David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. Not only are we going to be able to see the Nationals play the first home game in 34 years, but we are going to finally pass bankruptcy reform legislation that can get to the President's desk and be signed. Also, tomorrow many of us are going to be paying our taxes. We have constituents who are complaining justifiably about the high cost of gasoline. On average, passage of this legislation will save a family of four $400 a year, and $400 a year is a very important amount of money for an awful lot of people in this country, and that is the price that they are paying because of the abuse that we have seen of our bankruptcy law that has been going on for years and years and years. I happen to believe that it is essential that we provide that $400 in relief to the American people just as quickly as we can. We know, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said, and I congratulate the gentleman for all of the effort that he has put into this, that we for years and years and years have been going through the amendment process. We have had a wide range of concerns brought to the forefront, and we have been able to address them. I believe that we are doing the right thing by moving ahead with this measure. Mr. Speaker, any Member who votes no on this rule is voting against bankruptcy reform. They are voting against bankruptcy reform. Why? Because it is true 35 amendments were submitted to us in the Committee on Rules. We made it very clear that one of the things that we offered when we came to majority status was the chance to give the minority an opportunity to offer a substitute. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) came before the Committee on Rules and made it very clear to us. He requested a closed or a modified closed rule. Let me say, a modified closed rule means that the minority is offered a chance at providing a substitute, cobbling together a package that in fact is an alternative to the measure that we have brought forward. The minority had an opportunity to do that. What did they choose to do? Members of the minority did not come forward with a substitute. They chose to offer what I describe as cut-and-bite amendments, going through these issues and amending and amending and amending. Mr. Speaker, we would have made in order a substitute had they given it to us.

Mr. DREIER. I have yielded three times. If I could finish my statement, I would like to. We have other people who would like to participate. I know that my dear friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will be more than happy to yield further time to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for years and years and years to get to the point where we could get a measure to the desk of the President of the United States so that he can sign it, so that we can deal with this issue and finally bring about responsible reform of our bankruptcy law. We happen to believe very passionately that people should be accountable for their actions. We do not want anyone to be deprived of access to file for bankruptcy, but we know full well that this has been abused for such a long period of time. That is why we are here today and that is why I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that even though we will see opposition to this rule, at the end of the day, we will see very strong bipartisan support to reform our bankruptcy law.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, what I am suggesting is that because of abuse of bankruptcy filings that take place today, that is a cost that is imposed on American consumers to the average family of four of in excess of $400. That is the reason it is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that we pass this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right. If you look at the cost that exists today because of abuse of bankruptcy law, the abusive filings of bankruptcy, there is, on average, for a family of four of $400 per year.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague talk about baseball, I have to say that when I first came to this town, I was told that there were two things that mattered: number one, the government; number two, the Redskins. I am so gratified that tonight we will have the opportunity to experience the opening game of the Nationals. Now, I am a loyal Dodger fan. Tommy Lasorda has repeatedly told me that if I want to go to heaven, I must be a Dodger fan. But I want to congratulate the District of Columbia and all who have been involved in putting together this team. It has been 34 years since a baseball game has been played, a National League baseball game has been played in the District of Columbia, and we are very, very fortunate as a community to be able to focus on something other than the government and something other than the Redskins.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that our colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), will be engaged in a colloquy in just a moment; and the announcement that I have will, I believe, relate to the colloquy that they are about to engage in. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which is expected to be introduced Monday, April 18, as H.R. 6. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment, one written copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and one electronic copy of the same to the Committee on Rules up in H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, April 19, 2005. Members are advised that the combined text from the committees of jurisdiction should be available for their review on the committees' Web sites as well as on the Committee on Rules Web site by tomorrow, Friday, April 15. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to talk with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, Go Nationals.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first, let me express my appreciation to my friend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) to meet with leaders in the European Union and the European Commission. One of the things that I found from meeting with them and from discussions that I had with our great ambassador to the European Union, Rockwell Schnabel, is that trade is obviously the wave of the future. We have one of the most important trade relationships between the 25 member European Union and the United States of America on the face of the earth. In fact, trade between the EU and the United States is just short of $1 trillion a year. It is $966 billion, in fact, last year. I think it is important for us to note that we have dealt with more than a few problems with the European Union. We have lots of great challenges, and I happen to believe that one of the best ways to deal with those challenges is for us to enhance that trade relationship. We are in the midst of discussing the establishment of our first bilateral trade agreement in a long period of time as we in the not- too-distant future are going to be addressing the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which will include the Dominican Republic. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, we have put together a wide range of bilateral agreements over the past several years. I today met with the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates, one of our great allies in the global war on terror, and we hope very much we are going to be able to put together a free trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates. I think it is also important for us to note that in dealing with the European Union one of the best ways for us to address many of the disputes and challenges we have would be to embark upon a U.S.-EU free trade agreement. That is why today I have introduced H. Con. Res. 131, and I would encourage my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this very important measure. It is just a vehicle to begin the discussion, the prospects of negotiating for a U.S.-EU FTA. Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the disputes that we have right now with the European Union. We all know that agriculture subsidies within the EU are many, many, many times greater than the agriculture subsidies that are provided for U.S. farmers. In fact, as we negotiated and worked on the farm bill, I voted against it at the end of the day, the farm bill, because I was concerned about the level of subsidization for U.S. agriculture. But one of the things that some of the leaders who were supportive of that measure here in the House said was that if we can see a diminution of the level of subsidization that the European Union provides to its agriculture sector of the economy we will not have to have the agriculture subsidies that we have in the United States. So, obviously, embarking on negotiations for a U.S.-EU free trade agreement would allow us to really begin to boldly address the issue of agriculture subsidies that are so great within the European Union. Another dispute that we have is this struggle between Airbus and Boeing. We know that within the European Union there are tremendous subsidies for Airbus, and I believe we should do everything that we can to diminish those so we can have, in fact, a level playing field as we address the issue in the aerospace industry. And we have several other very important issues that need to be addressed in the area of privacy, in the area of e-commerce. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this step which we have taken today to begin the discussion of a U.S.-EU free trade agreement will be very beneficial in enhancing the standard of living of the American people, the people in the European Union, and the people around the world.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the Gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, and the Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, for introducing this important resolution. As a member of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, I am proud to rise in support of this measure. Over 40 years ago, fewer than 2 in 10 families owned stocks. Today, this figure has risen dramatically, with more than 50 percent of Americans owning assets dependent on the stock market. We've come a long way. But I believe we can still do more to provide greater opportunities for all Americans to become part of the Investor Class. One method is to reach out directly to our local communities. In my own district, I am sponsoring a team of students from Bonita High School (La Verne) to participate in the Securities Industry Association's (SIA) stock market game. This program provides teachers with an engaging real-world tool for teaching basic economic skills while instilling in their students an understanding of the importance of sound saving and investing. As students track their team's portfolio, they are able to commit the skills they learn in school to real-world financial decisions. It is also important to note that efforts to enhance financial literacy should not just be confined to our own country. As we strive for expanded trade and investment with our global partners, the financial ups and downs in world markets have a greater impact on our local economies. Helping to spread financial and economic literacy to emerging markets is critically important to establishing stability in developing nations. For example, in 2004 Citigroup and the Citigroup Foundation provided more than $22 million in support of financial education programs in activities that reached millions of people in more than 40 countries. These activities included community development projects to support the expansion of thrift and credit-based cooperative groups in India and the development of a microfinance industry in China. Financial literacy is more than just crunching numbers. It is about empowerment and opportunity. It is about making your money work for you, whether it is buying a first home, paying for college, or planning for retirement. That is why we must do everything we possibly can to ensure that all Americans have a solid understanding of personal finance. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the world mourns the passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, it is important to note that the struggle for which the Pope lived goes on today. I remember very vividly, back in June of 1989, being in Krakow, Poland, when we saw those active in the Solidarity movement clawing their way to freedom. We all know the outcome of that. As we watched the Pope decline over the past several weeks and months, I had the honor over the Easter break to join with a bipartisan delegation of our colleagues to travel throughout the Middle East. It is interesting to note, as I said, that the Pope's dream is alive and well. The dream that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and today George W. Bush has is one that is encouraging people throughout the world to seek an opportunity to enjoy freedom. While we were in the Middle East, we had the chance to go to Beirut, Lebanon, where we met with university students who stood in Martyr Square, and who said they are imprisoned today by the Syrians and that they are trying to claw their way to freedom. So the exact same message, Mr. Speaker, that came forth in 1989 in Eastern and Central Europe is alive and well today. Thank God this Pope lived.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, our position as the world's leading economy is founded on the principle of entrepreneurship. This spirit inspires us to seek new and innovative products and services which enhance Americans' lives by exploring bold business ventures. After two failed attempts to start an automobile manufacturing company, in 1903, Henry Ford and 11 business associates raised $28,000 (nearly $600,000 in today's dollars) to establish the Ford Motor Company, ushering in the age of modern transportation. This venture not only enhanced the free flow of products and people across the nation, but also spawned a revolutionary assembly-line production process, increasing manufacturing productivity and lowering prices for commercial and consumer goods for the American people. In the process, millions of new jobs were created in other new fields, such as part manufacturers, service repair technicians, salesmen, and customer service representatives. Venture capital also played a significant role in the boom of entrepreneurship that contributed to the unprecedented economic growth of the 1990s. According to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), venture capitalists raised over $250 billion between 1994 and 2000 for investment in start-up companies. This frenzied business activity helped spur Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) over the same period worth over $84 billion, boosting the value of financial markets. One major product of this tremendous financing activity was the commercialization of the Internet, which continues to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. The Internet allows people to connect from all over the world, enhancing the free flow of products, services and most importantly, information. This technological revolution also created hundreds of thousands of American jobs, such as software developers, information technology technicians, salesmen and customer service representatives, many of which did not exist before. The start-up capital raised by these entrepreneurs made innovations such as the automobile and the Internet possible and played a key role in transforming the U.S. economic and social landscape. So what's next on the horizon? What new industry will revolutionize the U.S. economy? If we ever intend to find out, it is imperative that we continue to encourage greater investment spending in the economy. In 2003, President Bush and the Congress took an important step forward by reducing the capital gains tax rate for individuals to 15 percent. Since then, the economy has grown at an average a rate of 4.5 percent, business investment has increased by $230 billion, financial markets are up $2 trillion and over 3 million new jobs have been created. However, this rate is scheduled to expire in just four short years. Unfortunately, the complex, confusing and temporary capital gains tax rates create a lock-in effect, a barrier which discourages investment and entrepreneurship, stifling job creation. That is why I am introducing the Investment Tax Simplification Act (ITSA) of 2005, which would help to knock down this barrier and enhance the free flow of investment capital in the economy by establishing a permanent and simplified maximum 15 percent capital gains tax for individuals and corporations. In addition, the capital gains tax would be eliminated for individuals in the 10 and 15 percent tax brackets. Entrepreneurial small businesses, the driving force of growth in our economy, rely on access to capital to innovate and expand. According to the NVCA, there is over $70 billion in venture capital funds sitting on the sidelines waiting for investment opportunities. Establishing a simplified 15 percent capital gains tax rate for individuals and corporations will help get that capital into the economy, turn innovative ideas into reality, create new jobs for American workers and produce new goods and services for all consumers. The NVCA estimates that between 2000 and 2003, venture capital funded companies created more than 600,000 new jobs for American workers. Many of these new, high paying jobs are in innovative, cutting edge industries, such as biomedical and information technologies that rely on private investing and financing. Enacting a permanent and simplified capital gains tax for individuals and corporations would also have an appreciable impact on the Investor Class, the more than 50 percent of Americans who own assets dependent on financial markets. The ITSA would bolster the investment holdings of the Investor Class, helping them pay for their children's education, buy their first home or plan for retirement. And eliminating the capital gains tax for lower income Americans would provide them with greater opportunities to attain financial stability and build wealth. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, in its February 2005 ``Budget Options'' publication, recognizes the importance of making the 15 percent capital gains tax rate permanent. It states ``Because the lower rates expire at the end of 2008, investments made after that time will not benefit from them at all, and investments made between 2003 and 2008 will benefit only partially because some of their returns will be earned after 2008. Hence many of the gains in efficiency that would result from the effects of the lower rates on the allocation of investment will not be realized unless [the rates] are perceived to be permanent.'' Reducing the capital gains tax is also a proven winner at increasing revenues to the Federal Treasury. After the 1997 capital gains tax cut from 28 percent to 20 percent, increased economic activity resulted in an increase in capital gains revenues, from $54 billion in 1996 to $118 billion in 2000, a gain of nearly 120 percent. And as a result of the 2003 capital gains tax cut and other tax relief provisions, last year the Federal Treasury realized $109 billion in unanticipated revenues. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Investment Tax Simplification Act of 2005. Enhancing the free flow of capital in the economy will stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship, providing enormous benefit for the American people.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) who is doing a superb job, along with our colleague from Dallas, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). As members of the Committee on Rules, they are also serving in the very important capacity on the Committee on the Budget where they have played a key role in fashioning this work product that we are going to see. Let me speak about the rule itself. I am happy to see the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority member from Rochester, New York. I am happy this rule has been able to report out every single substitute that was submitted to the Committee on Rules calling for an opportunity to be considered here in the House. I am also happy we have been able to include an additional amendment which is unusual in that as Members know from the perspective of both sides of the aisle, when Democrats were in the majority here, Republicans in the majority, we have traditionally only made substitutes in order. But out of deference to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, we have chosen to make in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe this rule is extraordinarily fair, extraordinarily balanced and will provide an opportunity for a wide range of public policy discussions to take place as we move ahead with consideration. Let me say when it comes to the budget itself, I think we have a clear choice. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) came before us and discussed the questions that relate to the budget proposal that have been assembled by the members of the committee under the very able leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I know the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), as we proceeded with questions in the Committee on Rules, talked about the gentlewoman's concern over things like tax cuts. I will say it is very important as we proceed with this budget for us to recognize what it is that tax cuts have brought about. I know in the eyes of many people it is counterintuitive in a sense that if we reduce tax rates, we can somehow increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury and reduce the size of the Federal deficit. I know it is counterintuitive because there are many who unfortunately are stuck with this notion that the way to deal with the deficit problem, the way to increase revenues to the Treasury is to dramatically increase taxes. One of the points that I think is important for us to make, and I mentioned this yesterday in the Committee on Rules, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Joshua Bolton, has on more than a few occasions reminded me, and I am sure he has said this to other groups, that if we did not have the tragic attack on September 11 against our Nation, September 11, 2001, if we did not have the horrendous cost of the war in Iraq with which we have had to contend, we would still have a Federal deficit. We often hear during this debate that we saw under President Clinton a dramatic improvement in the budget and a surplus created. It was during the leadership provided by a Republican Congress that we got to that point, but the issue that needs to be brought to the forefront was that it was the economic slowdown, not the attack of September 11, not the war in Iraq, as painful as that has been, that led to the deficit itself. It is the economic slowdown that began the last two quarters of the year 2000. The recession, the slowdown that we saw in early 2001, of course exacerbated as is regularly said by the attacks of September 11, by the corporate scandals we have seen, and the other challenges we have had to contend, but that economic slowdown is what led to the deficit itself. So the single most important thing that we can do is to ensure that we expand our economy. That is the best way to deal with the deficit. That is not to say we should not be reining in Federal spending. I believe at my core as a Republican that the reach of the Federal Government impinges on individual initiative and responsibility, two very, very important things that need to be encouraged. If we can couple focusing on economic growth with responsibly reining in Federal spending, it is very clear that is the most effective way to deal with the deficit. So what have we seen? When we had the debates in 2001 and then in 2002 and 2003 and 2004 on the issue of tax cuts, we constantly heard the argument from our very distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle that the Bush tax cut would ruin the country. It would dramatically increase the deficit itself. I am very happy to report, as I know most of my colleagues know, based on the projections we had for the last fiscal year, because of the economic growth that we saw, because of the unanticipated revenues that came into the Federal Treasury, because of the tax reduction that brought about that economic growth, we have seen the deficit itself actually reduced by $109 billion over what had been projected. That reduction in the anticipated level of the Federal deficit demonstrates that reducing rates is, in fact, the best way for us to deal with this. That is just a philosophical difference that we have between the two political parties. Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, was absolutely right when he argued this in the early part of the 1960s. It was successful. We saw dramatic economic growth as President Kennedy brought about a dramatic reduction on capital gains in the early 1960s. We have empirical evidence. It happened during the 1980s when we saw a doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury following the implementation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that this package is one which is deserving of bipartisan support. It is a responsible budget which will rein in the kind of profligate Federal spending that we have seen in the past and which we know is very easy to engage in, regardless of political party. Under Republican leadership, we are reining in that growth in Federal spending and at the same time we are focused on very important priorities. Last night in a speech the President gave to an event we had, he talked about the importance of an ownership society, how homeownership is at an all-time high. It is approaching 70 percent. Minority homeownership is at an all-time high. One of the things we want to do, we want to make sure that younger workers have an opportunity to have confidence in the Social Security system. We have all been forced to pay into the Social Security system. Anyone who has been around since 1937 when it was implemented has been forced to pay into that system. We need to make sure that it is solvent. We know in 13 very short years more will be going out of Social Security than is coming into Social Security through the FICA taxes. We also know while people talk about the so-called $2 trillion hole, the other night the Treasury Secretary told me if nothing is done on Social Security, that borrowing level will be even greater than the $2 trillion that those who are critical of the President's proposal argue is out there on the horizon. I think if Members look at these very important issues and then focus on what is our number one priority, the national security of the United States, this budget is one which should enjoy broad support across the board from Democrats and Republicans alike. I urge support of this rule which allows alternative proposals, those that I have just discussed, to be considered. I think the rule itself is one which is modeled after the rules that our friends when they were in the majority put together for consideration of the budget. I look forward to strong support for the rule, and I hope at the end of the day there is strong bipartisan support for the budget resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who has worked long and hard on this and has made four trips to Iraq and understands extraordinarily well how critically important it is for us to ensure that we get the resources necessary for our men and women in uniform there. We have many important things that need to be done in this measure. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) talked in his opening remarks about the need for us to ensure the completion of our compound. It is not just an embassy, our compound, in Baghdad. I am one who would be very critical of a massive expenditure for a huge compound like this, but we have got to realize, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) said, that sending a message throughout Iraq that we are taking over a former palace of Saddam Hussein would not be the right signal for us to send. And that is why it is essential that we proceed with the construction of this very important compound. I think it is also very important for us to note that we have got to provide a reimbursement for the important humanitarian assistance that is being provided to those who have suffered, the over 150,000 who were killed, the people who have suffered from the tsunami. It is very important for us to deal with that. And, Mr. Speaker, it is also very important for us to recognize that this is the first must-pass piece of legislation. And what does that say? It says that we are keeping our word based on a very rigorous debate that we had last fall in the 108th Congress, and that had to do with implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the intelligence reforms. And just to remind our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of us, and I was privileged to serve as one of the five House Republican conferees on that bill to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and one of the things that we focused on was border security, realizing that Mohammed Atta, one of the individuals who flew a plane into one of the World Trade Center towers, had a valid driver's license, as did the 19 others who were involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11. But Mohammed Atta was in a unique position. He had been pulled over for a traffic violation and was actually scheduled to appear in court for that violation after September 11, and we all know what he did. He brought down one of the World Trade Center towers. And that is why we felt very strongly last fall when we were negotiating that conference agreement that we include language that this House overwhelmingly voted in support of, and that was to deal with this driver's license question, the problem of having people get into their hands, people who are here illegally, access to driver's licenses. And that is why we took those provisions. And, unfortunately, because the other body would not allow us to include those in the 9/11 conference, we had gotten to a point where we said we would include those in the first must-pass piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is the first must-pass piece of legislation. And the REAL ID Act, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and a wide range of other Members have offered include, it was a measure that was passed with strong bipartisan support here, 260 votes, and it is designed to do a number of very important things that are focused on our border security, which is tied to our national security, a very important aspect of our national security. It says that those States that provide driver's licenses to people who are here illegally cannot have those driver's licenses used for any Federal purpose, meaning that we recognize the importance of federalism, we recognize States rights, which is a very important thing for us to do, but what we do say is that those States which grant licenses to people who are here illegally, those licenses cannot be used for a Federal purpose, meaning getting on board an aircraft, meaning going into a Federal courthouse, applying for any kind of Federal program. The idea behind it is that we hope we will not see States granting driver's licenses to people who are here illegally. That is really our goal. One of the reasons that I enthusiastically supported Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor of California 1\1/2\ years ago was the goal of ensuring that we did not see driver's licenses get into the hands of people who are here illegally. So this measure which we are going to be voting on here today, I am happy to say we have now included this in the rule itself. By voting for the rule, we will be including that measure. But another provision that is very important happens to be the goal that we have of closing the 3\1/2\ mile gap that exists in the 14-mile fence that goes from the Pacific Ocean to what is called the Otay Mesa on the border between San Diego and Tijuana. We have been able to see a great deal of success, based on reports that we have had from our border patrol agents, with the existence of this 14-mile fence. But, unfortunately, my California Coastal Commission, and I say it is my California Coastal Commission because I am a Californian, and I do not support what they have done, but they have chosen to sue the Federal Government to prevent completion of that 3\1/2\ mile gap in the 14-mile fence because of the fact that something known as the Bell's vireo bird has chosen to nest on that fence. And, Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that in the name of improving the environment and saving this bird, we have seen the environment devastated as well as the serious exacerbation of the illegal immigration problem across that border. Why? Because now through what is known as the Tijuana estuary we see people flowing in great numbers and all kinds of waste and devastation is there. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and our former colleague, Doug Ose, who worked hard on this issue over the past several years. Back in 1997, with the support of President Clinton, we passed legislation that was designed to build this 14-mile fence, and it is an amazing commentary that it took a shorter period of time to win the Second World War than it has to complete this 14-mile fence. I believe that with passage of this very, very important rule and the legislation itself, we will be able to deal with that. Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of very important things in this measure, aid and support for our efforts in Iraq, and we have enjoyed resounding success. Is it still a ``tough slog,'' as the Secretary of Defense said? Absolutely. No one ever claimed that war is easy. But we are enjoying success now, as we see the people of Iraq, 8.5 million strong, casting their ballots; as we see their great appreciation for the U.S. support there; as we see this realization with the leadership in Iraq, it is not the United States Government, the leadership in Iraq or the 275 Members of the Transitional National Assembly. So we are in position right now where we are doing the right thing with passage of this legislation. It is absolutely essential. Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I want to begin by thanking my colleagues; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) for his commitment to the effort of this resolution. Behind this resolution, of course, I want to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for all of his efforts, and I appreciate his once again bringing to mind 1848, as he likes to regularly remind our Governor of California about what took place in 1848. I also want to thank my good friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) said, has been working for a long period of time on this. And of course Doug Bereuter, who is no longer serving in this House, but obviously put a lot of effort in this. And of course our former colleagues, Mr. Solomon and Mr. Frost. I was privileged to serve on their task force in the early 1990s, and it is amazing when one looks at the success that we have enjoyed during that period of time. In fact, one of the greatest things that took place following our effort to establish those parliaments and put into place the expertise and the technical assistance and helping with constituent relations and demonstrating independence from the Executive Branch and all those great things as we worked with those fledgling democracies in Hungary and then Czechoslovakia and then Yugoslavia, obviously countries that have changed since that period of time, but Romania and Poland. It is amazing that it has not been necessary for the task force to be in place any longer. Why? Because we have seen following the efforts of that task force a great deal of success with those emerging parliaments, doing the very, very important independent thinking that parliaments need to do. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) pointed out so well in quoting President Bush's inaugural address and then his State of the Union message, it is very clear that we have witnessed an explosion of democracies throughout the entire world in recent months, and the fact that we have seen this explosion underscores the importance of this resolution which will, at the direction of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), call for the establishment of this Commission, and I want to thank Speaker Hastert, and of course the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for their strong support of this effort as well. To me, this is one of the most exciting things that we will be able to do as an institution for a long period of time in the coming months and years, and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. If one looks at the challenges that we face, we know that the establishment of democracies is critical to the potential for us to diminish the kinds of threats that exist in the world. Military threats, terrorist threats are diminished with the success of democracies. And we all know that one election does not a democracy make. Over the past several months, to the surprise of many, we have seen elections take place in some places that have never experienced elections before; Afghanistan, for example. Never before had we seen an election take place in Afghanistan. We have just now seen for the first time in a long, long period of time free and fair elections in the Palestinian territories, and then of course the most heralded election, when 8\1/2\ million Iraqis, to the surprise of many throughout the world, actually exercised that right to vote. And when we saw the emergence of the Shiia population, many thought that they would through the election process squelch the opportunity for the Sunnis and the Kurds to be involved in the process, when instead with this election having taken place the Shiia have been reaching out to try and hold Iraq together. And so now, we, as an institution, the United States House of Representatives, have a wonderful opportunity to provide assistance to countries that have seen elections take place and have yet to see their parliaments really flourish, first be established and then flourish. And then of course just in recent weeks, what is it that we have seen? As the Secretary of State said not too long ago, if one were to guess that 250,000 people would be on the streets of Beirut, Lebanon calling for independence, it would have come as a surprise to almost anyone, and yet that is exactly what we have seen. And so these opportunities for democracies to take off are emerging all over the globe, and that is why the establishment of this Commission is, I believe, going to be critically important to help with the strengthening of those democracies through the talent and expertise that will be necessary for the parliamentarians in those democracies. And so, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I believe this is a historic opportunity for the United States Congress to be involved in our direct association with democracy building and most specifically parliament building in those countries that are coming to the forefront, and we all hope that there will be even greater opportunities for the United States Congress to be involved in that democracy building in countries where we could not possibly even fathom it today. That is why I hope that one day we will get to the point where this Commission will no longer be necessary too, when we see political pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and the existence of democratic institutions globally, because we know that that will play a great role in ensuring the stability and the success and the freedom that I believe all mankind deserves.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of our vibrant and growing economy is our continuing quest to give Americans more opportunities to become part of our ownership society. I am going to respond to some of the things that have been said by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I think it is important to note that opportunity and ownership is what we are about. We are very proud of the fact that we have lowered barriers so that the rate of homeownership now stands at a record 69 percent; nearly 70 percent of the American people own their own homes. And as a percentage, it is continuing to grow dramatically in the minority community. We have encouraged personal savings and investment through tax relief so families are better able to plan for their own future; and I will say that the comments of my colleagues who were just before us aside, we are working very hard to bring voluntary, and I underscore the word voluntary, Mr. Speaker, personal retirement accounts to younger workers so that they can better control their own financial destiny. Our past and future success depends on the ability of every person to realize the American Dream of being an owner. Now, last summer the President had a great statement on this issue of ownership, Mr. Speaker. He said, if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country. I think the President was right on target with that. Nowhere is that statement on the issue of ownership and vitality more true than in California's Silicon Valley, where broad-based employee stock options spurred the innovation and ingenuity that led the economic boon that we saw in that technology sector during the 1990s and is still in the process of coming back today. It was in the emerging technology industry that the idea of using employee ownership to attract talented workers flourished. Small laboratories of ideas with little capital could not afford to pay lucrative salaries to get highly skilled workers. So many of these ideas emerged from basements and garages and, obviously, high salaries were not an option for many of those who were creating new and innovative ideas that improve our quality of life. Instead of lucrative salaries, which they could not offer, instead they used the hope, the hope, not the guarantee, but the hope of success to incentivize smart workers to take risks on new ideas. And with that notion, the high- tech, knowledge-based economy took off. It took off dramatically. It produced a thriving and innovative economy over the past decade and a half that has generated millions of jobs, dramatically raised our standard of living, and made the United States of America the global leader in technology and service-oriented industries that it is today. This happened because, as we all know, when you have a stake in the future of an idea, a company, or a home, you are going to work more productively and more creatively to ensure its success. Now, Mr. Speaker, a good analogy is the mindset of the homeowner. Most of us who own homes recognize the value of taking good care of that investment, our home. If we protect them from damage, maintain their upkeep and improve their appearance, we think we have a good chance of making a profit on that investment. But all of us can admit that when we were renters, when we did not have a stake in maintaining or increasing a property's value, the level of commitment to improve that property was obviously quite low. There was zero motivation for us to do that. Like the homeowner, Mr. Speaker, the employee-owner wants to see as high a return as possible from his time and effort on the job. That motivates him to contribute more of his sweat equity to the company. That increases the value of the company to him personally, and it increases the value of the company for all shareholders. That tool for creating that risk-taking mentality and giving corporate ownership is the employee stock option. Today's stock options have allowed 14 million American workers to become corporate owners through broad-based stock option plans. Companies with broad-based plans give stock options to over 50 percent of their employees, many giving an even higher percentage. These owners are not wealthy people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible figure, 79 percent of all U.S. workers who hold stock options earn less than $75,000 a year. Again, I will say that, when we hear stock options as being criticized because they are something that has been abused, and high-paid, million-dollar executives get it, actually the numbers are 79 percent of stock options are held by Americans who earn less than $75,000 a year. The majority of these owners, 93 percent, to be exact, are lower- and middle-income workers who have converted their labor into financial rewards. It has allowed them to send kids to college, prepare for retirement, and put down payments on their homes. But the ability of rank-and-file workers to remain a part of our ownership society through stock options is tragically in jeopardy. When the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued its mandatory expensing accounting standard last December, it caused many companies to curtail and, in some cases, eliminate the use of broad-based stock option plans. This is before the standard has taken effect. That means as a result of the Financial Accounting Standard Board's action, a proven ownership tool for millions of Americans and their families will come to an end. That is what is on the horizon. That not only limits opportunities for workers; it is without a doubt going to negatively impact the future of our knowledge-based economy. The entire basis of our success in the last part of the 20th century rested on individuals taking risks. Those risk-takers have built some of the most innovative job-creating companies in America, and stock options have been the major ingredient for their success. But we do not want to stop there. We obviously want to see that type of entrepreneurial behavior continue into the 21st century. Our economy depends on the ability of future small companies to turn ideas into product or service. And in so doing, we see the creation of jobs and wealth. We hope they will then grow into bigger companies and create even more jobs and greater prosperity. It is incredibly ironic that, at the very point in time, when maintaining our global competitive edge is so critically important for us in our future, we are severing the ability of America's innovators to use what has been a key tool for our success. It has been so successful, and this is just incredible, Mr. Speaker, this whole notion has been so successful, that our global competitor, the People's Republic of China, the People's Republic of China, has incorporated stock options into its 5-year economic plan to base its technology industry on. So why in the world are we doing the this? Why are we taking away an ownership opportunity for skilled workers and their families and hampering our future economic growth? The answer is plain and very obvious. There are those at the Financial Accounting Standards Board, those in the traditional business community and those in the media who simply do not like stock options as a business management tool. They seized on the aftermath of the Enron scandal and the public's legitimate hunger to curb corporate excess, and it is understandable. We obviously want to end corporate excess and the kind of abuse that we have seen. But they seized on that to stifle the use of broadbased employee stock options through the accounting standards setting process. Even though stock option expensing never would have prevented the corporate abuse at Enron, nor were broadbased stock option plans involved in that scandal at all. So in the name of accurate corporate reporting for investors, the Financial Accounting Standards Board stumbled down the paths toward its faulty December-issued standard. But, before I delve into that standard itself, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this idea that stock option expensing will curb excess at the top. Mr. Speaker, many expensing proponents argue that forcing companies to expense will reign in excessive compensation through stock option grants and ensure that CEOs will be unable to manipulate stock options. That argument is false for two reasons: First, we have proof that the Financial Accounting Standards Board accounting standard won't hurt CEOs and senior executives who will be able to figure out how to compensate themselves, but it will, in fact, eliminate a valuable ownership opportunity for rank-and-file workers. Listen to this sample of a recent press item: Now this was reported just a week or two ago by Reuters, on February 28. They said, and I quote, Pfizer, one of the great innovative companies in this country, obviously, in dealing with the area of health care, Pfizer said in its filing with the Security and Exchange Commission that ``in response to new accounting rules requiring employee stock options to be expensed, it plans in 2005 to reduce the number of options granted, `except to those of most senior Pfizer management.''' Now, on February 19, the New York Times reported that the Time Warner Company, one of our great companies in this country, they said in the New York Times piece, that Time Warner ``would no longer grant stock options to most employees, citing new accounting rules, new financial reporting standards which will require companies to treat stock options as expenses, `make it prohibitively expensive' to continue the practice for all of their employees.'' So the Times also reported research and industry survey data estimates, the estimates that show at least 40 percent of publicly held companies are reconsidering broadbased option plans. And it goes on to say, and I quote, ``and as many as a third may discontinue them in the next few years.'' May discontinue them. A third of them may discontinue them in the next few years. Second, Mr. Speaker, senior managers who cook the books and abuse stock options are breaking the law. Accounting standards will not stop someone intent on engaging in criminal behavior. Individuals will simply find other ways to achieve his goal. Now, let us turn to the standard itself. Interestingly, the Financial Accounting Standards Board proclaimed its intention to come up with a mandatory expensing standard, a standard that would ensure accurate corporate reporting and transparent information for investors. Again, I underscore the last, transparent information for investors. In 2003 testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, the chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, Bob Herz, stated the Board's intention to improve the financial accounting and reporting of stock options. He specifically noted the need to address, and I quote, ``the noncomparability and, thus, the potential lack of transparency created by the alternative accounting treatments presently available for reporting stock options.'' So Mr. Herz talked about the need for greater transparency. Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for investors, this standard will do everything but. This standard that they promulgated in December, set to take effect in June, will do everything but bring clarity, comparability and accuracy to corporate financial statements. It is, in fact, going to provide investors with misleading information. The Financial Accounting Standards Board's standard requires companies to make gross assumptions based on highly volatile factors and produce one number that will represent the so-called cost of employee stock options. We are talking about stock options that have never been exercised by the employee, may never be exercised, and are not tradable in open capital markets where value could be determined. The standard recommends that companies should use either the Black-Scholes or the binomial methods of accounting or an alternative method derived by their experts for calculating the value of the expense. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is instructive that the inventor of the binomial method stated last year that his method does not work for fixed price employee stock options and should not be used. Now, Mr. Speaker, the President's former National Economic Council Advisor, Larry Lindsey, led an expert panel in a study of Financial Accounting Standard Board's mandatory expensing standards that they promulgated last December. In its report to the Securities and Exchange Commission last month, the Lindsey panel found that the two valuation models are inherently flawed when used for employee stock options. And, in fact, in a letter that was sent to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Donaldson, the Lindsey panel members conclude, and I quote, ``if the rule were to be implemented as is and on the current time line, the quality of information available to the public regarding employee stock options would be inadequate and potentially misleading.'' And again that is the Lindsey panel report. And this is the letter that was sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission. They said it would be inadequate and potentially misleading. Those are the regulations that have been promulgated by FASB. They went on to state that ``the investing public would not be able to compare the impact of stock option plans across companies because the recommended models produce such wide results with different plausible sets of assumptions.'' Now, that is a pretty compelling indictment on what has been put forward, Mr. Speaker. What happened to the FASB's determination to give investors, as I said just a moment ago, accurate, comparable and transparent information? Let me go back to what Chairman Herz said the Board wanted to address, the noncomparability and thus the potential lack of transparency created by the alternative accounting treatment presently available for reporting stock options. But the Financial Accounting Standards Board is not helping investors with the new expensing standard. They are actually hurting investors. The new rule set to take effect this June will actually lead to just plain wrong numbers on corporate financial statements. So much for creating transparency for our investors, which is what the FASB Chairman said was the goal. And instead of implementing one method for calculating option expensing, they have perpetuated what they had previously viewed as problematic, alternative accounting treatments. With this standard, companies will have a choice between two bad valuation models, or be able to pick one all on their own. How can investors compare numbers with companies who choose their own method of calculation? The fallacy of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's expensing standard could not be more transparent. You do not have to be an accountant to understand that stock options are never a corporate expense. They are a right given to employees to, at some point down the road, buy shares of the company's stock at a fixed price at a set period of time. They cost a company absolutely nothing. As the Lindsey panel noted, it disagrees with the premise that employee stock options, and I quote from the Lindsey panel report, are ``a net cost to the firm and that this cost can be measured precisely and reliably.'' So they point to the fact that it is not a net cost to the firm, and it is also specious to believe that they can be measured precisely and reliably. But, Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge stock options do dilute the value of shared held by existing shareholders of a company. So while there is no cost to the company, there is in fact a cost to the shareholder in the form of what is called share dilution. That said, it is clear to me that there are problems with how stock options are reported in financial statements today. Let my say that again. I do believe that, today, we do have problems in the way that stock options are actually reported. That said, it is clear that there are problems of how they are reported in those financial statements. Investors really do need accurate, comparable and meaningful information about how those broadbased plans affect the companies. Expensing provides none of this information. By contrast, uniform disclosure requirements would be what we need to actually help the shareholders. It is critically important that we do share that goal with Mr. Hertz, but his plan is not the way to deal with the issue of transparency. We believe that we have a better solution. That is why we must stand on the side of investors and implement rules that will give meaningful information and make it public. The Lindsey report supports mandating increased disclosures. And, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this House has gone on record doing. My distinguished colleague, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) from the other side of the aisle and other Democrats have introduced supporting legislation. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and many of our colleagues have introduced last month a strongly bipartisan bill which would require that the Securities and Exchange Commission implement uniform disclosures so that we can get at that issue of transparency. Specifically in our bill, Mr. Speaker, at a minimum, companies would have to include in their footnotes a plain English discussion of share value dilution. They would have to expand disclosure of the dilutive effect of options on the company's earnings per share number. And all stock information would have to be placed prominently in a way that allows investors to easily compare information among different companies. Finally, to ensure that stock options for executives are transparent, companies would have to provide a summary of stock options granted to the top five most highly compensated executives in that company. This is the kind of information that will help investors clearly understand the impact of employee stock options on share value. On the completely opposite side is the Financial Accounting Standards Boards actions, which will actually do harm. Not only will it result in misleading expensing numbers, it will remove the current disclosures used by companies that do offer broadbased stock option plans. So the useful information we currently see in financial statements will disappear after this standard takes effect. Literally, investors will have nothing to go on but a flawed and unreliable number mandated by our Nation's accounting standards board. That is indeed disturbing for those who care about the integrity of our financial markets. Although this change in accounting treatment may be arcane to many in the real world, the new rule will hurt the risk takers who are creating jobs and wealth in this country and improving the standard of living and quality of life for so many people with creative, innovative ideas. It will hit particularly hard the small businesses, skilled workers, and entrepreneurs who form the backbone of America's infrastructure. No matter what high-growth sector of the economy you look at, you will find that the common thread to its success has been employee stock options. Without that motivating incentive, would-be entrepreneurs and existing innovative companies will be less likely to take risks and transform new ideas into industry. Now, I and many of my colleagues, as I said, have co-sponsored our bill, H.R. 913; and we believe that we need to stand on the side of investors and the partners and the workers in our Nation's ownership society. FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, has issued its mandatory expensing rule. That part is done. But the SEC and the administration have an opportunity to finally provide investors with improved information and at the same time prevent the FASB from killing off stock options for rank-and-file workers. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Securities and Exchange Commission will pay heed to our concerns when they provide guidance on the FASB rule later this month. They need to listen to the 312 House Members of the 108th Congress who supported legislation that we worked on with our colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) from the Committee on Financial Services. We were able to reach, working together, a legislative compromise that again enjoyed Democrat and Republican support; 312 Members of that bill effectively addressed concerns about executive compensation and protected rank-and-file corporate ownership. Mr. Speaker, preserving broad-based plans and enhancing stock option disclosures are key to continuing the pro-growth, pro-ownership society and economy that Congress and this administration have worked so diligently to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Securities and Exchange Commission to take action to prevent the Financial Accounting Standards Board's misguided standards from harming workers and investors. America's 21st century expansion and growth that we are all pursuing and encouraging so vigorously, we should realize that it will hinge in large part on this decision that will be made. So I hope very much that they make the correct decision so that we can continue to see our economy thrive.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 14 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules to room H-312 of the Capitol no later than 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 15. As in past years, the Committee on Rules intends to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes. Members are advised that the text of the concurrent resolution as ordered reported by the Committee on the Budget should be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules tomorrow, Friday, March 11. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Budget Office to ensure that their substitute amendments are properly drafted and scored and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, March 14, 2005, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, for morning hour debates as though after May 16, 2005, thereafter to resume its session at 10 a.m.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is our intention in light of the fact that we are discussing this Thursday afternoon that the announcement that I plan to make when we complete this colloquy is that we will ask for the amendments to the budget to be submitted to the Committee on Rules by 10 a.m. on Tuesday which will allow us to meet Tuesday afternoon. So I would encourage, we are now before 3 o'clock on Thursday; I would encourage Members to begin looking at budget substitutes that they may want to offer and fashion those. I understand it will be tomorrow before they have access to the full text, but I would encourage them tomorrow and over the weekend and on Monday to assemble those substitutes or proposed amendments that they would have, and our deadline is intended to be 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget that it is our plan to consider the rule on the budget in the Committee on Rules probably late Tuesday afternoon. So depending on exactly what happens time-wise on consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, it is quite possible that we could begin work on this on Wednesday, but I am not absolutely certain at this juncture what day it would be.

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

Mr. DREIER. Well, again, the supplemental appropriations bill is the first item that we will be working on, and then it will be some time later in the week. Obviously, if we do as I suspect, the Committee on Rules will make in order different substitutes; we will need to have time for that. So it will be later in the week next week. So I cannot tell the gentleman exactly what day it will be, but it will be into the week. And again, quite possibly, it could extend until Friday.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to say that, again, that we anticipate that the first major measure of the week that we will consider, following suspensions, will be the supplemental appropriations bill. And the budget itself will likely be considered in the Committee on Rules on Tuesday evening. And again, I cannot predict exactly what shape the rule will take. In fact, when we are completed here, I will be making an announcement for the deadline for consideration of amendments. I will tell the gentleman, as in the past, the Committee on Rules has had a tendency, and I hope to continue that pattern, for actually showing preference for substitute packages that would be offered by Members. And we want to encourage Members who would like to offer budget substitutes to get those to us just as quickly as we possibly can. Again, it is difficult to say at this moment exactly what that rule will consist of.