David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference report. I want to begin by congratulating Mr. Cole and Ms. Matsui for their management of this rule and to say that this is a great example of bipartisanship. Our friends Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton have worked very closely on this bill, which is, if I recall, $562.8 billion. It includes that $70 billion bridge fund, a 2.2 percent increase which is part of a 40 percent increase over the past 8 years that has been provided for our men and women in uniform. It is a very important thing as we continue to fight this ongoing struggle against terrorism that we are dealing with all over the world. Only the United States of America can provide the kind of leadership that is being provided today. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is absolutely essential that this Department of Defense authorization bill continue to set the example of bipartisanship in our quest to win that war against terrorism. The reason that I wanted to take a few minutes here, Mr. Speaker, is that I wanted to underscore the fact that our reforms are working. Now, why would I be talking about the issue of reform as we bring up the Department of Defense conference report's rule? It is the fact that this is the first time in a conference report that we have actually had a required listing of the so-called earmarks, items that were not included in either the House-passed authorization bill or the Senate- passed authorization bill. We use this term ``air dropped.'' There are five particular provisions, Mr. Speaker, that have been listed. This list is now made available, and the American people, our colleagues and the American people through the media, and obviously this is online, can see exactly what items were provided. And it enjoyed bipartisan support this reform. We had Democrats, whom I am happy to say joined with us in our quest to reform. Very few, but we had some Democrats joined with us in our quest to ensure that we could have greater transparency, disclosure, and accountability so that the American people will be able to see on these very important items that relate to our Nation's defense capability. They now don't have those hidden; they are in fact open for everyone to see, and that is a reform led by Speaker Hastert that we have been able to implement. And I want to thank Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for, as we were going into the August break, making a commitment. The three of us introduced the legislation that called for this rule change, and we were able to implement it expeditiously; and it is now in effect, and this conference report is the first time that we have seen it. So I just want to join in extending congratulations again to Messrs. Hunter and Skelton and all of those who have been involved in this process and to say that we look forward to the passage of this rule, of course, and passage of the legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very kind words, but we do want to adjourn by this evening; so I appreciate the fact that he kept it relatively brief. And I want to thank him for his typical superb management of this very important rule and to say that I am very pleased that we have been able to work in a bipartisan way. At least two of the three provisions in this rule deal with the single most important issue that we face: the security of the American people. Our Homeland Security appropriations bill and I believe this tribunal bill, which will be made in order under this rule, is critical to the security of the United States of America, and that is our top priority. I guess I should begin, since he is looking so relaxed there, by saying time and time again in the Rules Committee, my colleague Ms. Slaughter and others said that it was Martin Sabo's last appearance before the Rules Committee. Well, I had every confidence, when people joked about the prospect of bringing a conference agreement back on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, that it would happen. And many people rolled their eyes. But thanks to the leadership of Martin Sabo and Harold Rogers and, of course, David Obey and Jerry Lewis, we have been able to come together with a very important Homeland Security appropriations conference report. So I would like to join in extending great appreciation to Martin Sabo for his stellar service to this body over the years and for his commitment to dealing with transportation issues and now homeland security and to say that we will miss him greatly. This measure, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to consider, the appropriations bill itself, is absolutely essential if we are going to focus on the security of our borders and deal with it in a responsible way. And I am happy that Ms. Slaughter was able to work on her compromise. Again, it is a bipartisan compromise, as she just said in her statement, that we have been able to deal with. And similarly, I am proud of another item that is included in this bill that is once again a bipartisan measure, and that is legislation that was introduced in the Senate by my California colleague, Dianne Feinstein, and I was privileged to introduce it here in the House. We had an actual unanimous recorded vote on this measure, and it was to recognize that we have a problem at our border; that being since September 11, 2001, the discovery of 38 tunnels, one of which came from Canada into the United States, 37 from Mexico into the United States. And what we discovered is that there is actually no criminal penalty for people who are tunneling or the utilization of property here in the United States for tunnels to come up. And what has happened? Through those tunnels we have seen tremendous problems with both human and narcotrafficking. So in this measure that we pass, we will be actually implementing criminalization of that kind of action, once again demonstrating our commitment to securing our Nation's border. Similarly, we obviously are very concerned about the fact that in heavy urban areas and in five particular areas, we have seen just across the border, above ground, large problems of human and narcotrafficking, and for those areas we are going to see the construction of border fences. I do not like the idea of fences. I really do not like the idea of fences at all. But our empirical evidence, Mr. Speaker, has shown that for the 14 miles along the border between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California, we have seen a great improvement in the standard of living and quality of life because of this border fence which has been established. In fact, there has been a 50 percent reduction in the crime rate in San Diego, in large part attributed to the fact that we have this fence here. I look forward to the day when we will be able to take down all of these fences. But, frankly, as long as we have human trafficking and narcotrafficking the way it is today, I do not believe that we as a Nation have a choice. And so in those areas where we have heavy urban populations on both sides the border, I think it is essential that we do this. There are other areas where utilization of 21st century technology, using motion detectors, using unmanned aerial vehicles and other things will be very beneficial in our quest to ensure that we secure our Nation's borders. Now, as we look at our items in this bill, I believe that the funding that is provided is going to help us deal with the overall global war on terror. Again, if you think about the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, I always argue that, in that preamble, the five most important words of the preamble are: Provide for the common defense. And those five words, I believe, are addressed very successfully with this Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work that has been done in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans coming together, to do the right thing. I hope it can be used as a model for many of the things that we proceed with in the future.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I am going to get to that. I am going to get to that right now. Let me just first say that the urgency of this measure really needs no explanation. We have the alleged mastermind of 9/11 in our custody waiting to be brought to justice, and Members on the other side of the aisle ask, what is the rush? We have intelligence operatives hesitant to interrogate high value targets because their parameters are unclear, and Members on the other side of the aisle ask, what is the rush? We need every single tool. As President Karzai underscored in his statement, we need every single tool to stay ahead of the people who want to kill us, and our friends on the other side of the aisle say, what is the rush? Let me point out that during the Judiciary Committee markup, the Democrats offered no substitute at all. In response to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), it is true that my friends, including Mr. Skelton, in the Armed Services Committee, offered a substitute. What was that substitute? It was the McCain language. That was the Democratic alternative that was offered, the package submitted by our colleague, Senator McCain. The problem is that the bill before us represents an agreement between us, the administration and the very same Senators who propounded what was offered as the Democratic substitute in the Armed Services Committee. We have heard a lot about Mr. Skelton's amendment. As I understand it, this amendment would be somewhat redundant. The bill calls for expedited judicial review of H.R. 6166. We are here working on this legislation because the courts told us to do exactly what we are doing. The judicial branch directed Congress to establish procedures for military commissions. We have done that with this bill. Now the minority party wants to hand this issue back to the courts. The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, represents a very delicate compromise that allows us to continue to vigorously prosecute the war on terror while at the same time upholding our international and moral obligations to humane treatment of prisoners. I also want to make very clear that under this rule, the minority will still have an opportunity to offer a substitute or any other germane amendment by way of the motion to recommit. They will have an hour of debate time during the 2 hours that we have granted in this rule to offer an explanation of what their approach is. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that at the end of the day, we will see a strong bipartisan vote. Democrats have already spoken in support of this compromise that we are bringing forward today, and I believe that when it comes to the rollcall, we will have Republicans and Democrats voting to help us address the very, very pressing issue as was put forth so eloquently by Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say that I believe that if you look at the remarks that I made, I talked about those negotiators. I never said that there were Democrats involved in those actual negotiations. What I was saying is that we have a delicate compromise that was fashioned here that enjoys the support of many Democrats who have come forward and spoken in support of what it is that we are trying to do to make sure that we can successfully win this war on terror. And I believe that we made it very clear in the record here, and I think that there was no substantive alternative that did come forward from the Members of the minority at all.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say that, again, as I mentioned, this is a very delicate compromise that we have been able to fashion and put together here, which enjoys bipartisan support. And while there were a wide range of amendments that were submitted, there was no firm alternative provided to our package that was a solution.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? That is exactly what I said in my remarks. MR. HASTINGS of Florida. How disingenuous can you be by suggesting, among other things, that we have offered no plan when we can't even get to the table to offer a plan? We were shut out. And you, Mr. Chairman, have been the master of closed rules. No lesser person than you when I came to this body argued vehemently against closed rules. We are about the business here of undertaking serious business without the will of the House being hampered.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend from Oklahoma and associating myself with his remarks. This is a very, very important debate that we are having. I believe that yesterday's news conference that President Bush and the very brave and courageous President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, held yesterday at the White House, underscores how important that debate that we are going to be facing today is. We were reminded in the remarks that President Karzai offered in response to a question posed to him about how we are handling this issue with the following statement. I am going to read this from the transcript of the news conference, Mr. Speaker. President Karzai said: ``These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.'' Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, ``They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or the 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them? How do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That is why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated, extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.'' Mr. Speaker, those were the words of President Hamid Karzai standing in the White House yesterday. He said we have absolute responsibility to make sure that we go after them and we must bring them to justice. Now we are faced with a challenging situation here. We have a court decision with which we have to contend. When the Hamdan decision was handed down, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, did they offer their plan for interrogation or tribunals? Absolutely not. Nothing was offered whatsoever. When we as Republicans were in the midst of an open and honest debate over the past several days, a bicameral debate, as we were reminded by Mr. Cole, about detainee treatment, did the Democrats offer their own plan? Did they come forward with a plan for interrogation and tribunals? No, they didn't. When we met just last night at the Rules Committee, did the Democrats offer their own plan for interrogation and tribunals? Absolutely not. And now, when faced with a critical vote for the safety of the American people, the Democrats are picking at procedure. They talk about closed rules, sunset provisions. They ask what is the urgency? Anything to distract from the fact that there is nothing behind their curtain. Mr. Speaker, over the last hour, we have listened to our Democratic colleagues stand here and talk about the fact that we need to do everything that we possibly can to have an up-or-down vote on a wide range of issues. An up-or-down vote. Well, that is exactly what we are going to do right here.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, illegal border tunnels entering our country undermine our efforts to protect the border and pose a significant threat to our national security. Last January, I was shocked to hear that the San Diego Tunnel Task Force, a group composed of agents from the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), discovered an elaborate border tunnel connecting Otay Mesa, California and Tijuana, Mexico; a complex 2,500 foot tunnel complete with electricity and ventilation systems, and harboring two tons of marijuana. Just last weekend, officials discovered a 400 foot tunnel connecting Calexico, California and Mexicali, Mexico. This tunnel was equipped with lighting and supported by wooden beams. The underground corridors prove just how persistent the criminals and drug smugglers who quietly slip into our country are. The existence of these tunnels also points to an even more ominous danger: they could be used by terrorists to exploit our porous borders and strike within the U.S. Unfortunately, the Otay Mesa and Calexico tunnels are just two of several underground corridors discovered between America's land borders, trafficking unknown numbers of individuals and illicit substances. In fact, 38 border tunnels have been discovered since September 11, 2001. All but one was on the Southern border. Using manpower and technology to find these tunnels and shut them down will not stop others from being built and used. Tunneling will only begin to subside after tough and clear penalties are enacted for anyone involved in this pernicious violation of our border and our sovereignty. Surprisingly, the laws on the books are ineffectual and, in many ways, non-existent. This is a serious problem that deserves serious punishment for anyone who so flagrantly compromises our border security. The Border Tunnel Prevention Act criminalizes the construction of border tunnels that span our international borders. Specifically, the bill creates a new Federal law to criminalize the construction of illegal border tunnels crossing into the U.S., punishable by a maximum 20 years in prison. It also imposes a maximum 10-year prison sentence on those who recklessly allow others to build such tunnels on their land. In addition, the bill doubles the sentence for using a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods. For example, under current law, knowingly smuggling an illegal alien into the U.S. is punishable by a maximum 10-year prison sentence. Under this bill, that penalty would double to a maximum 20-year prison term if the illegal alien was smuggled in through an illegal border tunnel. Finally, the bill enables the Federal Government to seize any of the assets or property involved in the construction of the illegal border tunnel. The Border Tunnel Prevention Act is just the latest example of House Republicans taking a strong stand when it comes to border security. House Republicans have provided the funding to hire 1,500 new Border Patrol agents this year and 1,200 next year. Last December, we passed H.R. 4437, the Border Security Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act to enhance border security and reform our outdated immigration laws. Last week, we approved H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act, to construct fences at five specific border zones where deaths are common, drug smuggling is rampant and illegal border crossings are numerous. And today, we will consider legislation to swiftly detain and deport dangerous illegal immigrants and enhance prosecution of alien smugglers, cooperation between local law enforcement and Federal immigration officials, and removal of illegal immigrants. Cracking down on those who use and construct tunnels, as well as those who allow them to be constructed on their property, is another commonsense step to our full-court press to securing our border. When combined with a strengthened Border Patrol, enhanced use of sensory technology, and strategic fencing in heavily trafficked areas, we will have an across-the-board approach to smarter border security. Over land, in the air, and underground, we must make a commitment to control and secure the border. I urge all my colleagues to support this important border security bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I first want to extend my congratulations to my Rules Committee colleague, Dr. Gingrey, and thank him for his fine work on this rule as he does such a great job on so many other measures that we bring forward from the Rules Committee. You know, this issue of working together which my friend from Massachusetts has just talked about is something I am very proud of. Included in this measure is a package that was first brought to my attention by my Democratic colleague from California who serves in the other body, Dianne Feinstein, and she raised concern about the issue of tunnels going between Canada and the United States and Mexico and the United States. And she and I spoke about this, and we said let's see if there would be a way in which we could put into place a commonsense reform. She was shocked, my Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, as I was shocked, when we found that it is not a crime to bore a tunnel from Mexico into the United States or to bore a tunnel from Canada into the United States. It is not a crime to use property in the United States for the tunnel to come out and for drugs, human trafficking, other contraband to come through. So we sat down, we joined with our colleagues Duncan Hunter from San Diego, I know that J.D. Hayworth is strongly in support of this effort; and one of the items that we have here is something that I think again is a commonsense reform. Anyone can come to the conclusion that the idea of boring a tunnel between our two countries is just plain wrong. And so I believe that we have done the right thing. We have recognized that border security is national security. And while there is no evidence whatsoever of a Mexican terrorist, the threat of someone utilizing one of those tunnels to pose a terrorist threat to the United States is still there, and I believe that we need to do everything that we can to make sure that we secure it. Madam Speaker, since September 11 of 2001, 38 tunnels have been discovered between the United States and Mexico and Canada and Mexico. Frankly, 37 of them between Mexico and the United States, one from Canada into the United States. And just this past weekend a tunnel was discovered from Mexicali to Calexico, in my State of California. We have a problem. It needs to be addressed, and it is being addressed in a bipartisan way: Democrats and Republicans in the House working together, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate working together to try and step up to the plate and deal with this issue. It is a very clear measure that we have, and I am very proud again to have such strong support for it. We criminalize the utilization of property, and we criminalize those who would bore under the border and come into the United States. And what we also do is we double the penalties for the areas where there already is criminalization. If the drugs are brought by way of a tunnel, we double the penalty, because it is outrageous that this kind of thing is being used. We have a wide range of things that we have done. I heard my friend talk about the fact that we haven't been able to do a lot of things. The Senate just yesterday had a vote on cloture on bringing up the issue of building these strategic fences. Now, I don't believe that we can fence the entire border. I think that we have got 21st-century technology that can be utilized, with motion detectors, unmanned aerial vehicles, other things that can be used. But in heavy urban areas and in the five areas where we see a large problem with human and drug trafficking, building a fence is the right thing to do. And I regularly heard my friends in the Rules Committee say, oh, the Senate is never going to bring this up. We passed it last week, and part of the criticism of it was the Senate wasn't going to bring it up. The Senate has brought it up, and they are going to pass it. And so what we have done is we have found areas of agreement. It is true there are aspects of the immigration debate that have great disagreement. But when we can find areas of agreement like securing our border and we in the House of Representatives can provide leadership to do that, it is something that needs to be done. Why? Because the American people are expecting us to do this. It is our responsibility; it is the Federal Government's responsibility to secure our borders. Madam Speaker, I am proud of all three pieces of legislation that we have here. I am proud of the other things that we have done to make sure that we do secure our borders. It is our job to do it, and I am very happy that we are stepping up to the plate and doing that. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman that I very much want us to be able to complete and address a wide range of issues. The fact that we are able to come together now in a bipartisan way and address these areas of agreement is something I think that can be celebrated, because Republicans are working with Republicans, but Republicans are also working with Democrats who are like-minded to try and deal with some of these very important security issues. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DREIER. The point I am making is, I am talking about a photo identification. In this bill it begins by simply photo identification. Then in 2010 it gets to this notion of citizenship, and the fact of the matter, it begins the implementation in 2008, simply requires photo identification. I am happy to have yielded to my dear friend. I will say, as we look at this challenge that we have, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to realize the potential for fraud is there. We invite fraud and we know that there are potential problems on the horizon, and I know that my friend from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald) yesterday said this is a solution looking for a problem. I think that as we look at past elections, there have been instances of fraud. Common sense is what we are trying to apply here, and I believe that having photo identification when it comes to that extraordinarily important franchise is essential. The chairman of the Administration Committee, Mr. Ehlers, pointed out in the Rules Committee yesterday that in the case of Arizona, when they put it into place, we hear this argument we are going to suppress the vote, we are going to discourage people from being able to vote. They actually had a 15 percent increase in the number of registered voters in the State of Arizona, as was testified by the Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker, this is a good measure. It deserves our support, and I hope Republicans and Democrats will join us in doing it. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, all we are looking for is common sense here. You have to have a photo ID if you look like you are under 18 years of age and want to buy alcohol. You have to have a photo ID if you are going to get on board an airplane. You have to have a photo ID if you are going to enter many office buildings here in the United States. It seems to me that the notion of providing photo identification when you are getting ready to exercise that very important franchise to vote is something that we should have in place.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Res. 1003, a rule providing that, upon its adoption, H. Res. 1000, providing for earmarking reform in the House of Representatives is hereby adopted. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an important reform that members of both parties have supported. In fact, it was a key provision in the House-passed Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. Specifically, with this new rule, member-directed spending to projects in their district, or earmarks, will no longer be anonymous. As it stands now, there are no disclosure requirements for earmarks in appropriations, tax and authorizing legislation. Earmarks can be buried in the text of bills that often number into the thousands of pages. There is no easy way to account for how many earmarks are in a bill and who is sponsoring them. This new rule requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in committee reports. Conference reports must also have a list of earmarks that are ``airdropped'' into the agreement. We are blowing away the fog of anonymity so the public can have a clear picture of what the projects are, how much they cost and who is sponsoring them. This is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a victory for spending taxpayer dollars wisely. As an enforcement mechanism, this new rule also provides for a question of consideration when a bill or conference report does not contain a list of earmarks. The question of consideration is debatable for 30 minutes--15 minutes equally divided. If a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed earmark, they will have to attach their name to it. And they need to be prepared to make their case in full view of their colleagues and constituents. Mr. Speaker, while the report to accompany H. Res. 1000 addresed several issues regarding the implementation of this new rule, I believe that it is important to further clarify how this rule will operate after its adoption. First, this rule will become effective immediately upon its adoption. Any report filed by a committee from that point forward should address this new rule. If there are earmarks in the bill or report, they should be listed appropriately; if there are none, I would encourage the committee chairmen to include a statement to that effect, as is often the current practice with other reporting requirements under rule XIII. Secondly, with regard to measures in conference, we recognize that the exact requirments of the resolution may be problematic given that this rule was not in place at the point of House consideration. We believe that it is important that committee chairmen make a good faith effort to comply with the spirit of the rule, and would regard inclusion of a list of earmarks which were not in either the House or Senate bill or their accompanying reports, i.e. ``airdropped'' earmarks, as meeting the intent of this new rule. Mr. Speaker, the earmark reform will build on the reforms already being implemented by the Appropriations Committee--reforms that have reduced the number of earmarks this year by 37 percent. Overall, spending on member projects was reduced $7.8 billion below last year. Over the last 2 years, Member project spending has decreased by over $10 billion. I want to thank Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee for making significant progress in reining-in government spending. I also want to make very clear that our focus is not solely on appropriations. For the reform to be effective, it must be comprehensive, and that was the commitment made by Speaker Hastert and the leadership of the House. So let me point out that this earmark reform applies across the board. It does not just apply to some committees. It covers all committees and all appropriations, tax and authorizing legislation that moves through regular order. Mr. Speaker, we have taken great care to clearly and precisely state what constitutes a tax, an appropriations and an authorizing earmark. And the good news is that there is more agreement than disagreement on these definitions. Yet clearly, there's no magic bullet. There is not going to be one definition that will be perfect and please everybody. But at the end of the day, we have to come together and move this process forward. If there's an earmark in a bill, it belongs on a list. It's just that simple. Now, is this new disclosure going to completely end the practice of earmarking? No. But it will shine a spotlight on earmarks without grinding the legislative process to a halt. And let me make very clear that the larger goal of this new rule is to make a profound and lasting change in how this institution handles earmarks and spends taxpayer dollars. The goal is to increase transparency and accountability. And the goal is to pull back the curtain on earmarks for the public, who have every right to know. For this earmark reform to be both meaningful and lasting, everyone, from commttee chairman on down, must make a good faith effort to comply with the spirit of the new rule. Our leadership--and certainly the Rules Committee--has made such a commitment. We are determined to make this work. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that while this is an important milestone on the path toward reform, we have not reached the goal-line. Reform is a continuous process. It gains momentum from members who never let up and never settle for the status quo. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for reforming earmarks and yes to setting the stage for more reforms down the road.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record a list of additional Members who would like to be considered as cosponsors of H. Res. 1000. Additional Members include: Mark Green, John Linder, and Charles Bass. The material previously referred by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 1003 Rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 1000 At the end of the resolution add the following new sections: ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text specified in Section 3. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.'' Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say to my friend that to call increasing transparency, accountability, and disclosure as pretend is absolutely outrageous. There is bipartisan concern about this problem, as stated from my friend from Wisconsin and from other Members on both sides of the aisle, and I believe that this measure will allow us to do that. The proposal that the gentleman is talking about may have been listed upstairs, but it wasn't offered on the Committee on Rules for us to consider. And in looking at it, Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you that we found that it was the most impractical thing imaginable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Newport Beach, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. DREIER. I was just going to say that there was no amendment offered in the Rules Committee whatsoever, so nothing was rejected.

Mr. DREIER. If I could yield myself 10 seconds out of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and that I may be permitted to include extraneous material on House Resolution 1003.