David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the past several months have seen an almost unprecedented focus in this body on the extremely important issue of homeland security. Just a few weeks ago, we passed the National Intelligence Reform Act, a landmark piece of legislation to overhaul our intelligence agencies. But, as I noted at that time, the bill unfortunately did not go far enough in addressing the major security vulnerability presented by the porous nature of our borders. So as we continue to address the issue of border security, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of Chairman Sensenbrenner's legislation to complete the San Diego border fence, and ensure that illegal immigrants are unable to receive drivers' licenses, something, I might add, already prohibited in my home state of California. But in addition to these important steps that will soon be taken, I rise to ask for the support of my colleagues for an illegal immigration control plan that I am pleased to introduce today. The plan is the brainchild of T.J. Bonner, the President of the National Border Patrol Council, and a 26-year veteran of the Border Patrol who still serves with them today. T.J. believes that our proposal will eliminate up to 98 percent of the illegal border crossings into the United States. T.J. and I share the belief that for any proposal to stop illegal immigration to be successful, it must get at the root cause of what attracts illegal immigrants to our country--and that is the lure of economic opportunity and the ease with which illegal workers can find jobs. Under the Bonner Plan, we will dramatically increase the enforcement of laws which prohibit American businesses from employing illegal immigrants. Regrettably, too many employers have been unwilling to comply with the law. The growing availability of counterfeit identity documents has also undermined the current system because employers are increasingly unable to establish the authenticity of documents presented by job applicants. Our legislation adds new features to the Social Security card to deter counterfeiting and make it easier for employers to determine whether a card is genuine by including a digitized photo of the cardholder on the card. The improved Social Security card will also be encoded with a unique electronic encryption code to allow employers to verify each prospective applicant's work eligibility status prior to hiring, through either an electronic card-reader or a toll-free telephone number. Employers will face stiff federal fines of $50,000 and up to 5 years in prison if they hire an illegal immigrant or choose not to verify a prospective employee's work eligibility. The employer would also be required to reimburse the government for the cost of deporting the illegal immigrant. With the improved Social Security card and national verification system, employers will have no excuse for hiring illegal immigrants. By eliminating the supply of jobs for illegal workers, we will end the incentive for illegal immigrants to enter the United States because they will know that they will be unable to make a living here. Legal workers will only need to update their Social Security card once, to have their photo placed on the card and for other long-overdue anti-fraud measures to be applied. A worker would only need the updated Social Security card when applying for a new job. I want to make it very, very clear that this proposal does not represent the creation of a national identification card. This bill strictly prohibits the use of the Social Security card as a national ID card, and stipulates that the card not be required to be routinely carried on one's person. Social Security cards are often already required to be provided to new employers; the changes we are proposing to the Social Security card take us no further down the road of creating a national ID card. Finally, the Bonner Plan also puts teeth into the new enforcement procedures by calling for the addition of 10,000 new Homeland Security officers whose sole responsibility will be to enforce employer compliance with the law. These new agents will free up the rest of the Border Patrol to exclusively focus on border enforcement and terrorism prevention. Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here today to tell the rest of the world that we intend to limit opportunities for the American dream to be fulfilled. But if foreign nationals wish to come to the United States, they must, as Governor Schwarzenegger said, ``play by the rules,'' and we must make clear that there will be no economic opportunity for anyone who enters this country illegally. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in this effort, and hope they will consider joining me as we take action on this vital national security priority.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me time. I rise in strong support both of this rule and the conference report. This has been one of the most difficult conferences that we have ever gone through, and I want to say at the outset that I want to congratulate my two colleagues who led this, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) from the House side, and our Senate colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman who provided leadership there. We had two bills the likes of which I had never seen such a major disparity. H.R. 10, which emerged from this House, is one which I was very proud to support. It included very important national security provisions, very important provisions as it relates to immigration and the problems that we saw with the deficiencies that led to what took place on September 11 of 2001. I believe that the Senate measure consisted solely of those provisions that emerged from the good work of the 9/11 Commission. I happen to believe that H.R. 10 was a much better piece of legislation than the one that we have ultimately ended up with here today. I will say this. I do believe that we have come a long way towards taking steps that will ensure that we do not see another September 11 and that we have in place a structure which will ensure that we have the intelligence capability to deal with conflicts on the ground, wherever they exist in the world. We know from having met with the family members of the victims of September 11 that this is a very emotional issue. This has been an emotional issue for all of us because, as we all know, we lost friends on September 11. A plane went down a few miles from here into the Pentagon, and we have heard, of course, from our colleagues who represent New York and Pennsylvania of the loss there. I would like to point to the fact that, tragically, all of those planes that took off were headed to my State of California on September 11. So we have all felt this. The families appeared at the first meeting we had of this conference, and we were all moved by the extraordinarily strong statements that they made to us as we were preparing to meet there, and that is why the work of this conference has been so important. I want to congratulate the other House conferees who worked hard on this. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is sitting right here, and while he is going to support the rule, I know that he has chosen not to support the conference report. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has as it relates to the conference report are concerns that I share right down the line. A year ago last August, I was asked to join in leading the charge for an effort to recall the Governor of California and to help Arnold Schwarzenegger get elected Governor of California. One of the main issues of that campaign was the fact that driver's licenses were ending up in the hands of people who are here illegally, and they were used fraudulently, and that is a real problem, and it is a real problem when it comes to security. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has been a great champion, and I have been pleased and proud to stand with him in our attempt to ensure that we do provide standards as it relates to driver's licenses because, again, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) pointed out in our conference this morning, Mohamed Atta was using a fraudulent driver's license and was simply pulled over for a traffic violation and told to appear in court. That would have been after what he did on September 11, when he was one of those flying the planes into the World Trade Center towers. It also is, I think, very important for us to do everything we can to secure our southern border, and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who is going to be presiding over the sine die adjournment of the 108th Congress later today or this evening, is a person who offered an amendment to H.R. 10 which was designed to complete a 3\1/2\ mile gap that exists in the 14-mile fence which was put in during the Clinton administration with the support of Bill Clinton, in a bipartisan way, with strong support here in the House and the Senate, and it has been successful, with the exception of a 3\1/2\ mile gap that extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Tijuana estuary. I know we are all concerned about environmental quality, and I am very concerned about the environment, and it has been an environmental issue that has led to the delay in completion of that fence. The presence of something known as the Bell's vireo bird nesting on that fence has prevented completion of it. So, yes, we are all concerned about the environment, but the real tragedy to me is the fact, and I just flew over it a few weeks ago, the environment is plundered in this area because of illegal border crossings. The fact that we are seeing that area environmentally damaged because of that gap, it seems to me that we need to look at that. Unfortunately, it is not included in this measure, but I chose to sign this conference report and am supporting this conference report today based on the fact that we are, in the first must-pass piece of legislation we have in the 109th Congress, going to have the opportunity to include these very important immigration issues. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has done a great job. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) did a great job. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) worked hard on this as well. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my colleague, has focused on this very important chain-of-command issue, and I believe that he has been right in pursuing it. We are at an extraordinary time in our history. My colleague from Rochester just mentioned the fact that today is the 63rd anniversary of the tragic bombing that took place in Pearl Harbor; 2,400 lives were lost there. We know that 3,000 plus lives were lost on September 11, 2001. Earlier today we saw the inauguration of the first democratically elected President in the history of Afghanistan, and that could not have come about, Mr. Speaker, were it not for strong, bold, dynamic leadership on the part of the United States of America. The United States of America is the only Nation on the face of the Earth, the only Nation, that can effectively deal with the kinds of challenges that we have. We have not done it unilaterally. It is not doing it unilaterally today. We have never done it unilaterally. We have done it with strong and building international coalitions. We will continue to do that. Passage of this legislation is simply a first step. It is a first step, and that is the reason that I have chosen not to turn my back on it and to get as much as we possibly can as we go down this road towards doing even more to have a National Intelligence Director, and make sure that that individual is strong and able to deal with intelligence issues and to deal with the overall national and border security questions that we have. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues again for the time and energy and effort they have put in these past weeks and now months to come to this point. I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the President of the United States for the leadership that they have shown in getting us to where we are today.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to begin by saying that I suspect that this may be the last rule that will be managed by our good friend from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Reynolds), as he is going to be taking the position that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) is giving up as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means representing the State of New York on the Committee on Ways and Means. So I want to say that rarely have we seen the kind of passionate eloquence when it has come to management of rules on the House floor that we have from my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds). And I want to congratulate him and thank him for his stellar service to the Committee on Rules and to this institution overall. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is the fiscally responsible policy for us to increase by $800 billion the national debt limit. One might say, how can that be fiscally responsible for us to all of the sudden increase that burden which has the potential to increase interest rates and do all of these other things that obviously we bemoan increases in spending. Well, the reason it is the fiscally responsible thing for us to do is that if we do not, there are tremendous obligations that the Federal Government has that could potentially be jeopardized. Not that they will be jeopardized or not, but potentially be jeopardized. One of the things that is important for us to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that if we look at the question of the auction of our Treasury bills that is on the horizon, we know one thing full well. If we do not take this action now as expeditiously as possible, get this done, we will increase the already-high interest costs that the American taxpayer will be shouldering. Now, this issue is a wonderful issue to demagogue, and I will tell you that I probably in my quarter century here have been guilty of having done it in the past. I will say that clearly increasing the debt ceiling is something that it is easy to cast a ``no'' vote on it, but it is not the responsible thing to do. Now, we listen to people decrying a number of things. Obviously, there is talk about how this President inherited a wonderful surplus and today many of our colleagues are in Little Rock, and we congratulate President Clinton on the opening of his library; but let us remember that as we looked at the surplus that was created during the decade of the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, it was done so because of the fact that we Republicans came to majority in 1994. And we came to majority focusing on a couple of things. Yes, trying to restrain the growth of Federal spending, but at the same time we had our attention on the issue of economic growth. And we know that we brought about that economic growth because of the fact that we were able to reduce taxes to stimulate the economy. Now, one of the things people say when we talk about the problems of increased spending that has taken place over the past 4 years, one of the things we need to recognize is that even if we did not have the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America, even if we did not have the war and the costs of that war in Iraq, we still would be dealing with deficit spending. We still would be faced with the challenge of increasing the debt ceiling. Why? Because it was the fact that we saw an economic slow-down that really began as every economist, virtually every economist has recognized, every nonpartisan economist has recognized, began in the waning, waning months of the year 2000, before George Bush was even elected President of the United States. We saw this economic slow-down. And that economic slow-down obviously diminished flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Now, what is it that we have done? Fortunately, with the policies we have put in place, Mr. Speaker, we have actually seen an increase to the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury and the last projection showed actually an unanticipated $108 billion in revenues have come into the Federal Treasury. Why? Because of the fact that the economy is growing. So we are on a path toward greater economic growth. And now that this election is behind us, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we also need to realize is that we have the potential to make permanent the tax cuts, to bring about reform of Social Security, which is a very high priority, and a wide range of other things, like market-opening opportunities which will help us. The other thing that was just raised by my friend from Buffalo that I think is important for us to talk about is this wringing our hands over the fact that there are nations like the People's Republic of China that might consider investing its dollars in the United States of America. What better signal of the strength and confidence that the world has for our economy than to see them invest in our economy? I see that, Mr. Speaker, as a positive for us as a Nation. So it is very clear, some people who want to politicize and say, oh, well, let us not increase the debt limit. Well, it is very important that we do this. Increasing this debt ceiling will save U.S. taxpayer dollars because if we do not, we will see an even greater interest burden shouldered on the U.S. taxpayer. So let us vote for this rule. Let us vote for the rule as it is reported out because of the fact that any kind of delay would delay action over in the other body, and we need to move as quickly as we can on this and then let us vote for the package itself. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for his thoughtful and very emotional eloquence. I have to say that just as was the case for the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), Phil Crane has been an inspiration to me for a long period of time. I recalled, hearing some of the things that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was saying, some of the experiences that we all had in observing Phil Crane when he was a Presidential candidate, some of those great events that took place, like that debate. And while the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was quoting some of the Framers, it immediately came to mind one of the Framers who was quoted by Mr. Crane in one of those debates. After I saw him in that debate in 1980, I committed to memory the Thomas Jefferson quote, because in fact, one of Phil's many volumes has centered around that quote. It was Thomas Jefferson who we often like to say was the founder of the Democratic Party, but he clearly outlined what was the real role of government when he said in his first inaugural address in March of 1801, he said, ``My fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another and shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.'' And those last words are the title of one of Phil's volumes. There have been so many great things that Phil has done as a Member of this body and as a Presidential candidate. I was talking just a few minutes ago to our staff director on the Committee on Rules, Billy Pitts, and I told him I was coming over here to talk about Phil. And Billy Pitts immediately said to me, he said, Phil is a decent man and a fine man. And I have to say that I have never in my life met a nicer, more decent human being than Phil Crane. I have had countless experiences with him, traveling internationally and spending time together here with Arlene and Phil. And this whole notion of being one of the real, over the last several decades, leaders in the conservative movement, I cannot help but think about this cause of freedom. I know that it is often a controversial issue around here. We have pointed to the fact that as Republicans we totally subscribe to this view of freedom, and we talk about the interdependence of political freedom and economic freedom, and that interdependence is something that is very important to note. Phil has been in the forefront, long before he got into this Congress, for the issue of free trade. I continue to this day to use Phil as my model, and I say what one of our former colleagues, Sam Gibbons, often said. He referred to himself as a blind free trader. And Phil and I are both blind free traders. We had a tendency to harass a couple of our colleagues, one present colleague, one former colleague, the late Gerald Solomon, my predecessor on the Committee on Rules, and we would refer to the Tariff Act, the Smoot-Holly Tariff Act of the 1930s, and we referred to Jerry Solomon as ``Smoot Solomon'' and Duncan Hunter, my California colleague, as ``Hunter Holly.'' Because unfortunately, not everyone in the Republican Party embraces this free trade position. But even when it has been unpopular, Phil has championed it. I think about the lead that he has provided in ensuring that we blast our Western values into repressive societies around the world, like the People's Republic of China. Phil has always been at the forefront in our pursuit of what was Most Favored Nation status and ultimately permanent normal trade relations. If we look at what has taken place today with the kind of political liberalization which is on the rise; no one is an apologist in the government of the People's Republic of China, but the political liberalization which has followed the economic liberalization, and Phil Crane has been at the forefront for decades of that cause of ensuring that we get economic freedom to as many people in the world as possible. That is why when we look at the prospect of Phil's retirement, we think about the wonderful things that he has done, inspiring Americans, and he has also done it all over the world. On repeated occasions we have been together in Latin America as we pursued what was Ronald Reagan's vision that he outlined on November 6 of 1979 when he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, and he envisaged this accord of free trade among all of the Americas. Right now we are in pursuit, as President Bush wants, of this free trade area of the Americas. We also know that we have just been able to see the benefits of things that Phil worked on for a long period of time when we put into place a free trade agreement with Australia. We have had the chance to visit there with Phil and Arlene and others in our delegation that Phil led there to talk about the need for us to make sure that we create even greater economic opportunity in our country. Phil is someone who understands that trade is a win-win-win all the way around. We know that some people obviously are displaced, and we know that it is a challenge. My friend from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) has talked with us regularly about this. But I do believe passionately that creating greater economic opportunity for people here in the United States and other parts of the world helps us in dealing with everything from simply enhancing the quality of life and the standard of living for peoples, but also in dealing with this global war on terrorism. Because when one thinks about what it is that has led to terrorism, a part of it, not totally, but an important part of it happens to be the fact that there are societies that are economically devastated. I was talking a few months ago to someone in the Pentagon who said, just think about it, if we had a percentage or two of greater economic growth in Afghanistan or Pakistan, that clearly would have diminished the kind of threat that existed, because people are seeking economic opportunity. So Phil has done that. Then, of course, there is, as has been mentioned, the very important human side to Phil Crane, and that is why when I mentioned Billy Pitts's statement about Phil being a decent man and a kind man, I listened to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) talk about his daughter, Hannah, and I think about all of the young children who come in here. It is rare that you see someone have the great interaction with children and young people the way Phil Crane interacts with young people. That is why I will join in saying that his leaving this great institution will create a void, a void for the institution itself, because he has regularly stood right here in this well and here in the House of Representatives fighting for his deeply rooted principles. This is one of the things that is so impressive, is that Phil has always stood by those principles, no matter what. And I think that that is something that is to be admired. Mr. Speaker, the Burkean view of representative government is one that I think is very important, and Phil has always followed that edict of Edmond Burke, the Father of Conservatism, a member of the British Parliament who, a couple of hundred years ago made it clear; more than that, in fact, he made it very clear that he believed passionately that a representative owes his judgment to his constituents. That is why those core beliefs of Phil Crane's have always come out in his speeches, in his actions, in his votes, and in the legislation that he has pursued. That kind of model is one that will continue to be there for me. It will continue to be there because as I cast votes, as I talk about issues, as I think about formulating positions, I will be doing everything that I can to continue to try and follow that great model that Phil Crane has provided. I thank my friend for yielding. I will say that it is going to be a very, very difficult time for a lot of us seeing Phil leave and seeing Arlene depart as well. But I will say that his spirit will still be alive and well in the greatest deliberative body known to man.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Ambassador Zoellick and President Bush for their decisive steps to bring about an end to the European Union's longstanding practice of directly subsidizing their only large civil aircraft company. By artificially propping up Airbus for decades, the EU has distorted the international market and undercut the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and workers. Today's announcement that the U.S. will begin World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings in this matter demonstrates this Administration's commitment to creating a competitive worldwide market for globally engaged companies. Since 1992, the large commercial aircraft industry has been governed by the U.S.-EU Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft. This agreement was intended to cap and gradually reduce direct government subsidies in the industry, particularly by restricting the amount of launch aid. However, subsidization of Airbus by EU member countries continues to increase. To date, not one Airbus model has been developed without significant government aid. The $15 billion in launch aid alone has in effect taken $35 billion off Airbus's balance sheet. The start of WTO proceedings in this case follows a months-long effort by Ambassador Zoellick to bring the EU to the negotiating table. The Bush Administration has made it clear that only an agreement that leads to an end of all subsidies will be acceptable, and I fully support the President in this objective. Restoring full, free and fair competition to the international civil aircraft industry will benefit consumers, businesses, workers and investors on both sides of the Atlantic. I look forward to continuing to work with Ambassador Zoellick in advancing our open trade agenda.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the eloquence of my friends, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), obviously, focusing on the national security, the homeland security, the drug interdiction aspect of this, which is very important. Let us talk about the environmental side of not constructing this fence. The Tijuana Estuary happens to be a very environmentally sensitive area. The fact that this fence is not being constructed is jeopardizing the environmental quality in the San Diego sector right now with the trash and the other disposal that is taking place, really exacerbating a serious problem. The pro-environment vote and pro-national security and homeland security vote is to vote ``yes'' for the Ose amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me state, I know the intent of our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), is to ensure that there may not be other environmental regulations which in any way impinge on the construction of this fence. I think one of the things that could take place is at least there would be clear legislative intent established through this debate process indicating that it would not move into other areas about which my friend has mentioned as areas of concern for him.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I would like to build on the remarks of my friend from Martinez by saying that I am extraordinarily happy that everyone else is relatively happy over this very important piece of legislation. I am happy because my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) have worked so closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), and others. Focusing on the Bay-Delta region is something that has been a priority for many, many years, and it is something that will benefit not only Californians, but it will benefit us regionally. I also want to join in extending congratulations to our California colleague Dianne Feinstein, and of course our friend Senator Pete Domenici, who worked hard and long in fashioning this. The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has been championing this effort for many, many years. One other word of thanks has to go out on this, and I know some people will cringe when I say this, Mr. Speaker, but exactly 1 year ago tomorrow, the people of California, by an overwhelming margin, chose to recall the governor and elect Arnold Swarzenegger as our new governor. That happened exactly 1 year ago. And from that campaign forward, this has been a very high priority for Governor Swarzenegger. We have seen in California huge geographic disagreement over the issue of water. And it has taken a long period of time for our State, and there are often so many jokes about what happens to California water and disagreements, almost a civil war on this issue of water between the north and the south, and to be able to focus on this Calfed issue in a bipartisan way and to address the regional concerns is something that is virtually unprecedented. So I would like to argue that it took the leadership not only of Arnold Swarzenegger but of this tremendous coalition here in the House of Representatives, and I think it will go a long way towards addressing the very important agriculture needs and the economic needs of our State. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) once again for his strong support in this effort.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this week we will consider what is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation of this Congress. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we all recognized that we had to take dramatic steps to ensure that it never happens again. H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementations Act, is the culmination of years of extensive study, debate and dedication by those who are committed to improving our Nation's homeland security. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important bill introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) not only because it takes extensive steps to reform our intelligence agencies, but also because it addresses a critical threat to our national security: The porous nature of our borders. We know it is far too easy for illegal immigrants to cross the border into this country, and we cannot ignore the fact that terrorists can gain access to the United States this way. So I am particularly pleased that as we worked on this bill, we were able to include measures to strengthen our ongoing efforts to eliminate illegal border crossings. This legislation adds 10,000 new border patrol agents to intercept illegal immigrants and potential terrorists, as well as 4,000 new immigration enforcement investigators to track illegal immigrants down within our borders. These 14,000 new agents are badly needed and will immediately improve illegal immigrant interdiction and interception operations. Additionally, H.R. 10 allows for expedited deportation of illegal immigrants and limits the ability of potential terrorists to claim political asylum to avoid being repatriated to their home country. All of these measures will upgrade our ability to win the battle that is taking place every day along our borders. Perhaps most notably, H.R. 10 includes provisions to counter the explosive increase in identity fraud committed by illegal immigrants and terrorists. This issue is of paramount concern to me, because I firmly believe that if we can eliminate job access for illegal immigrants, then we will be much closer to completing our ultimate goal of eliminating illegal immigration. In fact, Mr. Speaker, T.J. Bonner, a 26-year veteran of the Border Patrol, and president of the National Border Patrol Council, estimates that we can eliminate as much as 98 percent of illegal border crossings if we can give employers access to verifiable identity information on prospective employees and if we crack down on employers who hire illegal workers. Ninety-eight percent is a remarkable number, and it would allow the Border Patrol to focus on targeting criminal aliens and terrorists. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 5111, the Bonner Plan, to improve the security of our Social Security cards and provide a method by which employers could immediately verify the authenticity of that Social Security card. My bill would also increase fines for hiring an illegal worker by 400 percent, and provide for prison sentences of up to 5 years per count. A major first step toward passage of the Bonner plan in its entirety has been the inclusion of very important provisions to combat identity fraud in H.R. 10 which we will be passing as I said this week. H.R. 10 includes new Federal minimum standards to ensure the integrity of both driver's licenses and birth certificates, both of which are widely used source documents which allow illegal immigrants to obtain other documents and access to social services. These new Federal standards will increase the difficulty for illegal immigrants to hide the true nature of their illegal status in our country. And similar to the Bonner plan, H.R. 10 improves the privacy and integrity of an individual's Social Security number, limits the number of replacement Social Security cards a person may receive, and investigates whether the Social Security number itself can be used as a tool to verify a worker's authorization to work in the United States. All of these provisions are vitally important to the war against illegal immigration and the war on terrorism, so I stand here today to enthusiastically express my support for passage of H.R. 10 with the immigration measures fully intact. Since I introduced it on September 21, the Bonner plan, H.R. 5111, has received interest and support from many of my colleagues, including Senators Kyle, Cornyn and Chambliss. The bill also garnered a unique group and I believe unprecedented group of bipartisan cosponsors, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a past chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as well as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus. We all share the goal of eliminating illegal immigration, and I hope very much that we are able to see full and enthusiastic support for H.R. 10 as we move ahead with it this week.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. The Committees on Armed Services, Financial Services, Government Reform, Intelligence and the Judiciary marked-up and ordered the bill reported on September 29, 2004. 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 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 5th. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the Rules Committee print dated October 4th, which is available for their review on the Rules Committee website. 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 their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of October 4, as I was just saying, to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of S. 878, a bill to create additional Federal court judgeships. The Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill reported on September 9, 2004, and filed its report with the House on September 29, 2004. 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 in room H-312 of the Capitol by 2 p.m. on Monday, October 4. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which is available for their review on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules. 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 sure their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I appreciate his request. The announcement I am going to be making in just a few minutes, as soon as the colloquy between the distinguished minority whip and the distinguished majority leader is completed, is one which will call for the establishment of new Federal judgeships. At this juncture, probably on Monday, we will likely be making an announcement as we anticipate the work product that will be emerging on the 9/11 report.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I look at the clock, I see it is 10 o'clock. At this time tomorrow evening, we will be two-thirds of the way through the debate that is scheduled to take place between President Bush and Senator Kerry, and I know that the focus of that debate is going to be on foreign policy issues. And so I have chosen this evening to talk about economic issues because that obviously will be down the road, but I think that as we get ready for the debate on foreign policy and we spend a great deal of time talking about that, I think it is also important for us to talk about very important economic issues. Just a few weeks ago, Madam Speaker, most American kids headed back to school signaling what obviously was the end of summer. Kids had 3 months away from the classroom which is usually enough time for them to forget most of what they learned the year before. September is the time when teachers across the country settle down to the task of reviewing what was forgotten and maybe even tackle some new material. Madam Speaker, I am standing here tonight because I believe that it is not just America's youth that spent the summer forgetting what they have already learned. Last spring I spent a lot of time standing here talking about our economy and debunking a number of the economic myths that were being propounded by so many, like the myth of the, quote- unquote, jobless recovery that is a familiar term. We have heard it so often. We were dealing with a jobless recovery. The myth that we have an economy similar to that of the Great Depression. And, of course, the ever-popular myth that all we have created are hamburger-flipping jobs. Eventually we saw some sanity in the debate over the state of our economy. Overwhelmingly positive economic news managed to silence or at least quiet this economy's noisiest critics because we were getting very positive news. Strong growth, high consumer confidence, record homeownership, and robust job creation all made it quite clear that our 21st century economy is strong and very vibrant. And the economic policies of this Congress and this administration have been a tremendous success. That was sort of the word that was finally getting through to the American people and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle before the summer. Then a few misrepresented statistics this summer managed to convince a lot of pundits, talking heads and even some of my colleagues that our vibrant, dynamic economy was tanking. Once again they began to believe that no jobs were being created, or at least no good jobs were being created. Perhaps it is not just the youngsters that needed to go back to school. I would like to set the record straight on the true state of our economy and give this summer's data and figures a very much needed perspective. Gross domestic product is perhaps the broadest measure of the economy's health. The growth in GDP. In the second quarter of this year, Madam Speaker, gross domestic product growth grew at a 3.3 percent annualized rate. This is a very healthy and solid pace. But initial GDP estimates were somewhat lower, first 3 percent, and they were later revised downward to 2.8 percent, just under that 3 percent growth. Even these numbers indicate a healthy rate of growth. But because they were lower than predicted by most economists, the growth rate was widely reported as an alarming sign that our economy was in trouble. I think perhaps the media missed the point. The fact that economists incorrectly forecasted second-quarter growth may be interesting, but the big news here is that the U.S. economy has had 11 straight quarters of economic growth. Eleven straight quarters uninterrupted growth in this economy. Not only do we now know that it grew by 3.3 percent in the last quarter, but the first-quarter rate was revised upward from 3.9 percent to a 4.5 percent rate. This means that the average growth rate of our economy for the first half of 2004 was 3.9 percent, very robust by any standard and higher than the average during the much-heralded Clinton era where we had strong economic growth. The rate then was 3.7 percent on average. Again the first 6 months of this year saw a 3.9 percent GDP growth. Another supposed cause for concern are the latest consumer confidence numbers. After steadily rising month after month, consumer confidence decreased somewhat in recent months. There is no doubt that constant headlines reporting rising oil prices caused Americans to wonder what impact they would have on the economy resulting in a modest dip in consumer confidence. But despite this blip on the screen, consumer confidence remains at a nearly 2-year high. Let me say that again, Madam Speaker. Consumer confidence, even with that dip with the increase in oil prices, it is at a nearly 2-year high. Perhaps the more telling number, consumer spending, is also very healthy. Retail spending has grown 5 percent over the past year, a strong pace by historical standards. Excluding auto sales, retail sales have grown at a rate of 7 percent. Americans are clearly demonstrating their confidence in the strength of our economy. Madam Speaker, real earnings also continue to grow. Real average weekly earnings grew seven-tenths of 1 percent in the month of July, and they are up 1 percent during the Bush administration. To give these numbers a little context, real average weekly earnings increased by just four-tenths of 1 percent during the first 4 years of the Clinton administration, less than half the growth that we are experiencing today. Real hourly compensation has grown four-tenths of 1 percent in the first half of this year and is up 5.2 percent since President Bush has been in office. Again, in order to give some context, Madam Speaker, real hourly compensation fell four-tenths of 1 percent during the first 4 years of the Clinton administration. That is 5.2 percent growth that we have had during the Bush administration versus a four-tenths of 1 percent reduction in real hourly compensation. Real disposable personal income is perhaps the best and broadest measure we have of an individual's wealth because it takes into account many forms of after-tax income. This measure also shows a steady, solid pace of growth. During the Bush administration, real per capita disposable income has increased by $1,521 versus the $1,332 increase of real per capita disposable income during the first 4 years of the Clinton administration. So we have actually seen a pretty dramatic increase in the 4 years of the Bush administration juxtaposed to the 4 years of the Clinton administration. Again, the reason I make these comparisons is that we constantly hear about how we long for the days of the bold and strong and dynamic economic growth that we had during the Clinton administration; and, of course, we recall very well that Bill Clinton was running for reelection in 1996, running on that strong, bold and dynamic economy; and if you look at real per capita disposable income, it actually has increased more in the past 4 years of the Bush administration than it did during those first 4 years of the Clinton administration. Industrial production continues to climb. Manufacturing output is stronger than ever. Let me underscore that again, Madam Speaker, because we have over the last few months been continuing to hear these lines about how the manufacturing sector of our economy is in the Dumpster. Manufacturing output is stronger than it has ever been. Productivity. Remember how important productivity is. Constantly for decades we have really had a focus on productivity. Productivity is on a long, steady upward trend. Exports, one of the important things that this administration has focused on, prying open new markets for U.S. goods and services, exports are surging. Business investment is very healthy, growing nearly 9 percent in the last quarter, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of growth. This is particularly significant in light of the 2001 economic recession which was characterized by abysmally poor business investment. Madam Speaker, today's robust investment demonstrates the strength and competitiveness of U.S. companies as well as a healthy climate in which firms are willing to take risks. Madam Speaker, on all fronts, the U.S. economy is vital and strong. Despite some misrepresentation, the recent economic data demonstrate a healthy and growing economy. This is not just a temporary phenomenon. These positive indicators are part of a 2\1/2\-year trend of growth and a rising standard of living. Of course, we are not going to be satisfied until every single American who wants a job has a job, but as we hear these constant gloom-and-doom predictions and these outlines from so many of our colleagues that you would think that we were in a deep depression, the numbers as well as empirical evidence prove otherwise. Of course, as I say, in any discussion of the economy, the issue of job creation is obviously the highest priority. On this front as well, the outlook is very bright and continues to be bright. But once again, as I say, some misrepresented numbers are leading to more rhetoric of doom and gloom that have come from so many naysayers. In July, the new payroll jobs number, the payroll survey jobs number was 32,000. This was much lower than previous months' numbers and fell far short of expectations. Immediately when those numbers came out for the month of July of 32,000, we heard the naysayers, led by John Kerry. They could be heard lamenting the end of our recovery and the start of a downward trend. That is what we continued to hear at midsummer. The announcement of 144,000 new payroll jobs in August has quieted some of the gloom-and-doom rhetoric, but John Kerry & Company still claim that good new jobs are not being created. But in order to understand what the payroll numbers mean, the payroll survey, there are several key points that we need to keep in mind. The first is that in spite of the July number, the payroll survey does in fact show a very strong job growth. This is the payroll survey, and I am going to talk about the difference between the payroll and the household surveys in a moment; but the payroll survey itself has shown 1.4 million new jobs created in this calendar year alone and almost 1.7 million new jobs created since August of last year. The second point, Madam Speaker, to keep in mind is that the payroll survey is notoriously inadequate at accurately accounting for new job creation following an economic recession. This survey showed a very weak job recovery following that recession in 1991. Quarter after quarter, the meager payroll survey numbers seem to suggest a jobless recovery. Sound familiar? Once more, complete data became available, and once we were able to look at more complete data, we realized that the job creation had, in fact, been very strong throughout 1992. The payroll numbers were revised upwards significantly. Most economists agree that this phenomenon is taking place again today and that the payroll numbers will once again be revised upward. But the third and more fundamental point about the payroll survey is that it does not measure the entire workforce. Again, the payroll survey numbers that we regularly have come out on a monthly basis do not reflect the entire workforce of this country. This survey only counts jobs in established firms. It does not count self-employed workers. It does not count small-business owners, independent contractors and consultants, LLC partners, and it does not count farmers. The payroll survey, the numbers that we regularly look at, do not take all of those into consideration. Those innovative job creators out there are not taken into the mix. Historically self-employed workers represented only a small slice of the entire labor force. That is one of the reasons people have relied on the payroll establishment survey as opposed to the household survey. But our economy is many years into a fundamental shift in the overall nature of job creation. Self-employment currently accounts for one- third of all new job creation. Self-employment accounts for one-third of all new job creation, Madam Speaker. That means that that is not taken into consideration in the payroll survey. The Internet and modern technology, especially digital technologies, are making the American dream of owning one's own business a much more accessible reality. Small business startups are booming. LLC partnerships are exploding, doubling the total number in just 3 years in some States. And these small merchants, empowered by the Internet age, are able to compete in the global market right alongside the multinational counterparts. And yet their work is not taken into consideration when the payroll survey is done. Our 21st Century economy is giving a quickly growing number of Americans the flexibility to work independently and to be their own bosses. This is very good news for workers and, Madam Speaker, for families as well. But it means, as I say, that the payroll survey is increasingly inadequate for measuring this new dynamic 21st Century workforce because that innovation and creativity that is out there is not taken into the mix. It is not taken into the mix at all. Furthermore, the payroll survey numbers are highly susceptible to changing the rates in job turnover. When job turnover is high, a significant amount of double counting takes place as workers move from one employer to another during a short period of time. The result is an inflated payroll number during periods of high turnover. Subsequently, when turnover begins to ebb, the payroll number is artificially deflated. A number of economists have long been pointing out this volatility in the payroll survey. Tim Kane, who is a very bright economist whom I know at the Heritage Foundation, estimates that high turnover could inflate the payroll jobs survey number by over a million jobs. As a result, there is huge potential for overstating job losses during points in the business cycle when turnover drops. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently published its first assessment of this problem. Its report did not estimate the full potential for inflating payroll job numbers during high-turnover periods. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics did find that this turnover effect has led to an undercount of at least a quarter of a million, 250,000 jobs, during the period between March of 2001 and June of 2004, a period of low turnover and economic recovery. Let me run through that problem again. High job turnover prior to the 2001 recession inflated the payroll number in the preceding years. The result has been that, over the past 3 years, while turnover has been low, the payroll survey has shown an artificially low number by at least 250,000 jobs. Based on Mr. Kane's estimate of a potential overstatement of 1 million jobs, the current undercount could be even greater than that quarter of a million. It could certainly be smaller. Steven Braun at the Council of Economic Advisors estimates that the current undercount could be as low as 145,000. But the point is, there is simply no doubt that the payroll survey is vulnerable to distortion from the job-turnover effect. So we know that the payroll survey has its shortcomings. But we have several measures of our labor force that, taken together, help to paint what is clearly a more accurate picture of job creation in this economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey that I have been mentioning, for example, counts employed workers by going directly to households, directly to the households and counting the number of employed persons. Rather than surveying established businesses, the household survey counts all types of workers. This method makes it possible to account for the self-employed workers who are missed by the payroll survey. As I have said, the self-employed historically accounted for a relatively small section of the workforce in years past. Because of this, the payroll and household surveys, while taking different approaches to assessing employment, came up at that time in the past with similar results. There were differences here and there, but the two surveys, because of the fact that self-employed made up such a small segment of the workforce in the past, the difference between the household and the payroll surveys, so-called establishment survey, trended together, and the differences were not that great, and they demonstrated a very similar sort of the same employment climate. In the last few years, however, as I have been saying, an unprecedented divergence has taken place between the establishment payroll survey and the household survey. Since March of 2001, the two surveys have shown an incredible discrepancy in job creation. The gap currently stands at nearly 3 million jobs. That is a 3 million job spread in the disparity between the prediction of the establishment payroll survey, which simply takes into account those in companies that are actually employed, juxtaposed to looking at the household survey, which goes directly to the homes and asks if people are working there. And while the household survey measures 1.9 million new jobs created since 2001, the payroll data suggests a net job loss of a million over that same period of time. This divergence shows no sign of correcting itself. In July, the household survey showed a net job creation of 629,000. Remember, as I said, the payroll survey, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, showed 32,000 jobs created. So by the antiquated way of determining jobs in the pre-21st Century economy, what we had was 32,000 jobs created, and yet with the household survey, the month of July showed 629,000 jobs created. There are likely a number of reasons contributing to that major divergence. The turnover factor, as I was mentioning earlier, has obviously had a big impact. And as I discussed, the payroll survey tends to undercount jobs in periods of recovery as was the case in the months following that 1991 recession. But it is clear, Madam Speaker, that the fundamental changes in the nature of job creation that are taking place in our economy have led to a far greater slice of the labor force that is working independently. As this trend continues, the payroll survey will be increasingly incapable of accounting for all working Americans. I think it is already there myself if we look at the numbers. The household survey alone is not enough to see the complete picture, however. But if we look at all the numbers that are available to us, it is clear that the current household survey numbers are much more in line with other economic indicators than is that very antiquated payroll survey. Average weekly jobless claims have been dropping for 13 straight months. The unemployment rate has fallen to 5.4 percent, lower than the average for the past 3 decades. The ISM manufacturing employment index has shown gains for 15 straight months. The same index for nonmanufacturing employment has been showing gains for 11 straight months. All of these employment figures are pointing in one direction, and that one direction is up. And yet Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry tries to claim that the economic policies of the Bush administration and this Republican Congress have been an abysmal failure. He claims that no jobs are being created. We have heard that line over and over again: ``George Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net job loss.'' And yet faced with the evidence that thousands upon thousands of jobs are being created, John Kerry says that they are only low-wage hamburger-flipping jobs that have been created. Yet we can see from the overwhelmingly positive economic data that this is clearly not the case. Even the payroll survey, Madam Speaker, has shown 13 consecutive months of job creation. And these gains have been across virtually every single industry in our Nation. Gains have been especially strong in high-wage, high-skill industries like business and professional services. There is simply no denying the fact that job creation in this economy is strong and sustained. But the negative rhetoric just keeps on coming, and with it comes several new economic proposals. John Kerry says he would repeal the very tax cuts that halted a recession, revived business investment, gave Americans bigger paychecks, and produced all of the strong economic indicators that I have just been discussing, including $56 billion in unanticipated revenue to our Federal Treasury that came in because of the economic growth that followed our tax cuts. In addition to raising taxes on individuals, the Senator from Massachusetts would increase the tax burden on U.S. companies, the job creators, who compete and invest in the worldwide market. He would also impose new labor regulations on these global leaders and create new restrictions. For example, John Kerry supports preventing globally engaged companies from competing for federal contracts. He is also a cosponsor of the so-called Jobs for Americans Act. Sounds great, but it would impose dramatic new restrictions and regulations on any company, large or small, that invests in growing overseas markets. John Kerry would also bring our trade liberalization agenda to a standstill. He has proposed reopening the trade agreements that have removed barriers to U.S. goods and services, and we are all very proud of this Congress having in the past year passed agreements with Morocco and Chile and Singapore and Australia, very important; yes, small economies but very important market-opening opportunities. So he has proposed reopening the trade agreements that have removed barriers to U.S. goods and services and created new opportunities for American workers and provided quality, affordable choices for the American consumer, which is something we so often forget in the trade debate. He says he would put a moratorium on all negotiations currently in progress. And he has called for reinstating the Super 301 process, which would violate our commitments to the World Trade Organization. Remember, the WTO, often maligned, is an entity which has as its goal eliminating tariff barriers, and it would also, by taking the action that John Kerry has proposed, open up an opportunity for retaliation by our trading partners in the world. In short, John Kerry's economic platform consists of claiming that our vibrant, growing economy is actually weak and then proposing to make innovators and job creators even less competitive than they are today. Madam Speaker, several months ago I stood in this well and discussed many of the proposals that John Kerry has made and pointed out that he has been advocating policies that countries like France and Germany have had in place for many years. For decades, Madam Speaker, the French and the Germans have saddled businesses with high taxes and heavy regulation all in the name of what? Protecting jobs. As I said a few months ago when I stood here, we do not have to wonder what the impact of the Kerry economic agenda would be. Why? All we need to do is look at the economies of France and Germany and decide that that is what our economy would look like under the policy proposals that have been put forth by John Kerry. So let us look, Madam Speaker, at these numbers again. Since 1999, unemployment in France has been stuck right around 10 percent. At the end of 2002 it dipped as low as 9.1 percent, but it is now back up to 9.5 percent. The French unemployment rate is nearly double the 5.4 percent unemployment rate that we have here in the United States, and it continues to rise at a time when the overall unemployment rate for OECD countries is actually falling. Remember, this increase is being led by falling unemployment in the United States. For the overall number of OECD countries, our economy is providing leadership. Unfortunately, the French economy, setting the example for the policies that John Kerry has proposed, unfortunately is headed in the wrong direction. Economic growth, overall economic growth in France has also been very disappointing. Last year GDP growth grew at a very paltry 1.8 percent. Remember, we have talked about it in excess of 3 percent growth here. Estimates for 2004 are that economic growth in France will be at 1.7 percent. Its finance ministry announced it is hopeful the economy could grow by as much as 2.5 percent next year. But even they admit that this relatively slow rate of growth will be difficult to achieve. Getting up to 2.5 percent will be tough for them. This stagnation is not a recent or temporary situation in France. Average annual growth in gross domestic product throughout all the 1990s was less than 2 percent, Madam Speaker, just over half of the average growth of 3.4 percent that we have had here in the United States. Germany has faced similar dismal jobs and growth numbers. Since the late 1990s, unemployment in Germany has remained just above 8 percent, and has steadily climbed over the past year. In 2003 it inched up from 9 percent to 9.2 percent; and unfortunately for the German people, it continues to climb. At the same time, German GDP growth has been a very meager 1.7 percent for the last 2 years, and economic forecasters have downgraded their predictions of growth for 2004 from 1.8 to 1.6 percent. Just like their neighbor to the West, Germany has experienced economic stagnation for many, many years. Throughout all the 1990s, economic growth averaged just 1.5 percent, an abysmal one-third of the U.S. growth that we have seen. But perhaps the most telling numbers of all, Madam Speaker, are what I call the ``innovation indicators,'' the innovation indicators, in terms of new patents, research and development, and venture capital. The United States far outpaces France, Germany, and the entire European Union. As a result, we are the world's leading innovator, right here in the United States. Our level of innovation, which demonstrates the vitality and dynamism of an economy, together with factors like unemployment and growth in GDP, clearly show that our economy is creating far more and far better opportunities for workers. Madam Speaker, the competitive edge has led to a significant brain drain from Western Europe to the United States. Over 100,000 European researchers currently work in the U.S. A recent European Commission survey found that more than 70 percent of European recipients of U.S. doctorates in the last decade plan to stay and work in America. This has the commission fretting that by the end of the decade Europe will have 700,000 fewer scientists and engineers than will be necessary to compete in the global economy. This realization, along with years of flagging growth and rising unemployment, has served as a wake-up call to Europe that their economic policies have failed. In fact, the policies that John Kerry is advocating have performed so poorly in France, Germany, and throughout the euro-zone area that the Europeans are now proposing significant reforms. It is long overdue, but it is great to hear it. They are starting to move in precisely the opposite direction that John Kerry is proposing to see the U.S. move in. The European Union has realized it is time for them to go back to school and learn what it takes to make sure that economies thrive. The most sweeping changes are taking place within the European Commission, beginning with the appointment of Jose Manual Barroso of Portugal as the new president of the European Commission. France and Germany had supported the Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who favors high taxes and heavy-handed government intervention. But EU member countries chose Portugal's Prime Minister, a staunch free market proponent with strong reform credentials. Mr. Barroso has signaled his continued commitment to the principles of economic liberty in virtually every major appointment he has made for his team of commissioners. The competition portfolio is one that France in particular was interested in nabbing. But the job did not go to a French favorite. Instead, it went to Neelie Kroes-Smit of the Netherlands, a member of the free-market Liberal Party in the Netherlands. As transport minister in the 1980s, she supervised the privatization of key naturalized industries, such as the postal system and the telephone monopoly. The trade post went to a Brit, Peter Mandelson, a close ally of Tony Blair and a strong proponent of aggressive trade liberalization. The internal market position went to Charlie McCreevy, that great supply- sider who cut Ireland's taxes to the lowest in the European Union and helped Ireland enjoy 8 percent, 8 percent, GDP growth. Latvia's Ingrida Udre was given the taxation portfolio in a clear signal of his support for lower taxes. Madam Speaker, Latvia adopted a 25 percent flat tax 10 years ago, and has experienced growth rates averaging over 6 percent during the last 5 years. Clearly, the European Union has witnessed the damaging effects of Franco-German policies of high taxes and high regulation which stifle innovation and entrepreneurship; and as a result of that, the new leadership is attempting to make a fundamental shift in the EU's economic and labor policies. While France and Germany still seem to be lagging behind in this enthusiasm for change, there are signs that even they realize that their policies are not working. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has been struggling to institute new labor reforms that would significantly reduce the burdens of employers, particularly small business owners, in an attempt to jump-start job creation. There have also been some surprising proposals in the area of tax cutting. Last month the influential advisory panel to Germany's Finance Ministry actually proposed a flat tax of 30 percent on both corporate and personal income. That is still a high rate by international comparisons. Russia's individual flat tax rate, for example, is 13 percent. But it would be a significant reduction, not to mention dramatic simplification, of the very, very complex system that they have in Germany. German corporate profits are now taxed at 37 percent and individual rates as high as 45 percent. The tax burden is so formidable that a recent European Commission report estimates that the black market in Germany has grown to 6 percent of its GDP. While much of Western Europe still has a very long way to go to undo the decades of burdensome labor regulations and protective tax policies, the seeds of change, I am happy to say, are being sown. But it is simply mind-boggling that at precisely the same time that the European Union is getting the message and beginning to deal with the very detrimental effects that they have had of years of bad economic policies, John Kerry is proposing that we as Americans begin adopting those failed policies. He wants to saddle employers with new regulations. He wants to burden U.S. companies that are global leaders and innovators with higher taxes. He wants to disrupt trade agreements that have created new opportunities for American workers, business and consumers. He wants to fundamentally alter the U.S. business environment that has made us the global economic leader and a magnet for the world's best and brightest. It is hard to understand what John Kerry could possibly be thinking, but at least he provides the American people with a very clear, distinct choice. On the one hand you have a President who cuts taxes, boosting the after-tax dollars of all Americans and making U.S. companies more competitive; a President who aggressively seeks to alleviate the burdens of unnecessary regulations and frivolous lawsuits on employers and job creaters, particularly small business owners; a President who tears down trade barriers that hurt U.S. manufacturers, service providers, farmers, investors and consumers; a President who has helped to lead our economy into the 21st century economy so it will continue to be the global standard bearer. On the other hand you have a candidate who wants to stymie the freedom and flexibility that have allowed innovators to develop and harness new technologies; a candidate who wants to prevent our most competitive businesses from investing in the global market; a candidate who wants to burden employers and individuals with new taxes and new regulations; a candidate who looks at our dynamic, vibrant, growing, innovative economy and sees only an opportunity for more heavy-handed government intervention. Madam Speaker, it sounds like John Kerry could learn a few things from the very Europeans whom he proposes we emulate. Our economy is the global leader because the hard work and innovations of millions of Americans are not constrained by excessive government meddling. France and Germany are reluctantly learning this lesson. I hope very much, Madam Speaker, that as he continues his career in the United States Senate after this November, that John Kerry will learn those lessons as well. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield to my friend the gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Cunningham). A Vision of Peace in the Middle East

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting and probably somewhat unusual that during morning hour debate three speeches in a row are on the exact same topic. I listened to the statement of my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). I just listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). And I will state that it is important for us to spend some time engaged in debate and focusing on the very important elections that are going to be taking place on October 9 in Afghanistan, and then as was said earlier, six days later the registration process begins for elections that are scheduled to do take place in Iraq this coming January. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) earlier referred to an op-ed piece that actually is what led me to come to take the well this afternoon and that is a piece by David Brooks in today's New York Times in which he talked about the challenge that lies ahead as we deal with the prospect of elections, as I said, on October 9 in Afghanistan and then elections to take place in Iraq. But he used a historical context which I think is very important. That historical context does go back to March of 1982 when we saw the elections take place in El Salvador. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I were elected to the House together in 1980. And during that decade we saw great struggles take place, really throughout the world as we saw nations move from totalitarianism to self-determination, political pluralism. Of course, we saw that in the latter part of the 1980s in Eastern and Central Europe. Really throughout most of that decade we saw the struggle take place in Central America, in primarily Nicaragua and El Salvador. In El Salvador it was in large part a civil war, a civil war that was fueled with resources that came from Communists in the region and from the Soviet Union, but it still was an upheaval that was taking place. And yet in 1982, as Mr. Brooks pointed out in his piece today, with 75,000 lives being lost, an attack taking place on the national palace, people actually bombing those in line standing to vote, elections proceeded. There was a statement that he has in this piece in which he says that one person who was in line said, ``This nation,'' in referring to El Salvador, ``may be falling apart, but by voting we may help to hold it together.'' Now, it is true that things have not gone perfectly in the war to liberate the people of Iraq. Everyone acknowledges that. But this is a war. There are no guarantees. There are no there is no absolute certainty. But we do know this: Saddam Hussein is no longer in power; and if he were still in power, if he were still in power he would be providing, as the international terrorist that he was, $25,000 to the families responsible for the bombings of buses that took place in Israel just a few weeks ago. And he would be involved in the kinds of repressive policies and the threat to destabilize his region and other parts of the world that he had been involved in. We do know that we brought an end to that. There still are terrorist forces in Iraq. But I will say, Madam Speaker, that as we head to this election on October 9 in Afghanistan and then in January in Iraq, it is important to know that it is not going to be a perfect election. We learned in 2000 that democracy is a work in progress. But as we begin with these elections in October and January, it is very important to note that that will be the beginning point as we move down the road towards the right of people to choose their own leaders, self- determination, political pluralism, the rule of law, those democratic institutions which we have a tendency to take for granted here in the United States. So I would like to say, let us learn from history. Standing firm to proceed with some kind of election is the right thing for us to do. And I am very pleased that this administration and a majority in this United States Congress are dedicated to doing just that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, having listened to the words of my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), I would like to say that the Special Order that I am going to be presenting this evening refers to exactly what she was talking about in the final remarks that she provided, very thoughtful remarks. It has to do with the fact that this institution, this building, this entity is in fact the citadel of freedom. And I think and I believe it is very important for us to realize the great importance of that. Mr. Speaker, it has been 3 years since the heinous attacks and the absolute horror that befell America on September 11 of 2001. And it was not just an attack on America. It was an attack on the free world. Citizens from many nations were murdered and maimed that day, as we all know. But perhaps more important, this was an attack on the core values of freedom and democracy that are embodied in our Nation and in all of the free people of the world. While nations have cooperated in an unprecedented fashion in the fight against terrorism, unfortunately, much remains to be done. We have just gotten the tragic news in the last 24 hours of the tragic beheadings of Messrs. Armstrong and Hensley. We saw the bombings in Spain and the recent tragedy in Russia; both underscore the need for all of us to remain vigilant in this global war on terror. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has a special responsibility, a very special responsibility, to protect the core freedoms and liberties of democracy, for we continue, as I was saying at the outset, to be the beacon for democracy, and our Capitol, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) was just saying earlier, our Capitol perhaps is the single most recognized symbol of democracy all over the world. In fact, I remember very vividly back in 1990, I had the opportunity to bring one of the Solidarity activists from Poland for President Bush's State of the Union address. I remember very well we were walking along, and the Capitol, of course, was particularly well-lit because we all know on the night of the State of the Union the television networks put added light on the Capitol. All of the sudden, tears were coming down the face of these people who had come from Poland, and I asked what it was. They were simply looking at the Capitol dome, and that, for me, underscored how clearly this is the most recognized symbol of democracy and freedom in the world. I believe that our responsibilities as Representatives of this democracy are twofold. First, we must employ our full legislative power to make our Nation safer, our citizens more secure and to defend our democracy against all terrorists. Second, we must do everything in our power to ensure that our institution, the Congress itself, can continue to operate in the face of any crisis, any terrorist attack, any disaster. Again, we need to be able to see that this institution can function in any crisis, any terrorist attack, any disaster that could possibly hit us. Mr. Speaker, since the District of Columbia became the permanent seat of our government, the United States Congress has been unable to use the Capitol for an extended period only once. That occurrence, of course, was during the War of 1812 when the Capitol was burned, as we all know. Nonetheless, the enduring threat of the last century, the Cold War, forced the Federal Government to plan for its continuity in the event of a catastrophe. Some people assumed, however, that after the Cold War this kind of planning could stop. We all know that 3 years ago this past September 11, not only did that tragic event put that notion to rest, but it changed our thinking and our planning for the continuation of representative government, representative democracy as we know it. Indeed, we saw smoke rising from the Pentagon and later heard of the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93 as they cried, ``Let's roll.'' Many of us shared a feeling of having just missed a bullet, a bullet that could have hit this Capitol itself. We share the additional responsibility for our very institutions, for our individual Members, for our staff and for the thousands of people who visit the Capitol every single day. Following September 11 and the subsequent anthrax and ricin attacks, our continuity learning curve has been very, very steep. However, the good news is that we have worked hard and have implemented a number of measures that improve the continuity of our Congress. Indeed, we have taken the advice of one of our great Framers of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, who in Federalist 59 said, ``Every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.'' Let me say that again. ``Every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.'' Those are Alexander Hamilton's words. Toward that end, in the last 3 years, the Speaker has focused the United States House of Representatives on three core areas for our overall continuity: number one, upgrading the physical security of both our D.C. and our constituency offices; number two, preserving our continuity of operations here in Washington, D.C.; and number three, addressing the continuity of our form of government itself through debating how to deal with catastrophes that result in large numbers of Members being killed or incapacitated. Mr. Speaker, let me now turn for a moment to discuss our efforts to preserve the continuity of our congressional operations. The Speaker of the House has long recognized that if the Capitol, or if Washington itself, were to become unsuitable as a meeting place for the House, whether due to attack, contagion or other calamity, an alternative site for operations would be needed. Much thought has gone into the placement of sufficient resources, technology, staffing and accommodations for Members and key staff so that we could continue to fulfill our duties to the American people. Additionally, we have already adopted a number of very important rule changes to give the House the operational flexibility we believe it would need in a crisis. Mr. Speaker, those include: first, authority for the Speaker to declare an emergency recess subject to the call of the Chair when notified of an imminent threat to the safety of the House; second, authority to address the constitutional requirement that the House and Senate assemble in the same place outside the seat of government; third, authority for a designee of the Speaker to act with the Senate to effect a recall of the membership; and fourth, authority for the Speaker to convene the House anywhere within the seat of government. Now, at this point, I have a particular item I would like to enter in the Record. Parliamentary Steps Taken To Ensure Continuity of Operations Authority to effect a joint-leadership recall from a period of adjournment to an alternate place (in concurrent resolutions of adjournment). Authority to effect a joint-leadership recall from a period of adjournment through designees (in concurrent resolutions of adjournment). Anticipatory consent with the Senate to assemble in an alternate place (in a putatively biennial concurrent resolution on opening day of a Congress). Requirement that the Speaker submit to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker (including physical inability of the Speaker to discharge his duties) until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore, exercising such authorities of the Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end (clause 8 of rule I). Authority for the Speaker to suspend pending business of the House by declaring an emergency recess subject to the call of the Chair when notified of an imminent threat to the safety of the House (clause 12(b) of rule I). Authority for the Speaker, during any recess or adjournment of not more than three days, in consultation with the Minority Leader, to postpone the time for reconvening or to reconvene before the time previously appointed solely to declare the House in recess, in each case within the constitutional three-day limit (clause 12(c) of rule I). Authority for the Speaker to convene the House in an alternate place within the seat of government (clause 12(d) of rule I). Codification of the long-standing practice that the death, resignation, expulsion, disqualification, or removal of a Member results in an adjustment of the whole number of the House, which the Speaker shall announce to the House and which shall not be subject to appeal (clause 5 of rule XX). Establishment of a Select Committee on Homeland Security with oversight and legislative over matters relating to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 identified by the Speaker and the responsibility to make recommendations concerning future legislative jurisdiction over homeland security matters (sec. 4, H. Res. 5, 108th Cong.). Establishment of an Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, we have approached continuity planning during the 108th Congress in three distinct areas. I now want to talk about what is perhaps the most difficult aspect of our planning: how we will continue to legislate if large numbers of our Members are killed or incapacitated. Obviously, this is a horrible thought. We do not like to even contemplate or consider it, but we all know that we live in a very, very dangerous world, and it is a responsibility that we have to take very seriously. This issue necessarily requires us to contemplate that which none of us really wants to consider, that being our mortality. Mr. Speaker, this is at the heart of why I stand before the House this evening. I am deeply concerned that we need to act now to protect the House as an institution if the unthinkable were to happen. One of the most difficult questions that we have had to consider is what we would do if large numbers of Members are so injured that they cannot fulfill their duties. This incapacitation of large numbers of Members, what we call the ``mass incapacitation'' of Members, poses a grave threat to the ability of the House to function in a time of crisis. We have spent a lot of time on a nonpartisan basis discussing this issue, and I underscore that this as an institutional issue. It is not a partisan issue. In each of these discussions, Mr. Speaker, good questions have been asked by a number of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle who are committed to the survival of this institution, the greatest deliberative body known to man. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do now is address with answers some of the very important questions that have been posed. First of all, as we look at providing a definition of the problem, what is the so-called ``quorum trap''? As we all know, a quorum is an essential part of a legislative body. In some nations, including our allies in the United Kingdom, it is but 40 members, a very small number. However, in the United States, a quorum is set by the Constitution as a majority of Members. That is what is stated in the U.S. Constitution. Long-standing House precedent defines a majority as those Members who are chosen, sworn and living. ``Chosen, sworn and living'' is what determines, that is, it's the precedent for establishing a majority. The standard does not address Members who are chosen, sworn, living, but unable to carry out their duties because they are incapacitated. Thus, if Members are alive but unable to carry out their duties, they remain in the calculation of quorum. If large numbers of Members are incapacitated and a roll call vote is needed, the House could be unable to obtain a quorum. This is what we call the ``quorum trap,'' where so many Members would, in fact, be unable to respond to a quorum call. Let me say that again. If large numbers of Members are incapacitated, we, as an institution, could be unable to act. The potential rule change that I will explain in a moment would go into effect if, after an attack, more than half the number of those Members remaining alive were incapacitated, again, half the number remaining alive are incapacitated. That is why we refer to this as ``mass incapacitation.'' Additionally, it is important to note that the quorum trap only becomes a problem for the House if a roll call vote is needed. Again, the quorum trap only becomes a problem if we have to have a roll call vote. House precedents provide that a quorum is presumed unless challenged. If the Members can agree to the business of the House being considered by unanimous consent, then the lack of a quorum would not be an issue. Nonetheless, as an institution, we cannot take the risk that we will always be able to act by unanimous consent. The House is very limited in what it can do without a quorum. It can only do two things without a quorum, Mr. Speaker. Number one, adjourn from day-to-day; or number two, send the Sergeant-at-Arms to try and bring enough Members in to constitute a quorum. Those are the only things that we are able to do without a quorum. Without the potential rule change to deal with the quorum trap, we could be unable to act at exactly the time that the American people expect us to do so. Unfortunately, even after years of consideration, no one has been able to adequately define exactly what incapacitation is for every possible situation. Up in the Committee on Rules, we had a hearing. We had testimony from our attending physician, Admiral Eisold. He testified to the Congress, and he revealed that making a determination of incapacitation involves so many factors that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have a bright-line test for exactly what is incapacitation. Rather than trying to define incapacitation, this approach defines what constitutes the House. It is the number of Members who are not incapacitated. That is, the Members who can show up to answer the call of the House, the quorum call. That ``call of the House'' could be a regular roll call vote, like we have every day, or it could be done through the rule that gives the Speaker the power to recognize any Member to move a call of the House for establishing a quorum. What types of catastrophic events would trigger these kinds of provisions? Mr. Speaker, the language of the rule is intended to cover broad possibilities, including catastrophic circumstances involving natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar calamity that render representatives incapable of attending the proceedings of the House. For example, Members could be incapacitated because they are so injured that they cannot fulfill their duties, or they may be missing and presumed dead, or they could be held hostage. What is the solution? How would the potential rule change procedure play out? At its core, mass incapacitation presents one key problem for the House. If too many Members are incapacitated, the House is actually unable to do business for the American people during a time of crisis. The Constitution says that a majority quorum is required for House business. Another way of thinking about this majority requirement is that it is a fraction. The amount above the line is the number of Members who are physically present and can participate. The amount below the line is the number of Members who exist. Rather than trying to define incapacitation, this potential rule change uses the ability or inability of Members to show up and participate as a measure of who exists, the amount below the line. This potential rule change, if adopted, would solve the quorum trap by requiring the following procedural steps: The rule requires that Members dispose of a motion for the Sergeant at Arms to find Members so that we can hopefully obtain a quorum without going any further than that. Additionally, if this attempt to gather a quorum fails, the next stage of the rule requires an extremely lengthy call of the House. We would call for 72 hours, a quorum call of 72 hours, exclusive of time that the House has spent in recess, to try to gather 218 Members in order to establish a quorum. Next, if that step fails to produce a quorum, the rule requires that the Sergeant at Arms, in conjunction with the Attending Physician to Congress and other relevant law enforcement and public safety officials, report to the Speaker, the minority leader and the majority leader on the state of the membership and whether the failure of quorum is due to catastrophic circumstances. This report would be updated daily and made available to the entire House. Members could, if they choose, disseminate the information. It would consist of the following: (A) the number of vacancies in the House and the names of former Representatives whose seats are vacant; (B) the names of Representatives considered incapacitated; (C) the names of Representatives not incapacitated but otherwise incapable of attending the proceedings of the House; and (D) the names of Representatives unaccounted for. Now, the next step in the rule is for the Speaker to decide whether to formally place the report of the Sergeant at Arms before the House. The Speaker could decide to delay this formal step in order to collect more information about the membership and the nature of the catastrophe. However, if the Speaker does place the report before the House formally, the next step would be to have another very lengthy quorum call, 24 hours, again exclusive of time that the House would be in recess. Finally, if enough Members for a quorum of 218 have not shown up at this point, then the rule would allow for the establishment of a ``provisional,'' that is, a temporary quorum of the House at this point. This ``provisional quorum'' would consist of a majority of those Members who could show up and fulfill their duties. Under this temporary quorum, the House could act for the American people in a time of crisis. Now, what are the origins of this plan? Continuity discussions began in earnest during the 107th Congress. The bipartisan House leadership agreed on the formation of a task force led by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). This task force included a number of Members concerned about the continued operations of our institution. Many of the recommendations of the Cox- Frost group were adopted at the start of the 108th Congress. This rule change concept originated in the Cox-Frost discussions. However, an impasse was reached over how to try to define incapacitation, and the group decided to allow for more analysis of this very, very difficult question. Mr. Speaker, the Continuity of Government Commission, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, tried to consider the issue of incapacitation but, similarly, could not come to agreement over how to define incapacitation or what to do about it. As we have said, this is a very, very difficult issue. The Committee on Rules held a hearing on H. Con. Res. 190 to create a joint House-Senate committee to address continuity issues, including incapacitation, and the House overwhelmingly passed it in June of last year. The Senate has not acted upon this proposal yet. In the spring of this year, just a few months ago, as we all know, the House addressed what to do if large numbers of Members are killed, and this institution adopted by a bipartisan margin of 306 to 97 the Continuity of Representation Act, which I coauthored with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). Additionally, the House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to allow for the appointment of temporary ``stand-in'' Members who were incapacitated or killed. That was defeated on a vote of 63 to 353. So this institution has stated very firmly that we want to maintain the elective nature of this institution, as James Madison, the father of the Constitution, envisaged it. We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that ours is the only Federal office where one must be elected to be able to serve at the Federal level. Senators can be appointed, and we all know that, by appointment, one can become the President of the United States without standing before the voters. But this institution is where everyone who has ever served has been elected. And I am happy that, by a margin of 63 to 353, the House rejected that proposed constitutional amendment. The Committee on Rules held an original jurisdiction hearing on the mass incapacitation of Members in April of 2004. Testifying at the hearing were a number of experts on the House rules, the Constitution and the issue of incapacitation. The report of this hearing is available on the Committee on Rules Web site and has been printed by the Government Printing Office. At the April 2004 hearing, we distributed a discussion draft of the proposed rule change. Discussions have continued on a bipartisan basis since then, and a number of improvements to the proposal have been made. Now, why would we need a provisional quorum? Why does the House need to establish procedures to deal with the possibility of mass incapacitations? We need to assure the American people we are doing everything we can to provide for continuity of government in the face of any catastrophic event. Rules must be in place prior to a crisis. We need to be considering this matter with a ``triage'' mindset, similar to that taken by health care workers and doctors during an emergency. Mr. Speaker, if a jet plane, God forbid, hits this Capitol dome, hits this building when we are all here voting or a biological agent is released, we need to plan for how to deal with the worst problems first. We need to realize that we will not be operating in a best-case scenario and that having some plan in place is better than no plan at all. Now, why does this proposal that we have only address mass incapacitations? Mr. Speaker, this procedure would go into effect if large numbers of Members are incapacitated, large numbers. If individual Members are incapacitated, they are very unlikely to affect our ability to achieve a majority quorum. However, after a catastrophe, a key question will be whether it resulted in large numbers of deaths, large numbers of incapacitations or both. If we are dealing with a full, living membership and only incapacitated Members but no deaths, we would need 218 or more Members incapacitated in order to trigger a problem with quorum. With deaths, the quorum is automatically reduced by the rules, and the number of incapacitations that could trigger a quorum trap also would drop. To illustrate: If you had 300 fatalities, the rules now would require a quorum consisting of a majority of the remaining 135 Members. There are a total of 435 Members in the House, as we all know, Mr. Speaker. If we had 300 fatalities, the rules would require a quorum consisting of a majority of the remaining 135 Members, which would mean a quorum would be 68 Members. However, if 68 or more of the remaining Members were incapacitated, we would be in the quorum trap. The House would be unable to function. Now, what about those living Members who are not incapacitated but otherwise unable to show up and to participate? If, for example, a Member is stuck overseas at the time of the quorum calls and makes his or her presence and willingness to return known, then that Member's seat cannot be declared vacant through expulsion. In addition, the potential rule change would not change or in any way modify the long-standing provisions allowing a smaller number of the House to arrest and force the return of a wayward Member. Now, the constitutionality of this proposed solution is a very, very important question. Is it constitutional? Is it constitutional? Who would have standing to sue over this provision? Mr. Speaker, to me it is very clear. Article I, section 5, clause 2 of our constitution gives the House and the Senate authority to determine their own rules of proceeding. Professor Walter Dellinger, the great constitutional expert, testified before our committee at the April 2004 meeting, the hearing we had on incapacitation and quorums. In that hearing, in his testimony, he said the following, and I happen to agree with him. This is Professor Dellinger. ``It is simply inconceivable that a constitution, established to `provide for the common defense' and `promote the general welfare,' would leave the nation unable to act in precisely the moment of greatest peril.'' He went on to say, ``No constitutional amendment is required to enact the proposed rule change because the Constitution as drafted permits the Congress to ensure the preservation of government.'' Professor Dellinger continued saying, ``I think there is a great advantage to adopting a rule now if we can get really widespread and bipartisan agreement on it, because you are acting now behind what one of the philosophers calls the ``veil of ignorance.'' You don't know whose party is going to be benefitted, if we were to see mass incapacitation; whose faction is going to be burdened by this. No one knows what impact it would have on the makeup of this institution. Now, one of the things we, of course, want to do is maintain the rights of the minority. So the question that is naturally raised is, how are the rights of the minority protected under this potential rule change? It is important to note that the Speaker can, at any time, recognize any Member for a motion to adjourn, which, if adopted, would stop this process and force it to be completely started over, if he chooses to start it over at all. Additionally, while the report of the Sergeant at Arms must be made available to the membership on a daily basis, the Speaker has the power to not formally announce the report of the Sergeant at Arms to the House. He has the right to not announce and, thus, can delay or stop the process from moving forward. Now, if at any time a Member is no longer incapacitated and can show up, then he or she is automatically added back into the calculation of quorum. Once we again have 218 Members present, then the provisional quorum under this rule change ends. Finally, the Senate would always act as a check and balance to any action of the House under a provisional quorum, as would the President, the Judiciary, the press and the public. Now, Mr. Speaker, some have noticed that we made the Speaker's actions in deciding to announce the report of the Sergeant at Arms unappealable. Now, why is that, that we placed this responsibility solely with the Speaker? The role of the Speaker is that of a ministerial act in dealing with this. That act of the Speaker announcing the report could only come after an extremely long quorum call, as I said, 72 hours, excluding time spent in recess. If that extremely long quorum call has not produced a quorum, then by definition you cannot appeal a ruling of the Chair if you do not have a quorum present. To make this action appealable, you would place the procedure back into the quorum trap, and therefore, it could not be used, because if the Speaker does make a decision, the ruling could not be challenged because a quorum would not be present. Additionally, another reason for the unappealability of the Speaker announcing the catastrophic quorum failure report is that the Speaker is not required to make the announcement. By not announcing the report, he can stop the functioning of the proposed rule so that more information can be gathered and considered. Now, what about requiring the concurrence of the minority leader in determining who should be counted for a quorum? The Speaker is the only constitutionally proscribed authority for the House. This type of decision should not require equal sign-off from someone in the opposite party. It politicizes a procedure that, as I said, should be a ministerial procedure. The current House rules have a rare exception on minority concurrence on timing of committee hearings but not on any question of this magnitude. And even with this exception, the chairman of a committee can, by a majority vote, decide to hold a meeting at any time, even without the concurrence of the minority. We should not make the rules ``partisan'' in an attempt to appear ``bipartisan.'' We should strive in a rule such as this, of such great magnitude, to be nonpartisan. This is because we do not know, nor can anyone predict, which party would be most affected by a catastrophe. It is entirely possible, Mr. Speaker, that the Speakership and control of the House could change hands following a catastrophe. There would still be the need for a quorum to elect a new Speaker no matter what party had the most Members responding. Mr. Speaker, in a time of crisis, the House will need one leader who can act, not a committee, and should not be concerned with partisanship. Partisanship should not be an issue in a time of a catastrophe like we are contemplating here. This holds true for whichever party is in control and whoever is elected Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we hope and pray that the circumstances never arise where such an order of the House is necessary. But at the same time if we do not address the problem of mass incapacitation, we will fail at one of our most important duties, assuring continuing representation and congressional operations for the American people during times of crises. Finally, I would like to advise Members that we hope very much to bring these matters before the full House very soon. It is vitally important that the House have in place a procedure to deal with mass incapacitation before we complete our business for the year and recess, before the national elections, and before the counting of electoral ballots. Mr. Speaker, as I have already done, I have asked unanimous consent, and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) was hoping to be able to participate here this evening, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, and he had some comments that I know he plans to add into the Record; and I am sure there will be other Members who wish to add their comments to this very important issue, which, as I said, we do not like to contemplate, but we must take on our responsibility to do just that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of the Special Order that I am about to give.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The free flow of goods, services, ideas and capital is very important, especially in this 21st century economy. Obviously, we are all concerned about safety. The last speaker was just referring to the issue on terror. Inspections are a very high priority, and they are a very important part of this issue. Three years ago, this Congress passed legislation which put into place 22 specific guidelines for the Department of Transportation. We have already exceeded those 22 guidelines, which are very, very important for us to meet, but as my friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said, this is now actually the 11th year since the landmark passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement; and by the way, we need to realize that today we have nearly a third of $1 trillion in cross-border trade between Mexico and the United States, having improved standard of living, the quality of life on both sides of the border. Obviously, this issue is an important one, but I will never forget a study I saw when this issue first came to the forefront on truck safety. What it found was that there were greater violations when it came to safety on trucks coming from Canada and on trucks that existed right here in the United States of America than there were on those coming from Mexico. So, yes, we want to make sure that we maintain the safety and the security of our roads. That is a top priority. We already have in place a mechanism to do just that. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a decade makes. It is true we are marking the 10th anniversary of the Republican majority controlling this institution, and it has been great for the American people. One issue that is of paramount interest and is often forgotten is the fact that leading up to our having won the majority in 1994, we in this country, from the early 1960s forward, were dealing with a very tragic generational cycle of welfare. We saw this cycle of dependence continuing on and on and on where people were in fact losing their motivation, losing the kind of incentive that they needed to succeed in life. And when we in 1995, 1996 worked very hard to bring about an end to that generational cycling of welfare, what is it that we did? We not only created opportunity for people, but story after story had us telling anecdotal evidence of people saying, I have finally gotten the pride back that was so desperately needed. So, Mr. Speaker, that is just one example of the kind of success that we have had with our majority, and I hope we can keep working for the American people for years to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, since the 9/11 Commission's final report was issued, we in this body have been working diligently to prepare legislation to improve our Nation's security. To that end, I want to talk about a paramount national security concern, and that is the security of our borders. I know many of us have seen this recent Time Magazine cover story which focused on the incredibly porous southern border that we have with Mexico. I personally was absolutely horrified when I read this article, Mr. Speaker, on reports of human rights abuses perpetrated by ``coyotes'' who charge exorbitant fees to lead immigrants illegally across the border, as well as Time's accounts of the heinous acts committed by some of those illegals. And clearly, having a border which people feel they can cross illegally at any time is a national security vulnerability. We must recognize that the vast majority of people who are coming across our borders illegally are looking for better economic opportunity for themselves and their families. This does not justify illegal entry into the United States. So let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, ``illegal'' means ``illegal.'' But it does mean that a long- term solution to our immigration problem will only be found when the economies of Mexico and the rest of Latin America provide better opportunities for their citizens. But the process of improving those economies, while underway, will be very, very difficult, it will take decades, and we obviously are hoping to implement the Ronald Reagan vision of a Free Trade Area of the Americas which will be very important to that. As altruistic as Americans have historically been toward immigrants, we are, after all, a Nation of immigrants as we all know, we clearly cannot have foreigners illegally crossing the United States borders unbeknownst to our government. We know that international terrorists have illegally entered our country. That is why we must act now. In this effort, I have been working closely with two great Americans. Those of you who read this Time Magazine article may recall the comments made by T.J. Bonner, a 26-year veteran still working as a border patrol agent, who is president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 10,000 border patrol employees. Bonner's first priority is to ensure that our border patrol agents have the backing they need to do their job. It is his plan, the Bonner plan, which I am introducing as legislation today. I am joined by my good friend and Democratic colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who himself served as chief of the border patrol in both McAllen and El Paso, Texas, during a long and distinguished career fighting to protect our border from infiltration. I am extremely pleased to have the support of Messrs. Bonner and Reyes, for their expertise in border patrol issues is unparalleled. Our legislation gets at the root of the problem of illegal immigration, the draw of our strong economy. We know why most people illegally cross our borders, as I was saying earlier. Jobs lure them to this country. They are seeking economic opportunity. We do not want to shut the door on that great American dream of opportunity, which is why we have programs where foreign nationals can legally migrate to the United States, can work and can eventually become citizens. But people who skirt the process and enter the United States illegally should not expect to benefit from the American taxpayer. Under the Bonner plan, we will strenuously enforce laws which prohibit American businesses from employing illegal immigrants. Regrettably, these laws have not been regularly enforced. The laws are also undermined by the explosion in counterfeit identity documents and employers who are unable or unwilling to establish the authenticity of documents presented by job applicants. Under our legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will dramatically improve the security of the very precious Social Security card by adding a photo ID and other countermeasures to reduce fraud. This same card will be encoded with a unique electronic algorithm to allow employers to verify each prospective applicant's work eligibility status prior to hiring, either through an electronic card reader or a toll-free number. Mr. Speaker, employers will face stiff Federal fines of up to $50,000 and up to 5 years in jail if they knowingly hire an illegal immigrant or choose not to verify a prospective employee's eligibility. The employer would also then be responsible for the cost of deporting the illegal immigrant. With the new and improved Social Security card and verification system, employers will have no excuse if they are found to have hired illegal immigrants. By eliminating the supply of jobs for illegal workers, we will end the incentive for illegal immigrants to enter the United States because they know that they will be unable to make a living here. I fully recognize that a number of American industries, from agriculture to gardening and house cleaning and others, have come to depend on an ample supply of illegal workers. That is why I have long supported efforts to establish a responsible guest worker program to allow willing employers to match up with willing foreign workers and to allow those workers to legally enter the United States temporarily to work and then ensure that they return to their homes as scheduled. Coupled with a guest worker program, the Bonner plan will have a positive impact on our economy and on our prospective workers. Workers will only need to update their Social Security card once, to have their photo placed on the card and for other long overdue antifraud measures to be applied. A worker would only need the updated Social Security card when applying for a new job. I want to make it very clear that this is not a national ID card. This is not a national ID card, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the legislation contains language to ensure that the improved Social Security card does not become a national ID card and is only used to verify a prospective employee's authorization to work in the United States. Social Security cards are already routinely required to be provided to new employers. The changes we are proposing to the Social Security card take us no further down the road of creating a national ID card. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join in supporting this very important effort that will, as Governor Schwarzenegger has said, encourage the American people and those who are looking to come in to play by the rules. This is a top national security priority for us. I hope all of our colleagues will join with us. [From Time Magazine, Sept. 20, 2004] Who Left the Door Open? (By Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele) The next time you pass through an airport and have to produce a photo ID to establish who you are and then must remove your shoes, take off your belt, empty your pockets, prove your laptop is not an explosive device and send your briefcase or purse through a machine to determine whether it holds weapons, think about this: In a single day, more than 4,000 illegal aliens will walk across the busiest unlawful gateway into the U.S., the 375-mile border between Arizona and Mexico. No searches for weapons. No shoe removal. No photo-ID checks. Before long, many will obtain phony identification papers, including bogus Social Security numbers, to conceal their true identities and mask their unlawful presence. The influx is so great, the invaders seemingly trip over one another as they walk through the old copper-mining town turned artist colony of Bisbee (pop. 6,000), five miles from the border. Having eluded the U.S. border patrol, they arrive in small groups of three or four, larger contingents of more than a dozen and sometimes packs of a hundred. Worried citizens who spot them keep the Bisbee police officers and Cochise County sheriffs deputies busy tracking down all the trespassing aliens. At night as many as 100 will take over a vacant house. Some crowd into motel rooms, even storage- compartment rental units. During the day, they congregate on school playgrounds, roam through backyards and pass in and out of apartment buildings. Some assemble at the Burger King, waiting for their assigned drivers to appear. Sometimes stolen cars are waiting for them, keys on the floor. But most continue walking to designated pickup points beyond Bisbee, where they will ride in thousands of stolen vehicles, often with the seats ripped out to accommodate more human cargo, on the next leg of their journey to big cities and small towns from California to North Carolina. The U.S.'s borders, rather than becoming more secure since 9/11, have grown even more porous. And the trend has accelerated in the past year. It's fair to estimate, based on a TIME investigation, that the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million--enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year. It will be the largest wave since 2001 and roughly triple the number of immigrants who will come to the U.S. by legal means. (No one knows how many illegals are living in the U.S., but estimates run as high as 15 million.) Who are these new arrivals? While the vast majority are Mexicans, a small but sharply growing number come from other countries, including those with large populations hostile to the U.S. From Oct. 1 of last year until Aug. 25, along the southwest border, the border patrol estimates that it apprehended 55,890 people who fall into the category described officially as other than Mexicans, or OTMS. With five weeks remaining in the fiscal year, the number is nearly double the 28,048 apprehended in all of 2002. But that's just how many were caught. TIME estimates, based on longtime government formulas for calculating how many elude capture, that as many as 190,000 illegals from countries other than Mexico have melted into the U.S. population so far this year. The border patrol, which is run by the Department of Homeland Security, refuses to break down OTMS by country. But local law officers, ranchers and others who confront the issue daily tell TIME they have encountered not only a wide variety of Latin Americans (from Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Venezuela) but also intruders from Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Russia and China as well as Egypt, Iran and Iraq. Law enforcement authorities believe the mass movement of illegals, wherever they are from, offers the perfect cover for terrorists seeking to enter the U.S., especially since tighter controls have been imposed at airports. Who's to blame for all the intruders? While the growing millions of illegal aliens cross the border on their own two feet, the problem is one of the U.S.'s own making. The government doesn't want to fix it, and politicians, as usual, are dodging the issue, even though public-opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly favor a crackdown on illegal immigration. To be sure, many citizens quietly benefit from the flood of illegals because the supply of cheap labor helps keep down the cost of many goods and services, from chicken parts to lawn care. Many big companies, which have an even clearer stake in cheap labor, aggressively fend off the enforcement of laws that would shut down their supply of illegal workers. The argument is getting stronger, however, that this is a short-sighted bargain for the U.S. Beyond the terrorism risks, Washington's failure to control the Nation's borders has a painful impact on workers at the bottom of the ladder and, increasingly, those further up the income scale. The system holds down the pay of American workers and rewards the illegals and the businesses that hire them. It breeds anger and resentment among citizens who can't understand why illegal aliens often receive government-funded health care, education benefits and subsidized housing. In border communities, the masses of incoming illegals lay waste to the landscape and create costly burdens for agencies trying to keep public order. Moreover, the system makes a mockery of the U.S. tradition of encouraging legal immigration. Increasingly, there is little incentive to play by the rules. In the aftermath of 9/11, illegal immigration slowed dramatically for two years. Now it has turned up again. The chronic reason is a Mexican economy unable to provide jobs with a living wage to a growing population. But those who live and work along the border say there is another, more immediate cue for the rush. In a speech on immigration policy last January, George W. Bush proposed ``a new temporary- worker program that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.'' The President said his program would give three-year, renewable work visas ``to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States.'' In Mexico that statement was widely interpreted to mean that once Mexican citizens cross illegally into the U.S., they would be able to stay and eventually gain permanent residence. Even though the legislation shows no signs of getting through Congress this year, a run to the border has begun. Ranchers, local law officers and others say that is the story they have heard over and over from border crossers. Rancher George Morin, who operates a 12,000-acre spread a few miles from the border, tells TIME, ``All these people say they are coming for the amnesty program. [They] have been told if they get 10 miles off the border, they are home free.'' The border patrol, by nature an earnest and hard-working corps, is no match for the onslaught. From last October through Aug. 25, it apprehended nearly 1.1 million illegals in all its operations around the U.S. But for every person it picks up, at least three make it into the country safely. The number of agents assigned to the 1,951-mile southern border has grown only somewhat, to more than 9,900 today, up from 8,600 in 2000. Given that the crisis of illegal immigration bridges the two main issues in the presidential campaign--the economy and national security--one might think that the candidates would pound their podiums with calls for change. But that's not the case so far. Bush has reaffirmed his pledge for an immigration policy that would provide worker's permits for aliens who find jobs, and John Kerry has promised to propose legislation that would lead to permanent residence for many illegal-alien workers. Neither candidate has called for imposing serious fines on the people who encourage illegal immigration: corporate employers. On the Mexican side of the border, President Vicente Fox has actively encouraged the migration. He made his goal clear in 2000 when he called for a fully open border within 10 years, with ``a free flow of people, workers'' moving between the two countries. When U.S. opposition to the proposal intensified after 9/11, Fox sought the same goal through the back door. He pushed U.S. businesses and city and state governments to accept as legal identification a card called a matricula consular, issued by Mexican consulates. That has allowed illegals to secure driver's licenses and other forms of identification and open bank accounts. Earlier this year Fox pushed U.S. bankers to make it easier for Mexicans working here--some of them legally but most illegally--to ship U.S. dollars back home. Because of the exploding illegal population, the money sent back represents the third largest source of revenue in Mexico's economy, trailing only oil and manufacturing. That figure reached a record $13 billion last year. The current border-enforcement system has fostered a culture of commuters who come and go with some hardship but little if any risk of punishment. Thousands cross the U.S.- Mexico border multiple times. Under immigration law, they could be imprisoned after the second offense. But no one is. Nor on the third, fourth or fifth. In fact, almost never. When asked whether Homeland Security would initiate criminal proceedings against a person who, say, is picked up on four occasions coming into the country illegally, a border-patrol representative said if it did, the immigration legal system would collapse. Said the spokeswoman: ``Because there's such a large influx of people coming across, if we're to put the threshold at four and send them up [to Tucson, Ariz., or Phoenix, Ariz., for processing], we'd be sending . . . too many people, and it would overwhelm the immigration system.'' People who live and work on the Arizona border know all about being overwhelmed. Living in the War Zone When the crowds cross the ranches along and near the border, they discard backpacks, empty Gatorade and water bottles and soiled clothes. They turn the land into a vast latrine, leaving behind revolting mounds of personal refuse and enough discarded plastic bags to stock a Wal-Mart. Night after night, they cut fences intended to hold in cattle and horses. Cows that eat the bags must often be killed because the plastic becomes lodged between the first and second stomachs. The immigrants steal vehicles and saddles. They poison dogs to quiet them. The illegal traffic is so heavy that some ranchers, because of the disruptions and noise, get very little sleep at night. John Ladd, Jr., a thoughtful, soft-spoken rancher just outside Bisbee, gives new meaning to the word stoic. He is forced to work the equivalent of several weeks a year to repair, as best he can, all the damage done to his property by never-ending swarms of illegal aliens. ``Patience is my forte,'' he says, ``but it's getting lower.'' The 14,000-acre Ladd ranch, in his mother's family since the 1800s, is right on the border. Ladd and his wife and three sons as well as his father and mother have their homes there. The largely flat, scrub-covered piece of real estate, with its occasional groves of cottonwoods, spiny mesquite and clumps of sacaton grass and desert broom, seems to offer few places to hide. But the land is laced with arroyos in which scores of people can disappear from view. Ditches provide trails from the border to Highway 92, a distance of about three miles. That is the route that Ladd says 200 to 300 illegals take every night as they enter the U.S. They punch holes in the barbed-wire border fence and then tear up the many fences intended to separate the breeding cattle--Brahmin, Angus and Hereford--that divide the Ladd land. Ladd doesn't blame the border patrol, most of whose officers, he says, are doing all they can under the circumstances. Indeed, apprehensions of illegals in Arizona have soared from 9% of the nation's total in 1993 to 51% this year. ``I have real heartache for the agents who are really working,'' he says. ``They track down the [smugglers], and the judges let them off, and they get a free trip back to Mexico, where they can start all over.'' The border-patrol agents, Ladd feels, ``are responsible guys in a hypocritical bureaucracy.'' Border crossing at the Ladd ranch is so flagrant that sometimes the illegals arrive by taxi. A dirt road parallels the border fence and the Ladd property for several miles, in full view of border-patrol electronic lookout posts that ceased functioning long ago. When drivers reach an appropriate location, passengers pile out and run through one of the many holes in the fence and make their way across the ranch. These gaps present their own special problem. On the other side are Mexican ranches whose cattle wander onto Ladd's. ``I'm up to 215 Mexican cows that I've put back into Mexico,'' he says. ``I've got a dual citizen friend--he's Mexican and American--works on this side for Phelps Dodge [Mining Co.], but he's got a ranch over at the San Jose Mountain. So I call him, and then he calls the Mexican cattle inspector. Then that guy meets me at the border and then coordinates the cows getting back to the rightful owners in Mexico.'' Ladd acknowledges that his do-it-yourself cattle diplomacy is ``breaking both countries' laws.'' How so? ``[In] the United States, you're supposed to quarantine any Mexican cattle for 30 days, and they test them for disease and everything else. What the problem is, there isn't enough cattle inspectors to do that, and then they don't have a holding corral anymore to do that.'' Why does he spend so much time returning strays? So his counterparts in Mexico will return the favor because some of his cattle amble across the border through the same holes. ``The whole reason that I started doing this for the Mexican ranchers was to show'em, `Yeah, I'm honest. I'm going to give you yours back, so you give me mine.' And it's worked. But the whole story is that I've spent money on long-distance and talked to everybody from the Boundary Commission to USDA to border patrol to customs and everybody else, and I said, `You need to do something with your international fence.' '' He's still waiting. While the Department of Homeland Security seemingly lacks the money to secure the border, it does have money to spend in quixotic ways. In a $13 million experimental program started in July, the border patrol will not just drop illegal Mexican aliens at the border but actually fly them, at taxpayer expense, into the heart of Mexico. The theory is that it will discourage them from making the trek north again. But as one illegal, a Dallas construction worker who was among the 138 aboard the first flight, told a Los Angeles Times reporter, ``I will be going back in 15 days. I need to work. The jobs in Mexico don't pay anything.'' The plight of Jim Dickson, a hospital administrator in Bisbee, is summed up with one image. It's an ambulance that pulls into tiny Copper Queen Community Hospital and discharges illegal aliens injured in an auto accident. The border-patrol officers--on orders from Washington--have refused to take them onto the hospital property after taking them into custody. Instead, the officers have called an ambulance for the injured. If the officers were to arrive at the hospital to make their drop-off, then the border patrol (make that the U.S. government) would be responsible for paying the medical bill. And that's something the Federal Government (make that Congress) will not do. Instead, the government stiffs Dickson, 56, the genial CEO of the Copper Queen, a hospital that dates back to the turn of the previous century, when Bisbee was the largest town between San Diego and St. Louis,

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, as we all learned just over three years ago, on September 11, 2001, protecting the American people from terrorist attack has become the highest priority of all of us here in the House of Representatives. Shortly after that terrible day, this body came together and passed the USA Patriot Act to enable our law enforcement agencies to more effectively investigate and apprehend foreign terrorists on U.S. soil. One of our goals when crafting the Patriot Act was to strengthen the ability of our government to track and eliminate funding sources and illicit bank accounts which we know terrorists have used to carry out their deadly attacks. To that end, section 326 of the Patriot Act requires financial institutions to establish ``reasonable procedures'' to verify the identity of customers seeking to open a new account. This particular provision of the Patriot Act was written to improve the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. If we were to block funding for this provision, as the underlying legislation seeks to do, we would be prohibiting the Treasury Department from telling financial institutions that they must verify the identity of the customers. We would also be pushing people toward an underground economy, where tracking terrorist financing becomes even more difficult. And we would be reversing a key anti-money-laundering provision of the Patriot Act, which was specifically singled out by the 9/11 Commission as an important defense against terrorism. I am, however, very sensitive to concerns regarding the reliability of the Matricula Consular card, in particular, as a valid form of identification. And I recognize that both the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have stated concerns regarding possible fraudulent use of the Matricula Consular ID. Because of these concerns, I want to say that I plan to work with my good friend from Texas, Mr. Culberson, to address this very important issue. At the end of the day, I am hopeful that we will be able to implement a system that both allows us to root out terrorist financing and give us confidence in the validity of identification documents used at financial institutions. In the meantime, I think it would be wholly short-sighted to cripple our ability to track terrorist financing by supporting the existing language in the bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last week, we had a great statement made by Vice President Cheney talking about the new 21st century vibrant economy. He pointed to the fact that there are, in this new economy, 430,000 Americans who make their income, their living, selling on eBay. They are entrepreneurs. Over the weekend, there were a number of pundits who criticized him, saying, Well, because of the slow economy, that Vice President Cheney was advocating that people go down and find something in the basement and sell it on eBay, and that will take care of them. The fact of the matter is, that is not what he was saying. He was talking about an industry that did not exist 10 years ago; eBay did not even exist. Today, we have got nearly half a million Americans earning their living on eBay. Frankly, if you look at the number of people who are selling things on eBay, it is in the millions. So, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to acknowledge that this administration and this Congress are helping us build and expand in this new 21st century economy.

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 debate.

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.