David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I am privileged to serve as chairman of the Committee on Rules, but it is impossible for me at this juncture to predict exactly what this 13-member committee that spends hours deliberating over major public policy issues will do at the end of the day on this. I can assure the gentleman it will be a fair and balanced rule. But I will oppose putting it out unless it is a fair and balanced rule that allows for consideration of very important measures. I know my colleague joins me in wanting to ensure that we get the resources necessary to our men and women in uniform who are having such great success in Iraq. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I would say we anticipate that we will see the supplemental bill considered before we consider the budget resolution. And the Committee on Rules is planning to meet Monday evening for consideration of the supplemental appropriation bill. We cannot say with absolute certainty when exactly it will come up, but it is the first thing scheduled legislatively beyond the measures that we will consider under suspension of the rules. I think it is quite possible it will be on Tuesday.

Mr. DREIER. As the gentleman knows, we have these two critically important measures that need to be considered next week, the supplemental appropriations bill, which is a very high priority to ensure that our men and women in uniform in Iraq have the resources necessary to complete their very important job over there. We all know there is strong bipartisan support for our troops. And of course, making sure that we complete the important budget resolution. In light of the fact that we have those two priorities that need to be addressed next week, I am saying I think it is quite possible that Members could anticipate votes on Friday.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as Members have noticed, we have completed our legislative work for the week, and the House will convene on Monday at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes on those measures that are debated on Monday will be taken at 6:30 p.m. on Monday. On Tuesday and the balance of the week, the House will convene at 10 a.m.; it is important to know that it is 10 a.m. on Tuesday, for legislative business. We expect to consider two bills under a rule, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental and the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that next week is a 5-day work week. We will have votes on Monday, and it will be a very, very active week as we head into the recess. We may work some late nights next week. It is quite possible that there will be votes; Members should expect them on Friday as we head into the spring district work period.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for their fine work focusing on the very important health care needs that exist and the challenges that the American people have in obtaining quality health care. I want to take just a few minutes to talk about an issue which was very critical and important in last fall's campaign, and I want to talk about some of the wild inaccuracies that came to the forefront during that campaign. That is, the claims that were made about the U.S. economy. Our supposedly Depression-like economy that was not producing any new jobs was the most prevalent issue that came to the fore during last fall's campaign. We all heard it over and over and over again, the charge that President Bush was the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net job loss. It became something of a mantra for our friends on the other side of the aisle throughout the campaign, the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net job loss. Now that the frenzy of the campaign season is behind us, I hope that we can take a calm and very rational look at the actual facts. The basis for the Herbert Hoover comparison, Mr. Speaker, was the Bureau of Labor Statistics payroll job survey, a fitting association since it is a Depression-era survey. That payroll job survey was established at the time of the Depression, and it was based on a Depression-era economy. But let us assume for one moment that the payroll survey presents a complete and accurate picture of job creation in our economy. What does that picture look like over the past 4 years? It shows a period of job loss that followed a stock market bubble bursting, an economic recession, horrible, horrible terrorist attacks, and a series of major corporate scandals. Following this period of losses came a recovery that was sluggish at first, and then picked up rapidly, eventually creating 2.2 million jobs in calendar year 2004. And the net job losses? The Herbert Hoover workforce? It never ever happened. Despite the series of massive blows to our economy in the early part of this decade, despite an ongoing war on terror, despite sluggish growth in many of our biggest trading partner nations, President Bush presided over 4 years of net job creation, 119,000 jobs to be exact. But those 119,000 payroll jobs are only a small slice of the overwhelmingly positive news about our economy. This Depression-era job survey is a little out of its league in our very fast-paced 21st century economy. While it counts payroll jobs in long-established businesses, it misses many of the types of jobs that are increasingly common in an economy based on innovation and entrepreneurship. Today's independent contractors, consultants, small business owners and LLC partners account for one-third of new job creation. But they are not reflected in that payroll number, that Depression-era structure that is used for counting payroll jobs. By contrast, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households goes directly to individuals. All types of workers, regardless of how they are employed or how their jobs were created, are covered by the household survey. Consequently, the picture it portrays of our economy over the past 4 years is far more complete than what the payroll survey conveys. By surveying the entire workforce, it demonstrates that President Bush presided over the creation of 2.5 million new jobs in his first term. Again, he did this throughout incredibly tumultuous and difficult times. The household survey figure of 2.5 million new jobs is much more in line with other economic indicators that highlight just how absurd that Herbert Hoover claim actually is. In 2004, gross domestic product growth, the broadest measure of economic health, grew by 4.4 percent, the fastest pace since the bubble burst in 1999. Fourth quarter GDP growth was recently revised significantly upward, from 3.1 percent to 3.8 percent, based on news that exports were even stronger than had originally been thought. Business investment has also been revised upward, from 14.9 to a very robust 18 percent. And for the first time since 1994, non-high-tech business investment outpaced high tech investment, demonstrating that our economic vitality is widespread. Mr. Speaker, the President may have inherited very difficult economic circumstances, but thanks to his pro-growth policies, particularly his trade agenda and the 2003 tax cuts which were embraced by this Congress, 2005 is looking like a much better year than 2001. After 4 years of the Bush economy, unemployment is low. Stocks are rising as the Dow marches towards that 11,000 mark. Inflation is in check while interest rates have remained low, and family wealth is at an all-time high. Mr. Speaker, does it even need to be said that this is not a Herbert Hoover economy? Does one of the strongest economies in the developed world really have to defend itself against Great Depression Era comparisons? I believe that the facts speak for themselves. The George W. Bush economy has proven to be strong, vital and resilient. I am looking forward to 4 more years of prosperity and new opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and want to begin by congratulating my good friend from West Virginia for her management of this rule and her stellar service on the Committee on Rules as one of our newest members, and also her commitment to deal with the very important transportation needs that exist in her State. We know that that is going to be an important aspect to this legislation. I want to speak for just a couple of minutes, and first, I want to praise my good friends, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the fact that we have been able to proceed in a bipartisan way in dealing with this very important issue. I see this as a very, very national question for us. My first choice, my first choice would be to keep the Federal Government out of the issue of transportation and have the decision- making on this handled at the State and local level, have the funds handled at the State and local level. I realize that we are not there. We have an interstate system, and we have to recognize that there are very important national priorities when it comes to transportation, and that, in large part for me, relates to the issue of global trade. We know that the United States of America is the single largest exporter and the single largest importer on the face of the earth. We have an $11 trillion economy. We know that there are all kinds of wonderfully innovative and creative new ideas and products that are emanating from the United States of America, and as we get ready to embark on what I hope will be a successful passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, prying open that market so that we are able to sell U.S. goods into Latin America, as we ultimately get to Ronald Reagan's vision of a free trade area of the Americas, we have to realize that, if we are going to remain the world's largest exporter and the world's largest importer, it is absolutely essential that we have an infrastructure that can handle that. I happen to represent the southern California area, along with a great bipartisan delegation from southern California, and one of the things that we recognize is that we have the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, two of the busiest ports in the entire world. In fact, I like to describe southern California as the gateway to the Pacific Rim, Latin America. And as such, it is critical that products that are coming from West Virginia and Rochester, New York, and Ohio, and Texas, and other parts of the country that are headed to the Pacific Rim, it is absolutely essential that those products gain access to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. It is also very important that as we, I am happy to say, import from the Pacific Rim, allowing the single mother who has a hard time making ends meet, allowing her to have access to products that are available at Wal-Mart and Target and a wide range of other stores, we need to make sure that those products are able to get into the United States once they get to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. That is why I am very happy that, in this legislation, we deal with the important southern California infrastructure challenges that we have. We have a big project in southern California known as the Alameda Corridor. The Alameda Corridor basically allows goods to get to and from those ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach by way of rail and truck traffic. And the original Alameda Corridor concept was a great one, which I strongly, enthusiastically embraced. It allowed these products to move to downtown Los Angeles. One of the big challenges is the fact that as we look at moving beyond downtown Los Angeles, there is a huge, heavily-populated area to the east of downtown. In fact, one of the fastest growing areas in the United States of America is what is known as the Inland Empire. I represent a small part of that. My colleagues, the gentlemen from California (Mr. Lewis) and (Mr. Baca), and others, represent, also the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the San Bernardino Riverside, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and these members have to deal with the challenge of seeing these goods move through their areas. That is why I believe that we are on the right track in this legislation as we deal with what is known as the Alameda Corridor East issue, which will allow us to focus on grade separations, which are going to be so key, and also the other transportation issues that affect southern California will again free up the interstate system, allowing for the movement of these goods. So, for example, in the area that I represent, we have a very important project that is included known as the Gold Line Foot Hill Extension. We also have the Foot Hill Transit System in our area. Now, as we are able to see people move into these areas for mass transit, it will enhance the opportunity for us to see the very important goods move to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. So we see a very, very key nexus developed here that will deal with our Nation's commerce. And job creation and economic growth are critical for us. We are very pleased that we have been able to see that put into place following the implementation of President Bush's tax reduction plan, as we have looked at our goal of again opening up new markets so that we can move goods outside of our borders into other countries around the world. So we are on the right track. This legislation is absolutely essential. So I am strongly supporting this rule which makes in order 10 amendments, a bipartisan amendment. As my friend from Boston pointed out the other day, or last night, we have Republican amendments; we in the Committee on Rules are going to be meeting later today to allow for consideration of further amendments so that we will be able to continue to work through this process tomorrow and then, we hope, finish, and, with a very strong, bipartisan vote, send this measure to the other body so that we can get it to the President's desk just as quickly as possible. I again, Mr. Speaker, congratulate all of those who have been involved in this important process. I thank again my very good friend from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and my friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, for the leadership she has shown on this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 119, a bill to recognize the contributions of the United States Marine Corps and other units of the United States Armed Forces on the 60th Anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima. By capturing this isolated, eight square mile island in the Pacific, the men and women of our Armed Forces ensured victory in World War II. U.S. control of Iwo Jima removed the island as a staging ground for kamikaze attacks, ensured that B-29 bombers would continue to fly missions to mainland Japan and allowed U.S. planes traveling in the Pacific to use the island for emergency landings. Despite facing 22,000 Japanese soldiers hidden in bunkers inside the hills of Iwo Jima, American soldiers successfully charged through miles of open space to capture control of the island in a little more than a month. Their sacrifices were many. Nearly one in three men were killed or wounded, making the Battle of Iwo Jima the source of one-third of all Marine deaths in World War II. In fact, three of the six men who famously raised the American flag over Mt. Suribachi died during the Battle. Yet Iwo Jima's survivors often refused to acknowledge their heroic service, often citing the friends who died beside them as the only heroes of the battle. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz commented in 1945 that ``by their victory, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions and other units of the Fifth Amphibious Corps have made an accounting to their country which only history will be able to value fully.'' Sixty years later, the United States remains free, Japan is now one of our closest allies and the grandsons and granddaughters of those who served at Iwo Jima are again defending freedom abroad with the same determination and love for their country. I am confident that the Battle of Iwo Jima will continue to be a shining example of American military success for generations to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we were all stunned by the sudden passing of our former colleague Tillie Fowler. It was a shock that someone so young, so vibrant, so engaged could be gone so quickly. Her family, especially her husband Buck and two daughters Tillie and Elizabeth, remain in our thoughts and prayers as they deal with their tremendous loss. As I've thought about Tillie over the past week, I remember that Tillie always seemed to know where she was going. She wasn't necessarily in a hurry, but she knew where she wanted to be, and what she needed to do. Many of my colleagues may remember the brisk pace of Tillie as she hustled between meetings and votes and other commitments. She was dainty but determined, small yet sure, focused yet always friendly. Tillie was deeply dedicated to her work on the Armed Services Committee and to the men and women who serve our country in the military. In her mind, they deserved the best, and she was determined to see that they got it. She had the respect of members from both sides of the aisle, and especially the leadership of the military and the Pentagon for her commitment. Today, as we find ourselves engaged in the Global War on Terror and we see all that our military has accomplished to further the cause of liberty across the Middle East, we should remember Tillie's hard work on their behalf. She deserves a tremendous amount of credit for recognizing the importance of a strong military, even in times of relative peace and prosperity. You never know when you might need it. And we need it today. Thanks to Tillie, and many other people, we have it. Tillie Fowler will long be remembered here on Capitol Hill for her dedication, her grace, her love of this country and those who serve it. She set a shining example for all of us to follow--love your family, love your country, love your job, and know where you're going.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 7 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered the bill reported on March 2 and is expected to file its report with the House on Monday, March 7. Any Member wishing 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 up at H-312 of the Capitol by 1 p.m. next Tuesday, March 8. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which will be available for their review March 4 on the Web sites of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 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 check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to begin by congratulating him on his superb service on the Committee on Rules. This is obviously a very important issue to him. He joined the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and me, along with former Secretary of State Candice Miller and our distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), in co-sponsoring this legislation. As a former Secretary of State, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) understands how important this issue is for us to address. I also want to express appreciation to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In the last Congress, while it has not happened in this Congress, I was very pleased that the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), joined as a cosponsor of this legislation, as well as my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). And it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead in a bipartisan way dealing with this very, very important institutional issue. We all remember September 11 of 2001. My judgment has often been questioned because I was the last human being to walk out of this building on September 11 of 2001, and probably correctly. I did not think anyone would attack it. And I will say that when I left the building on September 11, 2001, I did so when one of the great Capitol Hill policemen said to me that there was a plane headed towards this building, and we all know now that that is the plane that went down with those very courageous passengers in Pennsylvania. When we think back on September 11th, obviously it was one of the darkest days in the history of our republic, and it has led us to spend a great deal of time thinking about the unthinkable. Because of September 11th, we have had to ponder things that we would never even possibly consider because of the fact that we had not seen that kind of attack on U.S. soil. But since that time, the Speaker of the House has really stepped up to the plate and done a wide range of things that are designed to ensure that the people's House and, in fact, we hope both Houses of Congress, are able to continue to function. If you recall on September 11th, late that afternoon, when Members of both Houses of Congress, both political parties, stood on the east front of the Capitol singing God Bless America. The reason that Members stood on the east front of the Capitol was to let the American people and to let anyone know who would want to do us in, that we, as a Nation, are strong, and this institution, the greatest deliberative body known to man, was continuing to function. So beginning almost immediately after the attacks of September 11th, the Speaker took a number of steps that were designed to maintain the continuity of this great institution. He established the ability to adjourn to an alternative place and to declare an emergency recess. He established the ability to effect a joint leadership recall from a period of adjournment through designees, and the requirement that the Speaker submit to the Clerk of the House a list of designees to act in the case of a vacancy in the Office of the Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, we all know that at the beginning of this 109th Congress, we included in our opening day rules package the provisions that allow the House to establish a quorum, which could be lowered if we go through a litany of roll call votes that would determine that many Members had been incapacitated and could not actually show up to work here. I think it is important to note that we provided a number of protections in the use of that rule, including several that have been suggested by the Members of the other side of the aisle. And I have to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker of the House and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), have personally engaged and spent time talking about this very important issue. And it is my hope that we will, at the end of the day, end up with, as I said, a bipartisan compromise. Some of those recommendations that came from Members of the minority on this issue: Extended roll calls lasting days at a time and excluding any time in recess so that Members can contact the House and let us know that they can come to vote. The availability of the motion to adjourn at any time. The nonpartisan advice of the Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol physician, and the medical and emergency personnel about the state of the membership of this body. And, Mr. Speaker, at the recommendation of the minority, consultation with the minority leader, in accordance with the traditional relationship between the Speaker and the minority leader. And, finally, it is very important for us to remember that, as I just alluded to, that we have a bicameral legislature. The United States House of Representatives does not operate unilaterally, so there will always be a check on any action taken under the mass incapacitation quorum provision. What I have been discussing, Mr. Speaker, answers how we will do the people's work if a terrorist attack incapacitates large numbers of us. Now, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, which we are considering here today, deals with how we will replenish the House if terrorists kill large numbers of our Members. This legislation calls for special elections to be held within 45 days following such a catastrophe. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has just alluded to something, and while I know we do not enjoy the strong support of the minority on this, we have made a step in that we are going to have a manager's amendment made in order that would allow us to move in the direction of what it is that the minority wants, and that is allowing for 49 days, which would be a full 7 weeks. Let me say that this legislation addresses a number of very important matters and it incorporates a number of suggestions made, again by Members on the other side of the aisle. They include more than doubling the amount of time for the special elections to occur from 21 days to 45 days. And again we are going even further, to a full 7 weeks. Protecting overseas military and absentee voters so that they receive additional time in which to return ballots. And I want to thank, particularly, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his fine work in that area and his commitment to ensure that we address the issue of military and overseas voters. Protecting civil and voter rights. You will recall when we considered this legislation, which at the end of the day drew large bipartisan support in the 108th Congress, we were able to address the concerns that were raised by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) at the end of the day when we were debating the legislation, and that is included in this. Again, that is a recommendation that came from the minority. We allow States to have primaries and other options for selection of candidates for the special election so long as the general elections are completed within that period of time, which would be 49 days, excluding districts from the 49-day special election requirement if they already have either a general or special election scheduled, and including the four delegates and the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico within the provisions of the bill. Now, I mentioned the large bipartisan support. Last year, this legislation passed the House by a vote of 306 to 97. I believe that we need to continue working in a strong bipartisan manner to move this bill through the House and get it to the other body just as expeditiously as possible. In that spirit, I anticipate that we will amend the rule, as I said, to move under this manager's amendment from 45 to 49 days. Again, our attempt to continue to work and address very, very correct concerns that are emerging from the minority. I also have to say that on this rule itself we are very happy to have made in order the amendment of my colleague and neighbor, the very distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), who has offered an amendment calling for 60 days. I also want to congratulate her, Mr. Speaker, on her new assignment as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Administration. She is working closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) I know, and with the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is going to be managing this legislation, and so we look forward to seeing what I hope is, again, a good bipartisan work product. I want to talk now, if I can, Mr. Speaker, about how this bill protects what I feel is a very, very key part of our responsibility here: Our representation. When I was an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College, I had a professor who pounded the Federalist Papers into me. I remember my mentor and the importance of the Constitutional Convention, and the great Connecticut Compromise of July 16 of 1787. And I remember that date because we convened the Congress in Philadelphia to mark the bicentennial of the Connecticut Compromise back on July 16 of 1987. Of course, the Federalists have been so important in explaining and justifying the actions of the framers as they put the Constitution together. We all know that James Madison was the Father of our Constitution, as well as having been President of the United States, he, as a matter of fact, was a member of the first Committee on Rules. And a relative of mine served on that Committee on Rules at the founding. Madison wrote extensively about this institution, the House of Representatives in Federalists 52 through 57. And one of the things I believe is very important for us to note is that Madison talked about the absolutely critical importance of this institution being elected. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the 435 of us who serve as Members of the House of Representatives are the only Federal officials who must be elected before we can serve. In the other body, the United States Senate, people are appointed by their governors if vacancies take place. And we all know from the example of President Ford, one can be appointed to serve as Vice President and President of the United States without having been elected. But no one has ever served in the people's House, this body, without having first been elected. And I think it is important to note that Madison made it clear when he was talking especially about this institution, as he said in Federalist No. 53, ``where elections end, tyranny begins.'' Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are the only Federal office where no one has served here without having first been elected, and I think that is something we need to do everything we can to maintain. In Federalist 52 Madison wrote: ``It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy with the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured.'' He went on in Federalist 57 and wrote: ``Who are to be the electors of the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor, not the learned more than the ignorant, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.'' And, Mr. Speaker, Madison rejected the idea that appointment of Members is acceptable to the American public. He said, and I quote: ``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of democratic government and ought not be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruin of popular forms.'' I think it is very important for us to understand that there have been times in our Nation's history where we have faced greater difficulty than the difficulty that we face today, or even greater difficulty than we faced following September 11 of 2001, and that was the Civil War. If we think back to that time of the Civil War, we have to remember that this Capitol was surrounded by troops who were threatening the very being of our Republic. Yet President Lincoln proceeded with elections, understanding how critically important they are for our Republic's survival. And, of course, we have the newest example of self-determination in the world. The brave people of Iraq recently tasted freedom and the joy of elections. What happened? We had many people saying those elections could not take place. Why? Because there was a great deal of tension. We saw terrorist attacks, and we continue to see that in Iraq. But we know that despite the bombs and the snipers and the fear of death, people exercised that very important right to self-determination. Having faced down aristocracy and tyranny, they knew just how important elections would be for them. We too are a democracy borne out of facing down aristocracy and tyranny ourselves, and we should never forget that for one moment. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that as we look at the struggles taking place in Iraq today, that building and reinforcing democratic institutions is crucial for the safety, security, and happiness of a nation's people, whether it is the people of Iraq or the people of the United States of America. That is why when we looked at some of the other options to provide for our continuity as an institution, such as the stand-in appointments provision that the House overwhelmingly defeated last year, we should ask what we lose if we, for one moment, give up on elections. Some have said that this is different; that we will be dealing with a national emergency. And I say that elections are particularly important during a time of a national emergency. We should not have stand-ins or successors from a list in our back pockets passing laws, declaring war, or suspending habeas corpus. I believe that when we take this very, very unique institution, the people's House, where no one has served without having first been elected, and move away from elections, that we threaten the very basis of our strength as a democratic Nation. Thus as we look at the very tough challenge of how to preserve our democracy in the face of catastrophe, this legislation is the most responsible way to continue the legitimacy of our government. If we look at the tragic loss of more than 100 Members, the idea of having the States hold special elections in that period of time is something that is doable. People will unite and will remove all obstacles in conducting elections. Think about it, Mr. Speaker. In the time of a horrible tragedy, feeding and clothing one's family, making sure the roof is over their head, and then playing a role in picking one's leaders, that is all part of the process of rebuilding. And it can be done in a relatively short period of time. My colleague (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and I represent the State of California. A year and a half ago in our home State, we went through a special election--recently, going through an unprecedented situation. We had the recall of a Governor and an election that took place in 55 days. It was not a single congressional district of 650,000 people with two or three candidates. That race had 135 candidates on the ballot, and they were running among a populace of 35 million people. And I am happy to say that that election came off without a hitch. And I should parenthetically say I am happy with the outcome as well, Mr. Speaker. Let me close by saying that I think it is very important for us to realize again what James Madison was telling us when he said ``When elections end, tyranny begins.'' We should do everything we possibly can to make sure that we keep this House's very, very precious election process. This rule allows for consideration of measures that address that. It is a very fair rule that again gives the ranking minority member an opportunity to have her proposal considered. I do oppose that proposal because I believe that the notion of moving to 49 days will allow us to work this out very well. And I again thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and others, who have worked long and hard on this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today we are addressing another important Issue for the Continuity of Congress by introducing the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005. This is an important part of our efforts since the 107th Congress to assure the American people that their democracy will continue in the face of any attack or any catastrophe. The service of our men and women in uniform to protect our democracy is exemplary, and we honor them. But police and military alone will not protect this institution. We, the elected representatives, also must act to protect the House. At the start of this Congress, we acted by adopting a House rule to help us function if we have mass incapacitations. I know there are a few who still wonder whether we need to amend the Constitution to deal with mass incapacitation. As I announced on January 4th, the Rules Committee will be vigorously considering continuity issues throughout the 109th Congress. We may ultimately decide that more action on mass incapacitation is needed. In the meantime, we have already put into place a procedure that will ensure that this body will be able to function if there have been mass incapacitations of Members due to a catastrophe. Today, we are acting by re-introducing a bill to deal with mass vacancies--created when large numbers of Members are killed. Last year, after considering how to deal with mass vacancies in the various committees, we passed the exact same bill that we are introducing today. The House adopted last year's bill with a large, bipartisan majority of 306 votes. This bill, the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, protects the ``People's House.'' It fits the Founders' vision of America--a House directly elected by the people and a Senate answerable to the states. And though we've done away with the old system of state legislatures electing Senators, we maintain that historic connection to the states by allowing for governors to fill vacant Senate seats in times of death. Mr. Speaker, James Madison, a Founding Father and former Member of the Rules Committee, addressed the importance of an elected House when he said ``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of [democratic Government] . . . A gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which Aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.'' In short, James Madison valued an elected House of Representatives, and so do we. This bill guarantees that the House will always be, as it always has, a body composed only of elected Members. The Continuity in Representation Act provides that if more than 100 Members are killed, the Speaker can announce that extraordinary circumstance and trigger a uniform, 45-day special election to replace Members in affected districts. Some have been concerned about the 45-day period for special elections. Not too long ago, I had the opportunity to assist in a major statewide election in California. It saw a field of 135 candidates running to represent over 34 million people. That election went off without a hitch in just 55 days. Poll workers, polling places, and ballots all came together, and voter turnout was very high. Given the smaller scope of congressional district elections, 45 days is certainly enough time. Mr. Speaker, we need to act now. We need to ensure that we are doing our part to protect our democracy. We need to pass the Continuity in Representation Act of 2005.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative, to authorize water recycling projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. This legislation, which passed the House in the 108th Congress, is an important component of southern California's regional water management. This Initiative includes two projects, the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and will produce 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. Between these two projects, 95,000 acre feet of new water will be produced annually before the end of the decade. With the recent passage of the CalFed authorization, it is imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. Reducing our dependence on imported water from the Colorado River and northern California will have significant regional benefits including reduced water shortages, energy savings, improved water quality, and job creation. The passage of the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative will continue the federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water supply to the region. IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, IEUA provides that the water available goes through at least one more cycle of beneficial use before it is ultimately returned to the environment. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of lEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga Valley Water District), and the Monte Vista Water District. I want to thank the House Resources Committee, and Chairman Richard Pombo, for moving this bill to successful passage on the House floor during the last Congress. I look forward to working closely with him again, and with the new Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman George Radanovich. I also want to thank my colleagues, Ken Calvert, Grace Napolitano, Gary Miller, and Joe Baca for cosponsoring the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative. And last but certainly not least, I commend the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, General Manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, CEO and General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, who both work tirelessly on behalf of the Inland Empire.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and let me just say what it is that got us here. I have listened to the arguments propounded by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are here because, as the chairman of the Judiciary said, it has taken longer to complete this fence than it did to win the Second World War. The problem that we have is, there needs to be recognition that the environmentally sound vote is to complete this fence. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) held up a poster. If you look at where the fence has been completed, it is pristine, it is clean, it looks great, and it is securing our borders. If you look at that 3\1/2\-mile gap, you see all kinds of trash and devastation and you, of course, exacerbate the pressure with the flow of people coming into this country illegally, creating a wide range of problems. We came this close, when we had strong support, 257 Members of this body in the last Congress who voted for the Ose amendment that should have been included in the 9/11 Committee's recommendation in the conference agreement that we had. The other body prevented us when we were working in the conference to bring it back here. We had indications from Democrats and Republicans alike that if we brought this measure up we could have strong support of it. It is imperative, it is imperative that we complete this fence. Smugglers Gulch is an area which is, I believe, posing a very serious threat to our stability in this country and in California. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Farr amendment and cast the environmentally sound vote, which is a ``no'' vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, did I actually say that?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not we were going to make the Nadler amendment in order, as my friend knows. I know that that addresses the issue of asylum. We are going to have an opportunity for debate on that and an up-or-down vote on that issue. We clearly had to deal with a wide range of questions as we fashioned this rule. I will tell the gentleman that I am very proud of the fact that we were able to incorporate many of the ideas that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered. I will tell the gentleman there were 10 amendments submitted by members of the minority, and six of those 10 amendments were, in fact, withdrawn. We made in order two of the four amendments that remained at the committee level. We had on our side 10 amendments that were submitted, and we have only made three of our amendments in order of the original 10 that were submitted. That is why I am arguing that we have, in fact, really gone the extra mile to ensure that the rights of the minority are respected. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that clearly we are debating this right now, during consideration of the rule. We have had Special Orders held on this issue. We had a very lengthy hearing in the Committee on Rules which was available for all of the Members; we had that streamed online. So I think that these issues are pretty darned transparent. We are trying to deal with border security. It is a very important part of the number one priority that we have, and that is our national security. I think in light of that, we are going to have an opportunity to consider these measures, and I want to say that I think we have some amendments that are very, very important that do need to be addressed. We did make in order the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my colleague, which calls for steps that would prevent the completion of the 3.5 mile gap in the 14-mile fence that goes along the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Otai Mesa in San Diego. I have to say that it is amazing, Mr. Speaker, to observe that it took a shorter period of time to win the Second World War than it has to complete this fence. It is a fence wherein actually the provision for it was signed into law by President Clinton back in 1997, and that was done with strong bipartisan support. I worked with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and our colleague Mr. Ose in the last Congress, who was very involved in this; and I just 10 weeks ago flew with T.J. Bonner, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, over this gap in the fence. It is very clear that people have taken advantage of it. Now, the argument that is going to be used on the fence issue, and we will be bringing that up in just a little while, has to do with the environment. There are people who say that we need to keep all of these environmental constraints in place which have prevented completion of the fence. Mr. Speaker, what has happened is, we have seen the California Coastal Commission file a case to prevent completion of it because of something known as the Bell's Verio bird. This bird has chosen to nest on part of the fence, and for that reason, they cannot complete the fence, and it has allowed people to come in. Now, what has happened is, people have illegally fled across the border. We have seen that border in what is known as the Tijuana Estuary devastated environmentally. There is all kinds of trash in there, and the environmental vote, Mr. Speaker, is to vote against the Farr amendment in favor of completion of the fence. If we were to complete the fence, we would be able to improve the environmental standard at the border. Now, this issue is one of the important parts of it, but there is one other issue that I want to mention before I yield back the balance of my time. I introduced legislation, H.R. 100, to deal with something known as the Saint Cyr decision, that is included in the manager's amendment; and what that does, basically, the provision that we have in the manager's amendment will finally get to the point where the appellate courts are the courts of jurisdiction, and we will not see consistent appeals. Not many people are aware of the fact that, actually, people who are here illegally have an additional appellate step over American citizens. In the manager's amendment, we will be able to rectify that very, very important issue that does need to be addressed. This is a fair and balanced rule. It will allow us to deal with border security, a very important part of our national security; and I hope this great day will see us, at the end, pass this very important legislation.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Contrary to what my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale has said, this is a very fair and balanced rule. If we look at the amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules and those that we have made in order, it is fascinating. We made half of the amendments in order that were proposed by the Democrats, those were the priorities established, and 33 percent of the amendments made in order that were submitted by the Republicans. We have really turned ourselves inside out to try and accommodate the wide array of issues that were put forward before the Committee on Rules. Yesterday, we had three committees of jurisdiction share an hour and 40 minutes of general debate, and we are going to have an opportunity for free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues today. And I am anxiously looking forward to that. I would like to say that one of the priorities is the passage of the Sessions amendment, which is very, very fair and, I believe, an appropriate way to deal with one of the important challenges we face.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which will simply allow us to consider general debate, and in 7 minutes we are going to be up in the Committee on Rules considering a number of those issues that the gentleman from Florida just raised, deciding what it is that we will debate here on the House floor tomorrow. So the process is still ongoing and Members are involved in that, and it is one that we look forward to considering before too long. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his very strong commitment to all homeland security issues, a top priority. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that border security is a critically important aspect of the number one priority that we have at the Federal level. The five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense,'' and securing our borders is a priority, and it should be of any sovereign nation. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I had the privilege of serving as conferees last fall as we sought to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, our friends in the other body decided not to include provisions that would provide guidelines to ensure that the likes of Mohammed Atta who flew a plane into the World Trade Center just days before he was to appear in court because of a traffic violation that he had had with a driver's license, that was something that we felt strongly should have been incorporated to rectify that in the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the other body chose to ignore that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) worked hard to ensure that we would be able to complete the 3\1/2\-mile gap through what is known as Smugglers Gulch, an area that is today devastated environmentally because people cross the border illegally. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the other body refused to accept that. Both of those things were issues that were of concern to the 9/11 Commission; and if we look at the 9/11 Commission report, they make it very clear that we need to address these kinds of issues as they relate to border security. So what we decided, of course, at the end, as we prepare to implement that, was that we would, as soon as the 109th Congress convened, proceed with passage of this very important aspect of our border security and, by virtue of that, our national security. That is why I think this measure should enjoy strong bipartisan support. This is an issue that Democrats and Republicans alike can come together on to ensure that we do, we do, secure our borders. So I think that we have a wonderful opportunity here to deal with border security. The issue of immigration reform is another question. I am supporting this effort on border security in part because I am convinced that we will be able to, down the road and I hope soon, address the immigration reform question. I happen to believe that it is important for us to identify the people who are here in this country illegally. And, yes, I am opposed to granting blanket amnesty, as is President Bush, but I do believe that moving in the direction of some sort of worker program is something that we must look at and must address. But we are taking a proper step in finally doing what we wanted to have incorporated in the 9/11 Commission package that we passed out of here, and I congratulate all my colleagues who have been involved in this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet the week of February 7th to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, February 8, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as introduced on January 26, 2005. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format 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 rise in strong support of this resolution and congratulate my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), and others who are involved, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my friend. We want to extend, of course, congratulations to the Palestinian people. It is fascinating to see that this election is all part of sort of a regional, and really beyond the region's, success as it moves towards political pluralism, and we obviously have seen last Sunday the election in Iraq. We just weeks ago saw, the day after Christmas, the election take place in Ukraine, and we now have this free election with a new leader who offers great hope for the prospect of peace. I also want to extend congratulations to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who I believe has shown strong leadership and a willingness to try and bring about a resolution to this age-old challenge of bringing peace to the region. I also want to congratulate President Bush, who has encouraged this process all along. Without getting so deeply involved in a way that he could potentially be seen as tampering with the process, he has been a driving force at encouraging us to get to exactly where we are. So this resolution is a very important one, letting the world know that there is going to be strong, bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans alike, in the Congress for the encouragement of this peace process, and we all hope and pray that this now lays the groundwork for a potential resolution. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House, I am submitting the rules of the Committee on Rules for printing in the Congressional Record. On January 25, 2003, the Committee on Rules adopted by non-record vote, a quorum being present, the following committee rules.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of Republican Members of the House and Senate this weekend, our distinguished majority leader, who has just come into the Chamber, reminded us that 24 years ago, on the 20th of January out here on the west front of the Capitol, Ronald Reagan said, ``No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' Mr. Speaker, we also this weekend witnessed the greatest example in recent times of that when we saw a people who, for a half a century have been living under repression, having no opportunity to express themselves, exercised that. The anecdotes are amazing. The story of the woman who literally gave birth at a voting station and then named her baby Democracy underscores the kind of success that we are seeing. It is very clear that self-determination, political pluralism about which the chaplain just spoke, and the rule of law are on the move. The Iraqi people are to be both congratulated and thanked: congratulated, of course, because they are going to be able to enjoy their success; thanks for the message they are sending throughout the entire world.