David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, let me say we were all very impressed in a bipartisan way when the report of the 9/11 Commission came forward. We know that President Bush has already, through executive order, implemented many aspects of the 9/11 Commission report. The gentleman also is aware of the fact that immediately upon release of that report, the Speaker of the House called on the chairmen and ranking minority members of numerous committees here in the House, over a half dozen committees, called on them to hold hearings. There were 25 hearings held in the House of Representatives during the August district work period, and I believe that some very important information came forward. One of the goals that the Speaker has set forth is to ensure that we do proceed with legislation. He very much wants to, before we adjourn in October, see the passage of legislation. Exactly what shape that will take is, of course, up to the legislative process that we have here. We are very well aware of the fact that we have seen the introduction of the 9/11 Commission report, and we know that a lot of people are thinking about that. I will say that I am particularly honored, as I know the gentleman is, that a Member of this body, the former chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and vice chairman of the House Committee on Rules, has been nominated to be the director of Central Intelligence. He has obviously spent a great deal of time on this, and many of our colleagues have expertise on this. So we will in the coming weeks I hope be able to fashion legislation so that the goal that the Speaker has set forth of passage of legislation before we adjourn in October will come to fruition. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield on that, I would simply say that it is the intention for the organization for the 109th Congress to take place beginning the week of November 15th. That would be a time when Members would be here in Washington as we begin our preparation for the next Congress. I am not going to say anything further on that, other than to throw out that is the date for the organization for the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Conference.

Mr. DREIER. Let me say that we obviously have heard a great deal of speculation about that from a wide range of sources; and while it is a possibility, I think that everyone would like to have the work of the 108th Congress completed before we adjourn for the election. But at this juncture, we have to see what will take place in the next few weeks to make that final decision as to whether or not we would come back in a lame duck session. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, let me say obviously we are going to do everything that we possibly can to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we complete this very important appropriations work just as quickly as possible. It is too early to make a determination as to whether or not we would possibly have an omnibus bill or a continuing resolution, but we feel very strongly about the need to get the work done this calendar year, within the operations of the 108th Congress, and not proceed into next year with this work. So we are going to strive to meet that, and I think that the gentleman will want to work closely with us as we pursue that goal.

Mr. DREIER. We right now are in the process of outlining the plan for next week, and, as I know my friend just observed, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) just filed the VA-HUD bill; and we will obviously be considering it just as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Let me say obviously that vote did not go unnoticed, and the gentleman's request clearly will be taken into the mix. But, again, it is impossible to determine exactly what a conference would do. This House will have an opportunity to vote on that conference report, if that is in fact what we do end up with.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me say it is obviously impossible to determine exactly what a joint House- Senate conference will do on any issue, but it is clear that the votes cast in both Houses will be taken into the mix as the conference would proceed with its work.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield further, obviously there is a great desire to ensure that Members who will be marking the holiday have the opportunity to do that, so we will do everything that we can to see that Members are able to get the earliest flights possible.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, let me say the House has completed its work for today and the week and will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we expect to consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules. We also plan to consider two bills under a rule: H.R. 5025, the fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury, and independent agencies appropriations bill; and H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider several other litigation reform bills: H.R. 3369, the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act; H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act; and H.R. 1084, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. Finally, I would like to remind Members that the Jewish High Holiday of Rosh Hashanah occurs at the end of next week. We will not have votes on either Thursday or Friday. We expect to finish voting on Wednesday in the early afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I am happy to respond to any questions he might have.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 762), and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time to consider House Resolution 757 in the House; the resolution shall be considered as read for amendment; the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 1 hour of debate on the resolution equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. Let me begin by responding to some of the comments my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), offered. Those have to do with HIV/AIDS and with gender inequality. We are all very concerned about dealing with those very serious crises that are out there. Most of us have come to the conclusion that one of the best tools that we can utilize to deal with those challenges is to encourage greater economic growth. Improving the standard of living for people will dramatically enhance the chance to deal with gender inequality, to deal with the challenge of having the resources to tackle greater education when it comes to the proliferation of HIV/AIDS. So let me say that this agreement is itself a very, very comprehensive, unique and cutting-edge agreement which will create opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic. Last week this body overwhelmingly passed the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. There is certainly a great deal of differences between Australia and Morocco. Australia has an economy which is very much like ours. They are a developed, industrialized nation with stringent labor and environmental standards. And like the United States, they have an economy that is increasingly based on services. Morocco, by contrast, is a developing country facing many of the challenges that confront nations throughout the developing world. They are working very hard in Morocco to modernize their infrastructure and develop new sectors even as they strengthen the traditional industries like agriculture and textiles. They are aggressively pursuing labor and environmental reforms as well as combating piracy and counterfeiting. In short, Morocco is working diligently to climb higher and higher up that proverbial economic ladder. The very remarkable thing about trade liberalization is these two trade agreements, with vastly different economies, can both be unequivocally good for all parties involved, making it a win/win. Trade is not only beneficial for big economies like the United States or wealthy economies like Australia, but it is very, very important for small, developing economies like Morocco, and I would argue in many ways because of the contrast that exists, trade agreements like this for developing nations create a potential for an even more dramatic improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living in those countries. Unfortunately, economic isolationists often hide behind the guise of fair trade, an argument that was just put forth by my colleague from New York. They use fair trade to argue that because some countries lack the resources to pay American wages or enforce identical labor standards that we have in America, the most developed nation in the world, that we should somehow not trade with these countries. This is a tragically misguided argument. It is precisely because these countries have further to go up that economic ladder that we should and must pursue open trade. Trade liberalization provides the tools for economic growth by opening up new markets, by building the legal framework necessary for a healthy business and investment environment by creating the resources to set high labor and environmental standards. Morocco is a perfect example of just such a country. Mr. Speaker, for many years Morocco has been working to bring its economy into this new and vibrant 21st century. It has been working to increase its standard of living, and it has been striving to raise its labor and environmental standards. In fact, Morocco's aggressive efforts to reform its labor laws since the start of the free trade agreement process began, culminated in a groundbreaking new labor law that was passed just a few weeks ago. These reforms address issues ranging from child labor to the minimum wage to nondiscrimination of women and the disabled, leading again to deal with the challenge that the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) raised. This new labor code makes Morocco a leader in the developing world, and it is a testament both to Morocco's commitment to high standards and the effectiveness and the importance and the dynamism of economic engagement. Morocco is living up to its commitments even before implementation of this free trade agreement, but I want to make it very clear, while the FTA is critical to helping Morocco stay on its current path of economic development, it is by no means a mere gift from the United States of America. American businesses, American consumers, American workers and investors will all benefit from this agreement. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of all trade in consumer and industrial goods will immediately become duty free. American farmers will have a huge advantage as they gain greater access than even Morocco's traditional European trading partners currently enjoy. U.S. service providers will benefit from broad-based liberalization across all service sectors, and American producers will benefit from the highest intellectual property protections ever negotiated in a free trade agreement, and that is particularly of concern to those Members from areas like southern California where our entertainment industry is so important. Setting an example and dealing with this issue of intellectual property is key. The FTA also grants us an opportunity to strengthen our relationship. I want to say that relationship has been dramatically strengthened from the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has done in developing this important relationship we have. He and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and others he mentioned have been very critical to building this U.S.-Morocco Caucus, and I congratulate them for their hard work in doing what we can to build that relationship which I believe has played a big role in leading us to this point where we, by an overwhelming margin, are going to pass this. I believe this trade agreement is going to have a chance to deal with one of the challenges that exists in Morocco, and that is dealing with a challenge which has been going on for a long period of time with the Western Sahara. It is my hope that as we strengthen further this relationship between our two countries, we will be able to see a resolution to that. Mr. Speaker, we know this has been a very important relationship between our two countries. Since 1777, when our friendship formally began, Morocco has proven to be an important and strategic partner. This friendship has never been more apparent than throughout our recent global efforts to combat terrorism. We all know Morocco has been a critically important ally to us in that effort, and as a Muslim-Arab country, they have been an ardent U.S. supporter in a part of the world where our list of very good friends is not as strong as we would have liked. Mr. Speaker, on both economic and political fronts, Morocco is making tremendous efforts. Today we are able to strengthen this important relationship while tearing down barriers, creating new opportunities for, as I said, American workers, American investors, American business people, and Moroccans alike. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for our pro-economic growth agenda by voting for this rule and for the underlying measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It has been just a few weeks since we memorialized Ronald Reagan. His body was lying here in state in the Rotunda, and we had people on both sides of the aisle talk about the legacy of Ronald Reagan. And one of the things that Ronald Reagan succeeded in doing was getting both sides of the aisle to talk about deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. I think it is very important for us to note that as we deal with this issue, everyone else, everyone else on both sides of the aisle, along with the leadership, supports the Ronald Reagan vision of ensuring that we have a defense capability that is second to none; ensuring that, as my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) said earlier, we have the opportunity for an incentive for people to maintain their service in the military. What does that mean? It means ensuring that we take care of families and provide that housing. My friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is absolutely right that there is strong bipartisan consensus on that. But there is also a responsibility that we have here to live within our budget. It is wrong to make the claim that it is impossible to deal with the issue of family housing if we all of a sudden do not do exactly what my friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost) is arguing. I believe that we are in a position now where we can be fiscally responsible. At the same time, we can comply with the rules of the House, and we can ensure that we deal with this very important issue of housing for our men and women in uniform. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the appropriate thing for us to do is to move ahead, support the previous question; support this rule; allow us to, in a fiscally responsible way, deal with what obviously is a challenging situation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. I congratulate him on the role that he has played in getting us to this point. I rise in strong opposition to this substitute because just as the amendment that was proposed by my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), it basically guts the bill. I believe it is very important for us to recognize that the United States Congress has a very important role here. We all recognize the independence of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, but the United States Congress has oversight responsibility. And we have important oversight responsibility, especially in light of the fact that we are looking at a provision which is so amorphous, because no one has been able to actually quantify exactly what the value of these options is. Whether it is Black-Scholes or binomial, virtually everyone has come to the conclusion that it is impossible, impossible for us to accurately do it no matter how hard we try to base it on a balance sheet. But I think the important point that needs to be raised and why I am so strongly opposed to this substitute, which again would undermine the whole basis of what it is that we are trying to do with this legislation, is we are forgetting the fact that while the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the SEC, may not focus on the issues of economic growth, every single day we, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to do what we can to make sure that we take steps to unleash the creative potential of the American worker. And that improves the quality of life, the standard of living for people here in the United States and around the world. So I believe that it would be a real mistake for us to pass this substitute. We need to do everything we can to make sure that we as Members of the United States Congress encourage productivity, encourage innovation and make sure we have economic growth succeed. Oppose this substitute and support final passage on the bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for his fine management of this rule and his commitment to the structure which will encourage innovation and creativity. We are on the verge of yet another very important bipartisan victory for this institution and, most important, for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments by extending my appreciation to a couple of Californians on the other side of the aisle who have played a very important role in getting us to the point where we are. First and foremost, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my great friend with whom I have been privileged to work on this issue for literally years now as we have been trying to tackle and deal with this very important challenge. And also I would like to praise the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader, my fellow Californian who has joined as a cosponsor of this legislation and understands how important it is not only for our State of California and for the area that is represented by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), but for the overall concept of encouraging innovation and creativity. And I do know that we have a wide range of other Members on the other side of the aisle who have followed the lead of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) on this issue. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that on our side of the aisle there have been a number of people who have been great champions in this. First of all, I want to express appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, for working closely with me and ensuring that we would have an opportunity to bring this measure to the floor; also to the two committee chairmen who have been very involved in this. The prime committee of jurisdiction is the Committee on Financial Services. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and other members of that committee, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who have worked very hard on this issue. And also I would like to express appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who has just recently become the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and is doing a great job and joins with us in support of this important legislation. I should also say that there are a number of staff people who have been very involved as well, Mr. Speaker. I see a number of them on the floor, but I do want to specifically mention the staff director of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Pitts; and from the Speaker's office, Seth Webb; and from the majority leader's office, Brett Shogren, who worked very hard with us in making sure that we got to the point where we are today, because this has been a difficult and a real challenge for us, but it is the right thing for us to do. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that I am an ardent opponent of mandatory stock option expensing. With all due respect to the wonderful people who are supporting the Financial Accounting Standards Board's expensing proposal, the notion that stock options are an expense is absolutely absurd. You do not have to be an accountant to clearly understand that stock options result in no cash outflows from a company, nor do they add to its financial liabilities. But I recognize that in the wake of the corporate accounting scandals, and I know many people are going to be talking about that as we begin debate on this issue, a whole new environment does now exist. In this arena, those who have long opposed the use of employee stock options, and recognize, there are many people, Mr. Speaker, who have long been opponents of the utilization of employee stock options, they have been able to artificially link the public's legitimate hunger to rein in corporate abuse with their desire to kill the use of employee stock options. Let me say that again. We all are outraged at the corporate abuse that we have seen over the past few years, but it is, to me, very troubling that a number of people who are opponents of the utilization of employee stock options are using that shared concern that we all have to try and limit the opportunity for stock options to exist. In effect, they are trying to use an accounting sleight of hand to eliminate stock options in the name of investor interests and open corporate reporting. If stock option opponents succeed, innovation and ingenuity, the indisputable drivers of our 21st century economy, will be unquestionably undermined. Millions and millions of rank and file employees will lose their ability to hold stakes in their company's future successes. A troublesome precedent will have been set in the promulgation of accounting standards. Expensing proponents have successfully used what is supposed to be a technical, a technical, determination of an accounting standard to obtain what is really a corporate governance policy decision. That is why I want to applaud, as I said earlier, the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) for crafting a bill that achieves a critical balance. H.R. 3574, the Stock Options Accounting Reform Act, while implementing stock option expensing for, as has been pointed out by my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for the company's top five executives, does so in a way that will preserve the continued viability of broad-based employee stock option plans. It is one of two critical reasons why I am a proud cosponsor of this Baker-Eshoo bill. It is that latter objective, giving workers on the lower rungs of the corporate ladder the opportunity to own a piece of the company pie, that is so important to the health and growth of our ingenuity-driven economy. Remember, it is the estimated 14 million workers, 90 percent of whom hold nonmanagement positions, who would be immediately affected by a mandatory expensing standard. These are the rank-and-file workers, the Americans who have invested their sweat equity in the hope, not the guarantee, but the hope that their investment will provide future retirement funds, college tuition or a housing downpayment. I am reminded how my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and I joined in getting a wide range of employees, from Sun, Cisco, Intel and other companies, who have talked about the fact that their opportunity to own a home, to pay for their college education for their children, has come from the existence of these options. Many argue that expensing will prevent CEOs from abusing stock options. That is simply untrue, Mr. Speaker. Illegal accounting tactics are just that, they are illegal. An accounting standard is not going to stop an individual who is intent on breaking the law. Instead, FASB's proposed accounting standard will eliminate what has been a valuable employee incentive tool. That will not help the top managers. Similar to what traditional companies, like Coca-Cola do now, we know that executives will continue to receive stock options even with mandatory expensing. Speaking more broadly, if high-growth industries lose their flexibility to use broad-based stock options, we will all lose. Stock options align the employee interests with the company interest, and that produces a motivated worker. Nowhere has that formula proven more effective than in the technology sector of our economy, particularly in California's Silicon Valley. No matter what area of technology you look at, you will find that the common thread to a company's success has been employee stock options. Without that flexibility, we would lose a key motivator for would-be entrepreneurs and existing innovative companies to take risks and transform new ideas into industry. New industries create new jobs, higher wages and increased standards of living. That brings me to my other primary reason for supporting this legislation, and that is the investor. Expensing proponents cite time and time again the urgency of giving investors accurate information about a company's use of stock options. I absolutely agree with that goal, Mr. Speaker. Investors need meaningful and transparent information. However, the real investor class issue here is a corporate reporting issue, not an accounting issue. Options do not cost a company money, but they do have an impact on share value. We must stand on the side of investors and ensure that they have clear and accurate information about how stock options dilute the value of their shares. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for adding provisions to this measure that will do just that. His language will expand required disclosures to include plain English discussion of the dilutive effects of stock option plans, increased comparability information, the number of outstanding stock options and the estimated number of outstanding stock options that will vest in each year. Many of us, Mr. Speaker, may have been following this issue closely over the past few years. Actually, I know a number of our colleagues, frankly, have not been following this issue in great detail over the last couple of years, so it is for that reason I think it is important to explain why stock option expensing will do everything but bring clarity and accuracy to corporate financial statements. The inability to correctly value options that have not been exercised, may never be exercised and are not tradable in open markets means investors will necessarily get wrong information from expensing. Why? Because no one has been able to figure out how to value these options. That, in and of itself, should make anyone question FASB's fundamental premise that stock options are a corporate expense. FASB set up an options valuation group earlier this year to come up with one single method, but the group was unable to do so. FASB now is preparing to recommend allowing companies to choose from two different valuation models in its pending proposal. Mr. Speaker, Professor William Sahlman from Harvard, commenting on the Black-Scholes model said, ``If anything, expensing options may lead to an even more distorted picture of a company's economic position and cash flows than financial statements currently paint.'' One of the inventors of the other model, the binomial method, recently said, ``I was one of the inventors of the board-proposed model, and I say: Don't use it. It doesn't work.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to close my remarks by doing what I did when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and I testified before the Committee on Financial Services subcommittee on this issue by taking us back nearly two millennia to around 100 A.D. During that time, a brilliant mathematician, astronomer and geographer named Claudius Ptolemy, wrote a 13-volume treatise entitled The Mathematical Compilation. It is also known as the Almagest. It explained the movements of the sun, moon and five planets around the center of the Earth. For nearly 15 centuries, his work was the leading scientific explanation of that ``truth.'' And based on the fact that the Earth was at the center of the universe, scientists of that time developed very complicated and precise answers to all types of questions, such as why the visible planets take certain paths around the sky. Mr. Speaker, geniuses like Nicolaus Copernicus improved on the Ptolemaic work by proposing that the sun and Earth revolved around a point near the sun. And Tycho Brahe explained how the planets revolved around the sun, and the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Even Galileo did not break completely from the intellectual view underpinning the 15 centuries of Ptolemy's astronomy. What does Ptolemy have to do with stock options, expensing and the FASB? Mr. Speaker, the accountants at FASB, good people that they are, are determined to fit the entire universe around a world view that in the end is flawed as much as Ptolemy's universe was. Their view is that everything must be able to be scored and placed on a corporate balance sheet. Well, the Earth is not the center of the universe, and everything does not belong on a balance sheet. That is not to say that given enough hard thinking, a smart person could not figure out a way to put everything on a balance sheet. Utterly brilliant people figured out a way to explain with amazing precision how and why the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. You can explain just about anything with mathematical precision, but that does not make it true. FASB is not populated by Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe or Galileo, and you do not have to be a Johannes Kepler to know that FASB is just plain wrong when it comes to stock option expensing. Mr. Speaker, the Stock Options Accounting Reform Act is one of the most important proeconomic growth, proemployee ownership bills that we will consider in this Congress. Unlike the FASB, and I do recognize their independence, we as elected officials have an obligation to American workers and investors to preserve an environment that allows entrepreneurs to grow our economy. A potential change in accounting treatment may be arcane to some, but it is in the real world that the negative impact of mandatory expensing will hurt the risk-takers who are creating jobs and wealth in this country. Mr. Speaker, we have made a rule in order that will allow for consideration of all the amendments that have been submitted to us, but I want to urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to those amendments that could in any way undermine the basis of this very important legislation. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule and, of course, enthusiastically support this measure as it comes to passage, and enjoy a strong bipartisan victory at the end of the day.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise obviously in strong support of this legislation. I thank my friend from Guam for her very nice remarks, and I would especially like to express my appreciation to my friend from Arizona. This initiative deals with water, and both of our States right now are dealing with very serious fire problems. Obviously, I would like to say that our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims in both of our States, Arizona and California, of those who are suffering and have been over the last several weeks. I would also like to express appreciation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources, as well as my friend from California (Mr. Calvert), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. We appreciate their hard work and that of all the members of the committee, and I see a lot of staff members here on the floor. I know they have played a big role in helping us move H.R. 2991 to the floor here. This measure was introduced as the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative to authorize water recycling projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program. This initiative includes two projects which, combined, will produce 75,000 acre-feet of new water annually. With the passage of the CalFed authorization legislation, which we have been working for a decade and a half on, and I mentioned the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) last when we brought this measure up 2 weeks ago, it is very imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the western United States. This recycling initiative will help meet the water needs of the Inland Empire and begin a strategic Federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water supply to our region. I am very pleased that this bill has the support of all member agencies of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. The IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, and Rancho Cucamonga. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency produces recycled water for a variety of nonpotable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency provides that the water available goes through at least one more cycle of beneficial use before it is ultimately returned to the environment. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my thanks to the Committee on Resources which under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the subcommittee led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has really accomplished landmark water legislation this year. This is just a small but, for me, a very important part of that. I also want to express appreciation to the bipartisan delegation from southern California that joined as cosponsors of this legislation: the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), whom I share representing the San Gabriel Valley with, has long been very involved in water issues; the gentleman from Diamond Bar, California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), who has spent a lot of time representing actually three counties, Orange County, Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County, and has been very focused on these issues; and, of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) who represents a large part of the Inland Empire. Those were the lead cosponsors we had on this legislation. Last but not least I do want to express my appreciation for the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, the general manager of the Cucamonga County Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, the CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, who have worked tirelessly in behalf of the Inland Empire. Again, I thank my friend from Arizona for generously yielding me this time. I will join with my friends from Guam and from Arizona in urging all of our colleagues to provide unanimous support for this effort. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here with my colleagues who serve on the House Resources Committee, and extend my appreciation to Chairman Pombo and Subcommittee Chairman Calvert, for their hard work in moving this bill to the House floor. I introduced the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative, H.R. 2991, to authorize water recycling projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. This initiative includes two projects, the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and will produce 70,000 acre-feet of new water annually. This project is expected to be fully constructed and on-line by 2008. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), will produce an additional 5,000 acre-feet of new water annually. This project is expected to be fully constructed and on-line by 2010. Between these two projects, 75,000 acre-feet of new water will be produced annually before the end of the decade. With the recent passage of the CalFed authorization, it is imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. This recycling initiative will help meet the water needs of the Inland Empire, and help alleviate California's dependence on the Colorado River. The passage of H.R. 2991 will begin a strategic Federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water supply to the region. IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, IEUA provides that the water available goes through at least one more cycle of beneficial use before it is ultimately returned to the environment. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga County Water District), and the Monte Vista Water District. I want to reiterate my thanks to the House Resources Committee, which under the leadership of Chairman Pombo and Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert, has really accomplished landmark water legislation this year. I also want to thank my colleagues Grace Napolitano, Gary Miller, and Joe Baca for cosponsoring H.R. 2991. And last but certainly not least, I appreciate the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general manager of the Cucamonga County Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency who work tirelessly on behalf of the Inland Empire.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 19, 2004, to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. The Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 3313 reported on July 14, 2004, and is expected to file its report with the House on July 19, 2004. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment to the bill 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 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Members also are advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules by Friday, July 16, 2004. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is, as the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations stated, an open rule, which allows for any germane amendment to be considered. I see my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) here, and I would like to say that he knows very well that we tried very much to work with him to accommodate his desire to have an amendment as it relates to our policy towards Egypt; and I know that under this open amendment process, he is going to be able to offer an amendment that is different than the one he had intended to offer. But, as has traditionally been the case, we have provided protection for the bill as it has been reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, and then provided for an open amendment process not moving into this extra area of providing waivers for the amendments that the distinguished ranking minority member of the subcommittee mentioned. So I believe that the opportunity for a very fair and open and rigorous, and I know it will be a somewhat lengthy, debate, to the consternation of a few of my colleagues here, it will take place; and I think it is very important. Mr. Speaker, I remember very vividly when the President of the United States stood in his State of the Union message and talked about the need for us to ensure very important support for a number of initiatives. HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, malaria, all very important programs that are funded in this appropriations bill. I had the privilege of going last year to Africa and I met with leaders in west and north Africa; and the Millennium Challenge Account is a very important thing, providing an incentive for those nations as they move and take bolder steps towards political pluralism and the rule of law and free and fair elections, and all of the structures that follow that. And the Millennium Challenge Account, I believe, is a very important tool as we continue to encourage that kind of development and growth on the very important continent of Africa. I also want to say that as we focus on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and the issue of the Millennium Challenge Account, to me, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important in this bill than the important items that focus on the global war on terror. There are many people who are often hypercritical of the foreign assistance packages that come out of the United States Congress. We all know that it is a fraction of the overall Federal expenditures. But now it is, in many ways, even more important for us to focus on important foreign assistance. Why? Because since September 11 of 2001, we all know that our world here as Americans changed. The rest of the world dealt with terrorist attacks on a regular basis, but we know that September 11 clearly changed our world here. And that is why I believe it very important that we do everything that we possibly can to continue to provide strong assistance to our allies and those who are standing up to the global war on terror. And we know that there are many people who are part of that, many nations are part of that, the coalition is strong and growing; and I believe that this legislation that we are going to consider will go a long way towards building that very important support. So I congratulate both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for the hard work that they have put into this important legislation; and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) who, as a Cuban American, understands how important it is for us as a Nation to do what we can to encourage political pluralism, democratization, free and fair elections, the rule of law, and all of those institutions which we all hope one day the people of Cuba will be able to enjoy.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say that we all want to do everything that we can to ensure that we do not engage in a race to the bottom. What we want to do is we want to make sure that we engage in a race to the top; and to get to the top, there are many countries that today may not be able to comply with every single standard that developed nations like Australia and the United States of America enjoy, and it is for that reason that we need to ensure and recognize that the best way for them to be able to qualify for that status is to see the economies of those countries grow.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time, and I would simply say that we all want to ensure that we do not see an engagement in the race to the bottom. That is not a goal that we have at all. What we want to do is we want to have in place policies, and the so-called race-to-the-bottom argument is one which was used as we were looking at the passage of fast track several years ago.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I would like to take a few minutes to first follow up on the discussion that we had at the opening of the rules debate this morning on the House floor. One of our colleagues, I do not remember exactly who it was, I think it may have been my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), talked about the fact that there had been no consultation on the issue of this pharmaceutical drug reimportation issue; and I said at the time that I was going to get some information on the consultative process which took place as it relates to the free trade agreement, and it does include a great deal of discussion on the issue of the pharmaceutical question. The administration, as I said this morning, held extensive, extensive consultations with Congress on the Australia Free Trade Agreement. There were, in fact, 29 briefings that were held with the Committee on the Judiciary and members of the Committee on Ways and Means on the FTA. There were actually eight briefings that were held specifically on the pharmaceutical question in a bipartisan way, and they related directly to the intellectual property rights issue, which is an important question. So this argument that somehow there was no consultation with the Congress on the issue of the pharmaceutical question is a specious one. Actually, Members and staff who have clearances received the text on the intellectual property rights issue, which included patent provisions, in March of 2003, 16 months ago. So I think it is important for us to note that there has been an important process that took place. My good friend and fellow Californian (Mr. Rohrabacher) was just here in the well, and I know that there has been, again, some confusion on this issue of whether or not the free trade agreement itself somehow includes a provision that would prevent the United States Congress from dealing with the reimportation issue. I will say right now what I said this morning when we were debating the rule: There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this legislation that regards the issue of drug reimportation. What I would like to do is say that the free trade agreement has nothing in it, the implementing language has nothing in it at all. Any law that the United States Congress passes always will trump the free trade agreement. So the very important thing that we need to realize is that our Constitution grants us that authority. So the patent provision in the free trade agreement restates U.S. law and applies to all patents, not just pharmaceuticals. Not including this provision would be devastating to the U.S. intellectual property rights holders in every sector of our economy, including pharmaceuticals. I know my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), is a great screenwriter. It would include, obviously, intellectual property when it comes to our very important entertainment industry as well. Australian law states, already states that there is a ban on the exportation of drugs dispensed under the PBS, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that exists. Unlike Canada, Australian law explicitly prohibits other parties such as a wholesaler or a pharmacist from exporting nonPBS-dispensed drugs. That is Australian law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the free trade agreement itself. So I think we need, and I am happy that my friend is going to be supportive of this legislation and was going to be supportive earlier, but now what I want him to know is that he can be an even greater enthusiast in support of this now that we realize that there is nothing in this free trade agreement that deals with the issue of drug reimportation. Now, let me just make a couple of comments on some things that had troubled me. First, and this does not trouble me at all, it is simply praise for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade. He educated me and a lot of others over the years on the importance of trade liberalization. Trade liberalization, breaking down barriers, does enhance opportunities for the free flow of goods, services, and capital and how that improves the quality of life worldwide. I learned so much of that from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). He has been a great teacher on it. The thing that has concerned me about this debate today is that some are trying to use the U.S.-Australia free trade agreement as an argument in opposition to other agreements. It is true that with Australia we have a very similar economy, and that is something that is important for us to recognize. It is also true, as my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and others have said, and I said when I was standing here this morning, that the alliance between Australia and the United States of America is an extraordinarily important one. Prime Minister Howard was here on September 11 of 2001. He was going to be addressing a joint session of Congress, and he was here when President Bush addressed the Congress, and he stood with us consistently. In fact, he actually has used this term, he describes Australia as the sheriff for the United States of America. And it does underscore the importance of this agreement, how it will go even further in strengthening this critically important tie. But as we look at the Australia agreement, how we can all of a sudden say the trade liberalization with countries that are trying to claw themselves onto the first rung of the economic ladder, how we did oppose those based on the fact that we have one structure with the U.S.-Australia agreement, is to me something that is very, very troubling. I happen to be a strong proponent of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I believe that it is critical for us, as the trade ministers, all the trade ministers said to me upstairs in the Committee on Rules just several weeks ago from five Central American countries, that to lock in democracy in Central America, to make sure that we improve the standard of living for the people of Central America, we must have the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Now, many of us were in Seattle. I know I was there with my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), in December of 1999, the first week of December, 1999. We all know how that meeting fell apart. And I will never forget the cover of The Economist magazine, that great publication which, for a century and a half, has focused on the issue of trade liberalization as its priority. The cover of that magazine the week after the ministerial meeting broke down in Seattle had a picture of a starving baby in Bangladesh with the caption: ``Who was the real loser in Seattle?'' The reason is that it is important for us, if we are committed to making sure that these developing nations do, in fact, have an opportunity to succeed and, as I said, get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, we need to work on trade liberalization with them. We need to help them find new opportunities to participate in the global economy. So that is why this is a very good agreement; and, similarly, other free trade agreements that we are going to be putting together that will break down barriers and encourage that free flow of goods and services and capital is something that we absolutely must continue with. So, yes, we are going to have strong bipartisan support for this measure, but equally important and, in some ways, maybe even more important, Mr. Speaker, we need to have strong bipartisan support when it comes to these further agreements. Why? Because there are countries in this hemisphere and in other parts of the world that would love to have economies like Australia's or like the United States of America, and I happen to believe that the only way that we are going to create an opportunity for them to enjoy the wonderful standard of living that exists in both Australia and the United States of America is for us to have them enjoy the opportunity to participate in our global economy. So I herald my colleagues who are going to be supporting this. I hope that everyone plays a role in understanding that this is part of our being on the cutting edge of the 21st century global economy. I congratulate President Bush for the leadership that he and Ambassador Zoellick have provided on this issue and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for doing it. I look forward to a very, very strong vote in just a few minutes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.