mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to h. res. 5 , to the republican rules package . 
specifically , i oppose the proposed changes to rule x , which among other things creates a permanent standing committee on homeland security and grants legislative jurisdiction to that committee . 
i am not opposed to the creation of a permanent homeland security committee . 
indeed , i believe that the homeland security committee should be made permanent and should be granted jurisdiction over the overall homeland security policy of the federal government . 
further , i believe that a homeland security committee is needed to oversee the internal administration of such a large federal agency as the department of homeland security , dhs , which has over 180 , 000 employees . 
although h. res. 5 includes these provisions , i oppose its grant of legislative jurisdiction to the new committee of areas that have previously been the jurisdiction of other committees . 
i oppose this grant of jurisdiction , not because of some desire to protect existing committees ' `` turf '' , but because transfer of these security issues to a new committee divests from the responsibility for those issues from those members who have substantial experience and expertise -- in some cases developed through decades of work -- on them . 
the existing committees are best equipped to give the full house the benefit of carefully thought out recommendations that provide effective security without unnecessary risks to safety or economic efficiency . 
it will take years for a new committee to be able to develop the expertise to provide the house and the nation with reports and recommendations of the quality that existing committees provide . 
it is not enough to say that members with particular areas of expertise will have an opportunity to be heard on these issues . 
the most effective way to influence policy is to be part of the debate and discussion in the early stages of policy formation ; simply voting yes or no when legislation makes it to the house floor is generally not sufficient participation to craft policy . 
i take this position on the basis of my 30 years of experience in the house , during which time i have given high priority to security , particularly the security of our transportation system . 
h. res. 5 would divest responsibility for dhs ' transportation and port security functions from the transportation and infrastructure committee , t & amp ; i committee , and transfer it to the homeland security committee . 
however , transportation and port security can not be considered in a vacuum . 
developing sound security legislation requires balancing security risks against the economic and safety impacts of such measures on transportation industries and their customers . 
for example , we would not want to install technology on aircraft to protect against missile attacks if that technology would create disproportionate safety risks . 
in addition , security mandates are only one type of requirement imposed on transportation industries . 
other requirements include safety , consumer protection , environmental , accessibility , and competitiveness statutory or regulatory mandates . 
any security legislation or regulation must be considered in the context of the costs and benefits of all such requirements governing transportation industries . 
the committee on transportation and infrastructure has the responsibility and the expertise to broadly consider security risks , weigh all costs and benefits of proposed requirements , and determine the likely effects of such actions on transportation industries , their customers , and the existing framework of other statutory and regulatory requirements . 
the t & amp ; i committee , time and again , has proven it 's capable to ensure that the u.s. transportation system is efficient and safe , as well as secure . 
in the aftermath of the pan am flight 103 tragedy , the t & amp ; i committee developed the landmark aviation security improvement act of 1990 ( p.l . 
101-604 ) , which mandated background checks for airline and airport employees and the deployment of bomb detection equipment for baggage at our nation 's airports . 
during the 1990s , our committee continued to respond to the changing security needs through oversight and legislation . 
in the aftermath of the september 11 attacks , the t & amp ; i committee developed and considered the aviation and transportation security act of 2001 , atsa . 
atsa established a new transportation security administration , tsa , federalized the screening workforce , and required the screening of all checked baggage to protect against terrorist threats . 
the aviation subcommittee alone has held 19 hearings on aviation security issues since september 11 . 
since september 11 , the t & amp ; i committee has also spearheaded important maritime and port security legislation including the maritime transportation security act of 2002 , and the coast guard and maritime transportation act of 2004 . 
the t & amp ; i committee has the member expertise , the staff , and the institutional memory to deal with these issues . 
i believe that the quality of congressional oversight and legislation on these issues will suffer if these issues are simply transferred wholesale to a new committee . 
it will take years for the new committee to develop the institutional background and expertise that currently resides in our committee . 
finally , the republican conference drafted these changes to rule x in isolation . 
democrats were afforded no role in crafting this critical security policy . 
i believe the proposed changes to rule x do not further the security of this nation . 
instead , i fear that they will hamper security by divesting from those members with the experience and institutional knowledge of these issues the direct responsibility to craft security policy . 
for all of these reasons , i oppose h. res. 5 . 
