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 3-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 is 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 the 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 . 
