
24
27
53.33
53.33
ss.a1
54.72
26
23
53.06
21
16
56.76
28
24
53.SS
9
4
25
22
17
69.23
53.19
52.78
19
5
41
31
3
17
39
7
16
2
23
9
Source for data ara CofigrtJsslan.11 Ysrtow Book, and VJ!al Sttrl#sttcs on Congress, 1999-2000..
Delsgales and Aesklenl Commissioner are lnclu:ie<I In 'he oorrmltlae tallos.
For consJsr.snct, WlCanclas are C04.lnled h overa11 tctal and pa~ lclals.
Pe,centa~as wara calc:ulated by oorrput•r, and reftact roun:llng.
In aome fmtanoes, publlshed source may lndlcala unfilled vacency.
Rafios do oot re41Ed Jl0$l·alection reslgnalions.
27
28
5
34
14
16
7
60.00
54.67
64.84
68.97
56.25
46.94
43.24
46.15
30.77
46.81
47.22
50.00
45.33
45.16
41.03
43.76
4.55
3.45
3.84
1
3.28
15.40
1.60
5.49
2.58
17.97
1.93
1.51
-1.26
3.40
3.57
7.71
4.99
Opening Day Rules Package
January 3, 200~
THANK YOU AND HAPPY NEW YEAR, M SPEAKER.
M SPEAKER, LAST FALL'S ELECTION WAS A RECORD BREAKER,
VOTES FOR EVERYTHING FROM PRESIDENT DOWN TO STATE
LEGISLATORS WERE CLOSER THAN EVER BEFORE. IF THE
VOTERS TOLD US ANYTHING ON NOVEMBER 7TH, IT WAS TO
WORK TOGETHER. THE ONLY MANDATE THIS CONGRESS AND
THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE IS TO PUT ASIDE OUR DIFFERENCES
AND GET THINGS DONE.
BUT, M SPEAKER, THAT MANDATE OF COOPERATION IS NOT
REFLECTED IN THIS REPUBLICAN RULES PACKAGE.
THIS RULES PACKAGE SKEWS COMMITTEE RATIOS SO MUCH IN
FAVOR OF THE REPUBLICANS YOU WOULD THINK THEY HAD
WON BY A LANDSLIDE WHILE IN FACT, M SPEAKER, THEIR
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE IS LESS THAN 2°/o.
MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS IN
CONGRESS HAVE BARELY MORE THAN 50o/o OF THE SEATS, THE
REPUBLICANS SHOULD GET NO MORE THAN 51 °/o OF THE
COMMITTEE SLOTS AND RESOURCES. ONE LOOK AT THIS
RULES PACKAGE SHOWS THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
-1-
M SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INSERT 2 CHARTS
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD DETAILING THE SKEWED
COMMITTEE RATIOS.
LAST CONGRESS, WHEN THEY WERE ENTITLED TO 51 °/o OF THE
SEATS, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TOOK 59°/o OF THE SEATS
ON WAYS AND MEANS,
THEY TOOK 57%, OF THE SEATS ON JUDICIARY,
AND THEY TOOK ALMOST 56°/o OF THE SEATS ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
M SPEAKER, IN ADDITION TO BEING UNFAIR, THOSE
COMMITTEE RATIOS DENIED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THEIR
RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION ON CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES. AND, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE ABOUT
TO DO IT AGAIN THIS CONGRESS, WHEN THEIR MAJORITY IS
EVEN SLIMMER.
LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, MR. SPEAKER: IF THE RATIOS ON THE
COMMITTEES WERE TO REFLECT THE RA TIO IN THE HOUSE
THIS CONGRESS, 58 MORE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS WOULD
HAVE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SEATED AT THE COMMITTEE
TABLES.
-2-
EVEN MY DEAR FRIEND, MY CHAIRMAN, MR. DREIER, SIGNED A
JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT SAYING THAT "COMMITTEE SEATS
SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO REFLECT THE OVERALL RATIO" IN
THE HOUSE.
UP UNTIL 6 YEARS AGO, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
REGULARLY INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR COMMITTEE
RATIOS IN THEIR RULES PACKAGES. THAT IS, M SPEAKER,
UNTIL THEY WERE IN THE MAJORITY.
AND, M SPEAKER, WHILE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL LOSE
THEIR VOICE IN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, MILLIONS
MORE LOST THEIR VOICES DURING THIS ELECTION.
PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE DO IN
WASHINGTON WILL BE RESTORING AMERICANS' CONFIDENCE
IN THE ELECTION PROCESS. BUT, M SPEAKER, THAT TOO IS
MISSING FROM THIS REPUBLICAN RULES PACKAGE.
NOWHERE IS THERE A MENTION OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING
THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
NOWHERE IS THERE A CALL ON CONGRESS TO FIX OUR FLAWED
ELECTION PROCESS. NOWHERE IS THERE A RECOGNITION OF
THE URGENT NEED TO RESTORE PEOPLE'S CONFIDENCE IN
AMERICAN ELECTIONS.
-3-
M SPEAKER, IN JUST 3 DAYS, A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
WILL COUNT THE VOTES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS AND
DECLARE THE WINNER OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE QUESTIONING OUR ELECTIONS
AND DEMANDING ACTION AND, M SPEAKER, THIS RULES
PACKAGE FAILS TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THEIR BEHALF.
THAT IS WHY, M SPEAKER, I AM URGING MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC RULES PACKAGE. OUR RULES
PACKAGE INCLUDES THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS FOR
COMMITTEE RATIOS FROM THE 102N° AND 103RD CONGRESSES.
OUR RULES PACKAGE ALSO TAKES STEPS TO REFORM OUR
ELECTION PROCESS. IT GIVES THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
UNTIL MARCH 1 TO RECOMMEND WAYS TO ENSURE THAT ALL
ELIGIBLE AMERICANS WHO VOTE SHALL HAVE THEIR VOTES
COUNTED -- ESPECIALLY OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO VOTE
BY ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
M SPEAKER, EVEN THOUGH THE NEXT SET OF FEDERAL
ELECTIONS IS 2 YEARS OFF, WE NEED TO GET STARTED RIGHT
AWAY MAKING SURE EVERYONE'S VOTE IS COUNTED AND
COUNTED FAIRLY. FAIR ELECTIONS ARE THE FOUNDATION ON
WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY IS BUILT AND THERE IS NOTHING
-4-
THE GROWING DISPARITY IN COMMITTEE SLOTS UNDER
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
51 . DEMOCRATIC
I
49
I
MAJORITY
MAJORITY
,
•
I
-
/
47
I
I
.
45 .
~
"
431
41
I
39 I
37
·' /I
-
II\\
1/
-
\ \
-
•
f
A
::ia...
~
,
-,,.,
~
I
-
..
11
I
I
I
I
-+----+-~~~_..__,_~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~--1
35 ......----....,------------------~---,-----~---~----,---..---------------,--~
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105 106
107
CONGRESS
•MINORITY
PARTY
HOUSE
SEATS 0/o
-MINORITY
PARTY
COMMITTEE
SLOTS 0/o
January 3, 2001
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
have votes on matters of important
questions.
You have also done some other
things. You have continued to constrain the minority in its ability to
write reports critical of what they conceive to be wrongdoing or failures in
legislation by saying to it that only 2
days will exist for the minority to
come forward with complaints with the
content of legislation. Is this the kind
of good will? Is this the kind of cooperation, conciliation, and is it the
kind of action that we are hearing
when we are talking about having compromise and cooperation and bipartisanship? I think not. If we are to work
together, and I would remind my colleagues on the majority side, there are
only a few seats' difference between the
Members on this side and on the other
side. If you want to have a President
who was elected by the narrowest margin in history and whose tenure as a legitimate President is, in fact, open to
question because of the curious manipulations of the Supreme Court and because of the way in which the election
in Florida was conducted and counted
and handled to succeed and to be able
to talk about bipartisanship and cooperation, this is not the way that you
begin the affairs of this Congress.
I did not intend to make an angry
speech, and I would like my colleagues
to know this is not an angry speech.
This is a speech of sorrow and sadness
because the majority is throwing away
the good will that they are going to
need to have a bipartisan Congress run
with cooperation, conciliation, and
compromise which the American people both need and want.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 21/2
minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. CASTLE).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask some questions, perhaps in
the form of a colloquy, of the chairman
of the Committee on Rules about the
changes which we are facing between
committees. I am a member of the
Banking Committee and the details
elude me. First about the insurance
question. In establishing the question
on financial services, this resolution
:1.dds a term, and I quote, "insurance
5enerally" to the jurisdiction of that
committee. However, no such jurisdiction existed in rule X in the 106th Con~Tess.
Can you describe for me what the
term "insurance generally" is intended
to convey?
D 1500
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the
~entleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gen~leman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Let me say, and I
~hank the gentleman for his question,
natters relating to insurance generally
1.re intended to include matters, for ex-
that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity; the national treatment of insurance companies, auto insurance, life insurance and
property and casualty insurance.
However, as I mentioned previously
in my statement, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as a
result of this change. Furthermore, the
existing jurisdiction of other committees with respect to matters relating to
crop insurance, worker's compensation,
insurance antitrust matters, veterans'
life and health insurance and national
social security are not affected by this
change.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, let me
ask next about some securities issues.
Regarding securities and exchanges,
does the transfer of this jurisdiction to
the Committee on Financial Services
include underwriting, dealing, and
market making?
Mr. DREIER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. Another question. Does
it include accounting standards applicable to capital raising under applicable securities laws and the Securities
Act of 1933?
Mr. DREIER. Once again, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. Does it include exchanges, investment companies, and
investment advisors?
Mr. DREIER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. Does it include jurisdiction over the Public Utilities Holding Company Act?
Mr. DREIER. As I mentioned previously in my statement, this change is
not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC oversight of multistate
public utility holding companies and
their subsidiaries which remain essentially matters of energy policy.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman
very much for clarification on these
issues.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), the co-chair of the
Democratic Steering Committee and
the ranking member on the Committee
on House Administration.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as all of us
know, this House is now divided by its
narrowest margin since the 83rd Congress when Republicans held 221 seats
and Democrats 213. Today, our Republican friends hold a bare five-seat majority, 221 to 212. Thus, if we are to accomplish anything, bipartisanship, as
President-elect Bush talked ad nauseam about in the campaign, is a sine
qua non. It cannot be mere rhetorical
window dressing.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I regret
to say the first day of the 107th Congress we have missed an opportunity to
demonstrate our commitment to bipar-
H13
and the committee slots available to
its Members elected by the American
public, Republicans and Democrats, to
represent them. Simply put, there are
not enough committee slots available
to the minority party, which now controls 49 percent of this body. Nevertheless, the allocation of committee slots
has remained unchanged, 55 percent for
the majority, 45 percent for the minority.
Now let me call attention to this
chart. It is probably a little difficult to
understand, but what it tracks is minority representation, not majority;
whether Democrats were in the majority or Republicans were in the majority. One will note, up to the 104th Congress, when Democrats were in control,
the percentage of committee slots allocated and the percentages in the House
tracked one another. One will note
that when the minority got more slots
in the House, they went up. When they
got less, they went down.
The point is, it was fair. It was representative and it gave to minority
members the opportunity to do what
they said they wanted to do, represent
Americans.
Now I would call the attention of my
colleagues, and I would hope the
former governor of Delaware, who is
one of the fairest members in this
House, would look at this stark contrast; and I would say here is the 104th
Congress, the 105th, the 106th, the
107th. One will note that the minority
line has been flat lined, notwithstanding the fact that we have picked
up in each of the last four elections additional seats and made the difference
between the majority and minority
parties smaller; but the line has not
changed.
The majority line has gone up in
terms of their percentage, and the variance. That is not fair. It is also, I
would say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
California (Mr. DREIER), contrary to
his representations when he was in the
minority. In my calculations, we would
need an additional 64 seats in order for
us to be allocated the number of seats
that we are entitled to as a result of
our percentage in the minority.
What is being done is contrary to the
rhetoric. It will not further bipartisanship, and I would ask that that be corrected as we move ahead in the next
few days.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from
Thibodaux, Louisiana (Mr. TAUZIN).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me
first acknowledge, as did the ranking
minority member of the Committee on
Commerce, our extraordinary disappointment in the jurisdictional
transfer from the Committee on Commerce to this new Committee on Financial Services. It is important, as
the chairman has said. to know. how-
RATIOS
Last Congress
Republicans
Democrats
223
212
51.3%
Agriculture
27-24
53%
Appropriations
34-27
55.7% (+4.4% instead of +2.2%)
Armed Services
32-28
53.3% (+2% instead of 1.2%)
Banking
32-28
53.3% (+2% instead of 1.3%)
Budget
24-19
55.8% (+4.3% instead of 1%)
Commerce
29-24
54.7% (+3.4% instead of 1.9%)
Education
27-22
55.1% (+3.8% instead of 5.5%)
Government Reform
24-20
54.5% (+3.2% instead of +3.3%)
(+ 1.7% instead of .9%)
House Administration 6-3
66.7% (+15.4% instead of3.6%)
International Relations 26-23
53.1% (+1.8% instead of .5%)
Judiciary
21-16
56.8% (+5.5% instead of .5%)
Resources
28-24
53.8% (+2.5 instead of 5.5%)
Rules
9-4
69.1% (+17.9% instead of 9.5%)
Science
25-22
53.2% (+1.9% instead of .5%)
Small Business
19-17
52.8% (+1.5% instead of .5%)
Transportation
41-34
54.7% (+2.4% instead of 3%)
Veterans
17-14
54.8% (+3.6% instead of .5%)
Ways and Means
23-16
59%
(+7.7% instead of 3.5%)
18
. Committees 1999 Republicans took a greater share than 1993 Democrats.
14 where
. 4 where l 993Democrats took a greater share from 1999 Republicans.
. 15 of 18 committees in 1999 exceed 2% over House %.
•
8 of 18 committees in 1993 exceed 2% over House % .
RATIOS
1993-994
Democrats
Republicans
259
176
59.5%
Agriculture
29-19
60.4% (+.9%)
Appropriations
37-23
61.7% (+2.2%)
Armed Services
34-22
60.7% (1.2%)
Banking
31-20
60.8% (+1.3%)
Budget
26-17
60.5% (+ 1.0%)
Education
28-15
65%
Energy and Commerce
27-17
61.4% (+1.9%)
Foreign Affairs
27-18
60%
Government Operations
27-16
62.8% (+3.3%)
House Administration
12-7
63.1% (+3.6%)
Judiciary
21-14
60%
(+.5%)
"N"aturalResources
28-15
65%
(+5.5%)
Rules
9-4
69%
(+9.5%)
Science
33-22
60%
(+.5%)
Small Business
27-18
60%
(+.5%)
Transportation
40-24
62.5% (+3%)
Veterans
21-14
60%
(+.5%)
Ways and Means
24-14
63%
(+3.5%)
Under 2% overage
Over2% overage
10
8
(+5.5%)
(+.5%)
W fa11
·1
IN Io L-
Aff/or
co,w0
If Republicans, with a 51.3% majority in the House, maintain the same committees
at the same size they were in the 1061h Congress but used a committee ratio
reflecting the ratio in the House (and keep all Republicans currently on each
committee), the following numbers of additional Democrats would have committee
seats:
ADDED
DEMOCRATIC SEATS
COMMITTEE
NEW
RATIO
Agriculture
27-26
+ 2 Democrats
Appropriations
34-33
+6 Democrats
Armed Services
32-31
+ 3 Democrats
Banking
32-31
+ 3 Democrats
Budget
24-23
+4 Democrats
Commerce
29-28
+4 Democrats
Education
27-26
+4 Democrats
Government Reform
24-23
+4 Democrats
House Administration
6-5
+ 2 Democrats
International Relations
26-25
+2 Democrats
Judiciary
21-20
+4 Democrats
Resources
28-27
+ 3 Democrats
Science
25-24
+ 2 Democrats
Small Business
19-18
+1 Democrat
Transportation
41-40
+6 Democrats
Veterans
17-16
+ 2 Democrats
Ways and Means
23-22
+6 Democrats
s!
~
House Committee Party Ratios
106thC
ss
101S1 Mouse Memoers
Total Committee Seats
DJfferenceln
D lstrlbutlon of seats
Members
Percent
Percentage
IUI.AI
""'-All 1.11an NlaJornv (Rl Mtnorltv (D)
MaJorl~ (R) Mlnorltv (DJ maemncent
,w,:,
~~;:ii
l~
:, l •.ia>
~11
4U.:»l
1
835
83
458
375
54.BS
44.91
51
3
7
27
34
24
52.94
65.74
4
5
5
32
32
5.
29
19
24
5
5
3
3
5
4
27
22
55.10
24
19
64.55
6
a
66.67
47.06
44.26
46.67
45.00
44.19
45.28
44.90
43.18
33.33
5
3
% Commfttee m1.Jarlty
% House maforltv
2
3.59
1
1.68
4.,47
2.07
2.07
Committee
Aarlcullura
atfons
Armed Serdces
Banklna & Financial SiJrvices
.
~
;
Budaet
-Cmrmmce
61
60
60
43
53
49
44
Education & the Workforce
Govemmsn I Reform
House Adm lnlslrat1011
lnlematfcnal RelsWons
JudJclsrv
Resources
I
9
49
37
62
Rutes
Sc.'ence
Sma/J Buslr1ess
Smndaros of Qffk{al Conduct
Tnmsoortation & Jnfrastructu.ra
Veterans' Arratrs
Wavs & Me,ans
Permanent Seled on Jnte/Naence
13
47
36
10
75
2
0
7
24
27
53.33
53.33
ss.a1
54.72
26
23
53.06
21
16
56.76
28
24
53.SS
9
4
25
22
17
69.23
53.19
52.78
19
5
41
31
3
17
39
7
16
2
23
9
Source for data ara CofigrtJsslan.11 Ysrtow Book, and VJ!al Sttrl#sttcs on Congress, 1999-2000..
Delsgales and Aesklenl Commissioner are lnclu:ie<I In 'he oorrmltlae tallos.
For consJsr.snct, WlCanclas are C04.lnled h overa11 tctal and pa~ lclals.
Pe,centa~as wara calc:ulated by oorrput•r, and reftact roun:llng.
In aome fmtanoes, publlshed source may lndlcala unfilled vacency.
Rafios do oot re41Ed Jl0$l·alection reslgnalions.
27
28
5
34
14
16
7
60.00
54.67
64.84
68.97
56.25
46.94
43.24
46.15
30.77
46.81
47.22
50.00
45.33
45.16
41.03
43.76
4.55
3.45
3.84
1
3.28
15.40
1.60
5.49
2.58
17.97
1.93
1.51
-1.26
3.40
3.57
7.71
4.99