David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply argue that requests were made of me as the chairman of the Committee on Rules to allow us to have a chance to debate and vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) constitutional amendment. That was the request that was made of me. We know that there is strong opposition, and I am proud to be one of the leaders of the opposition of the constitutional amendment, but I recognize that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has put a lot of time and effort in this. We have gone through a multi-year period, a multi-year period allowing for a lot of deliberation on this; and the Committee on the Judiciary reported this measure out unfavorably. Why? Because I believe correctly they understand that amending the Constitution is not the proper thing for us to do. So I am just trying to underscore the fact that I am standing here because of bipartisanship on this issue. Frankly, I do not think that we really need to consider this amendment to the Constitution. It is not going to carry. Two-thirds of this House is not going to be voting in favor of the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) amendment. He acknowledges that fact. He acknowledged it in the Committee on Rules last night in debate. But it is our good will and desire to work in a bipartisan way that led us to this point. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his leadership on this issue and for his fine work on the Committee on Rules. As I listen to the comments of my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I cannot help but think how hard we have in fact been trying to work in a bipartisan way on this issue. I am going to talk about what led us to the point where we are right now, we are considering the rule; and then I will try to get a bit into the substance of the constitutional amendment. We, after September 11, did come together as a Nation; and we had this historic appearance on the east front of the Capitol where Members of the House and the Senate came together to focus on the solidarity that was important as we begin to proceed with the global war on terrorism. We had never seen an attack like that that we saw on September 11 in our Nation's history. And contrary to what my friend from Massachusetts just said, we have continued to work in a strong bipartisan way, and we are here at this moment considering this constitutional amendment which I virulently oppose because of our desire to work in a bipartisan way. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I introduced legislation which called for expedited special elections. Why? Because we feel very, very passionately about the need to ensure that no one ever serves in the People's House without having first been elected. It is conceivable under the constitutional structure that exists today that every other member that is traditionally elected in the United States of America could hold that office by appointment. The President of the United States can become President by appointment, as we found with President Ford. He became Vice President and then President. Members of the other body, the United States Senate, can in fact be appointed, serving in the United States Senate. But, Mr. Speaker, no one has ever served in the People's House without having first been elected. James Madison said, ``Where elections end, tyranny begins.'' And so that is the reason that, having spent a great deal of time over the past few years looking at this, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I joined with a number of our colleagues and we enjoyed bipartisan support in this effort. We put together this structure which says, if more than 100 Members are tragically killed, what happens? Well, we have an expedited procedure whereby elections are held within 45 days. So when we put this legislation together we worked very, very hard on it. We had Members who said, we want to have a constitutional amendment, specifically, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who I am happy to see has joined us and who has spent a great deal of time and effort on this issue; and I congratulate him for the thoughtful approach that he has taken on this issue. But what happened when we moved ahead with our legislation was I had someone who was not, frankly, a proponent of the amendment or even the consideration of it; and that is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. At the request of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and others, I talked with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; and he made a commitment to me that in fact at the next markup the Committee on the Judiciary had they would report out this constitutional amendment. And so that is exactly what has happened. It has been the bipartisanship that has gotten us to this point today where we are going to, at the request of the minority, have a vote on what I personally believe is an ill-conceived idea and that is amending the US Constitution which would allow for the appointment of unelected members to serve in this House. And I recognize they want elections. Everyone is for elections. But I do not believe that anyone should serve here without the people having first decided who is going to serve. So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Well, we worked on this legislation again in a bipartisan way; and by a vote of 306 to 97 we were able to pass this legislation. That is a clear, very strong bipartisan majority. And how did we do it working in a bipartisan way? We addressed some of the very valid concerns that came from the minority, ensuring that all of the voting rights procedures are included. Those were offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and we agreed that those should be accepted. The ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), very appropriately talked about the concern to make sure that our men and women in uniform who are overseas have the opportunity to participate in those special elections. Those are two concerns that emerged from Democrats, from members of the minority that we incorporated in our legislation. So as we proceeded with that measure, getting this strong bipartisan 306 to 97 vote in support of the legislation, we addressed the minority concerns. And so, contrary to what is being said about hearings, there were hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. They did take place in the past Congress, but this has been a process that has been going on since September 11 of 2001. Now I will say that when it comes to amending the Constitution I have always argued that an amendment to the Constitution should be a last rather than a first resort, and that is one of the reasons I believe that it is best for us to let the legislation that we have seen pass this House come up for consideration in the other body. I believe we should sign that legislation; and then, Mr. Speaker, we will have in place a structure to deal with a potential crisis. Now, if we were to see two-thirds of this House vote, which everyone acknowledges is not going to happen, but if we were going to see two- thirds of this House vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that would allow for the appointment of Members to serve in the People's House, we have seen, on average, 7 years for ratification of a constitutional amendments. And I think that, based on the fact that this is very controversial and undermines the spirit, the Madisonian spirit of the representative democracy for the People's House, I think it would conceivably take a lot longer. So that is why I think it is incumbent upon us to do everything we possibly can to ensure the bipartisan legislation which has passed this House, in fact, becomes public law. So that is why support of this rule is support of proceeding with the bipartisan commitment that I was proud to have been able to get from members of both political parties from our leadership team. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is absolutely committed to institutional reform as it comes, as we address this issue. There are a wide range of things that everyone has done to ensure the continuity of the Congress. We in the Committee on Rules are spending a great deal of time right now dealing with this issue of incapacitation. It is a tough one. It is not an easy one. But we are deliberating which is exactly what our responsibility is. So I believe that support of this rule is support of the bipartisan quest and the agreement that I was proud to have put together with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to allow for a vote, which is what they asked me to do, Mr. Speaker. I was asked to put into place a structure that would allow for a vote on a constitutional amendment, and we are going to be doing that vote. So that is why when people want to talk about the fact that somehow this has become partisan, it is not partisan. The one vote we had, 365 members of both political parties overwhelmingly supported the legislation and, along with that, even though it is not going to pass, have allowed for a vote on the issue of amending the Constitution. Now, let me say very briefly that I believe that looking at the prospect of having anyone serve in the House of Representatives without having first been elected is ill-conceived and wrong; and I believe that while we may hear about a structure that does exist for the Speaker of the House who could be selected by a very few Members to conceivably by the succession plan become President of the United States, that structure existed when James Madison, the father of the Constitution, put this whole device that we have in place under which we govern the United States Constitution. So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are doing the right thing by allowing the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) to have his chance to be heard with the constitutional amendments, and I believe that we are doing everything we can to continue down the road of working in a bipartisan way on institutional reform. So I will simply say that I thank my friend again for his hard work. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for the leadership that he has shown on this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, because the issue of American investment in India has been a particular point of debate here in the Congress, I want to say a few words about the recent elections in India and what they portend for Americans and Indians alike. For many months now I have been talking about how our Nation's success in a 21st century economy is going to hinge on companies that are successfully able to invest and compete globally. It is these companies, the ones who invest in emerging overseas markets, that use global investment to maximize their efficiencies and create new opportunities right here in the United States. Economic isolationists have tried to claim that investment in India is bad for Americans. They have claimed that new job opportunities in cities like Hyderabad and Mumbai mean job losses here at home. They have tried to tell the American people that we cannot compete with a growing Indian middle class. As economic news from India, such as the 10 percent GDP growth rate last year, grew brighter and brighter, the isolationists' predictions of gloom grew darker and darker. Then something unforeseen happened. Contrary to predictions, the Indian parliamentary elections resulted in the defeat of the BJP and Prime Minister Vajpayee, who had made market reform a pillar of his economic policy. A new party now claims the seat of prime minister and is working to build a majority coalition in the legislature. The sudden, unexpected change made investors nervous and sent them into a large selling spree, in fact, the largest sell-off in the 129- year history of their market. The Sensex, the Bombay Stock Exchange's benchmark index, shed over 11 percent of its value on Monday, following 6 percent losses on the previous Friday. The 2-day loss to investors was over $65 billion. Now, I am certainly not prepared to write off economic growth in India just yet, and despite the recent dismal days for the market there, I do not believe the Indian people are either; but the sudden uncertainty over India's long-term economic outlook reveals what this debate on foreign investment should have been about all along. The threat to the U.S. economy was never, never that the India economy is growing too much. The danger is that it might not be able to sustain and continue such economic growth. This was a lesson we all learned, or should have been learned, in the 1980s. The economic isolationists told us that the rapidly expanding German and Japanese economies were going to devastate us, leaving America in the economic dust. But we soon discovered that if those two countries posed any economic threat to the U.S., it was that they were not able to sustain their economic growth. Although the economic prophets of doom may have substituted India or maybe China for the Germany and Japan of the 1980s, the fundamental economic lesson is the same today as it was 20 years ago: Rapid and sustained growth by emerging trading partners is unquestionably in our best interest. A strong and growing Indian economy provides opportunities for U.S. companies to invest and become more competitive and create jobs right here at home. A growing Indian middle class demands more and more U.S. goods and services. And a prosperous India helps bring stability to that region of the world. Most important, growth and job creation is helping to lift millions out of poverty in India, another compelling reason for us to encourage a thriving Indian economy, not a weakened one. It is vitally important that we encourage India's new leadership to continue the market reforms that have successfully put India on the path to economic strength. So far, there have been some promising signs. The new governing Congress Party has pledged to continue the economic liberalization efforts of their predecessors. It is worth noting that this is the party that first introduced market reforms under Mr. Singh, who will likely be the new prime minister, back in the early 1990s. Like the U.S. workers and consumers who have benefited from a stronger Indian economy, the 250 million Indians who are living in poverty have everything to gain from opening their markets even further. India has made tremendous strides in liberalizing its economy, but the fact is that India's economy is still not open enough. Significant obstacles to U.S. participation in India's economy persist: nontariff trade barriers, high tariffs, and weak protection of intellectual property rights, to name just a few. The greater liberalization of the Indian economy will have a significant and positive impact on Americans and Indians alike. As the new government organizes and sets an economic agenda, I urge them to continue the work they began over a decade ago. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2004] India Dimming? (By Swapan Dasgupta) The Indian election upset that has unseated Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee may have one unintended victim: John Kerry. After making the loss of American jobs from outsourcing to countries like India a key part of his presidential campaign, the Democratic challenger may no longer have an easy scapegoat to rail against. Now, his suspicion of tech-savvy Indians who are speeding up their country's global integration will be shared by the new government in Delhi. The world's largest democracy has given an astonishing verdict in an election whose outcome was thought to be a foregone conclusion. The voters rejected the Bharatiya Janata Party-led alliance that had governed since 1998. The winner was a combination of the Congress Party led by the Italian- born Sonia Gandhi, a doctrinaire Marxist bloc, and a motley group of regional outfits that have come together to assemble an alternative government. India is no stranger to crazy coalitions forged out of sheer expediency. Since 1989, when Rajiv Gandhi was voted out of power, it has witnessed a series of coalition governments. What marks the latest experiment is not merely the uniqueness of a naturalized citizen at the helm--a development that has contributed to a flurry of Italian jokes being circulated on the mobile phone circuit--but the circumstances of its creation. In the past, incumbents have been voted out for either their high-handedness or the perceived corruption of their governments. This was the case with Congress Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi in 1977, Rajiv Gandhi in 1989, and Narasimha Rao in 1996. This time, the rejection of Mr. Vajpayee was grounded in policy. The 2004 election was dominated by two themes: his leadership and the slogan ``India shining.'' This last may have been the creation of a clever copywriter, but it reflected the difference the Vajpayee government made over the past six years. Aimed at kindling patriotism with feel-good economics, ``India Shining'' stressed India's IT and telecom revolutions, the roads program that will link the four corners of India, and the promise of becoming a global power by 2020. Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, the government's ideologue, went on a bus journey across India publicizing ``India Shining'' and promising a government that would unleash India's potential and creative energies. To gum- chewing 21-year-olds working in call centers and poor farmers in drought-affected India, he invoked the same vision of India as one of the five largest economies in the next 20 years. Traditionally, capitalism in India has lacked political advocacy. The BJP, a party that built itself on Hindu nationalism, tried to break the mold by grafting the image of a tremendously successful 79-year-old Mr. Vajpayee onto a buoyant economy. For years, intellectuals had complained about development not featuring on the election agenda. The BJP leadership tried to talk real economics to an electorate used to being promised state jobs and welfare schemes. The outcome was a debacle on a scale that baffled pollster and politician alike: Mr. Vajpayee was swept out of office. In simultaneous local polls held in the southern states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, two of India's most ardent champions of the IT industry, chief ministers Chandrababu Naidu and S.M. Krishna, were roundly defeated. Mr. Naidu was attacked for having more time for Bill Gates than for farmers and mocked for having transformed the state capital Hyderabad into ``Cyberabad.'' As the results poured in, the political class seemed united in treating the verdict as a resounding rebuff of ``India Shining'' and its symbols. On the TV, commentators joined politicians in interpreting the verdict as a rejection of the Vajpayee government's pro-business policies. ``You can't build highways bypassing the slums,'' concluded one critic of the BJP. Even the BJP's own allies were scathing. Dripping with sarcasm, Bal Thackeray, chief of the ultra-Hindu Shiv Sena, thanked Finance Minister Jaswant Singh and privatization czar Arun Shourie for contributing to the Congress victory. Predictably, the left is gung-ho. With the Congress dependent on its 60 legislators for a majority, the two Communist parties are expected to put their regressive stamp on economic policy. Even before the celebrations were over, leftists called for an end to the privatization of the public sector, the abolition of the Disinvestment Ministry and a review of the reforms program. Regardless of whether or not the left joins in government, it will leave its antediluvian mark on the policies of the new regime. An already jittery stock market panicked. On Friday, the Bombay Sensex fell 6% in one day and wiped out $22 billion of investors' wealth. Since the specter of political uncertainty and a possible defeat for Mr. Vajpayee first appeared on the horizon, the Sensex has fallen from 5712 and April 27 to 5069 on May 14. Foreign institutional investors have pulled out millions of rupees from the markets since the election results. The fear of capital flight may quiet the left for a bit, but it is going to be a temporary respite. The manner in which the verdict has been interpreted will also encourage the old-style socialists within the Congress to press for higher taxes on corporate profits and luxury goods, as well as for more subsidies and government expenditure on welfare projects. The Vajpayee government's initiatives for the creation of world-class highways, reduction of the role of government and the cautious initiation of labor reforms look set to be modified, if not completely junked. Over the past six years, India has tried to dance to a different tune. The Vajpayee government encouraged modernity and entrepreneurship, and boosted the self-confidence of a growing middle class. It tried to turn the country away from a Third World trajectory, from the sloth and mediocrity of the past, into a new India that is so feared by protectionists in the U.S. and Europe. Well, those protectionists can breathe a little easier now. India's ancient regime has struck back with a vengeance.

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.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to close again by expressing appreciation on behalf of all of the many staff members here in this institution who work so closely with Charlie Johnson, all of those who are working for us here today and the members of committee staffs and personal staffs who have worked so closely with him. And I would like to close by sharing with our colleagues a note that was handed to me a few minutes ago. It says: ``Dear Charlie, thanks for your 40 years of service to the House and our country. I wish you all the best. Keep your arm loose. We may need to call you in from the bullpen.'' This is a handwritten note from the President of the United States, George W. Bush, which I will give to you, Charlie, as soon as we have the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very, very good friend, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) be given an additional 1\1/2\ minutes for debate.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have many, many Members who want to have an opportunity to be heard on this and so, at this moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent that general leave be provided so that all Members may include statements in the Record upon Charlie Johnson's retirement.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Quinn), another Member who unfortunately has chosen to retire at the end of this term. (Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a Member who has chosen to retire at the end of this term but has served extraordinarily well on both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who, as has been pointed out, time and time again so ably presides over this institution as Speaker pro tempore.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who often presides very ably over this institution. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in light of the fact that we have so many requests to talk about Charlie, that we extend the debate on this for an additional 5 minutes; and I would like to yield that 5 minutes to the control of my friend from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, is a motion to table this resolution in order at this time?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very challenging time for all of us, because Charlie has been such a great friend and enormous asset to this institution. Many of us are proud to be institutionalists, and as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, I am one of them; and there are an awful lot of people here who, over the last decades have seen attacks made on this institution itself, but many of us, you included, Mr. Speaker, have had a strong commitment to this institution. The Office of the Parliamentarian began in 1857 when Speaker James L. Orr of South Carolina appointed Thaddeus Morrice as ``Messenger.'' Morrice was said to have a marvelous memory and his ability to recall the House precedents and other decisions of the Chair required him to be near the Speaker in his role as presiding officer of the House. The title was later changed to ``Clerk to the Speaker,'' then to ``Clerk at the Speaker's Table,'' and in 1927 to ``House Parliamentarian.'' The first person to actually have the title of Parliamentarian was Lehrn Fess. Today, we are honoring Charles W. Johnson, III as he steps down from that most important position. There are few people, including those Members who have been elected to serve, who have contributed more to this institution than Charlie Johnson. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Charles W. Johnson, III is the greatest Parliamentarian to have served this House and our country. His dedication and service to this great institution is unparalleled in our history. Oh, yes, great men have served before, as we have heard, but he has distinguished himself from them by his desire and ability to not only assist the Speaker and other presiding officers, but to reach out and teach Members and staff the rules of this institution. Moreover, he has been an example as to how we should conduct ourselves in office and in life. He has always been a gentleman who has dealt with Members honestly and fairly. He has worked with Members from both sides of the aisle evenhandedly and without prejudice. His advice and counsel have always been sound and thoughtful. He has been steady and consistent, even when there has been turmoil in the House and in the country at large. Charlie has helped this institution during some of the most trying times that our country has endured. He has competently served this House and our country by assuring that this great Chamber proceeds in order when there has been chaos and conflict in the world around us. He has been at our side from the Vietnam War to the War on Terror. There is not enough time to ever fully explain how much Charlie has contributed. Every piece, every single piece of legislation, every amendment considered, every motion, every floor event, every law enacted over the past several decades, bears his mark. Who else among us can actually say that? I am humbled at the thought of how much he has done for me personally as a Member of this body and as chairman of the Committee on Rules. He has assisted me through major reforms and minor jurisdictional squabbles. But today I want to say thank you very much, Charlie, not only for what you have done for me, but I want to thank you for what you have done for this great institution, the greatest deliberative body known to man and to our country as a whole. Yesterday morning, not unusually, the House Committee on Rules convened at 7 a.m. to proceed with consideration of the Department of Defense authorization rule and the conference report on the budget. At the end of that meeting, I joined with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, in asking for an agreement to be unanimous, and, thank heavens for you, Charlie, no one did call a vote, but we unanimously did pass a resolution that had been crafted by our able Staff Director, Billy Pitts, who, as you know, is a great institutionalist and very committed to this body, and Kristi Walseth, who worked in fashioning the resolution. I should say that we actually have many more staff people on the House floor, I think, than Members at this moment, because there are so many staff members with whom you have worked closely. I mentioned Billy Pitts, but I want to say on behalf of the bipartisan staff membership of the House Committee on Rules, working closely with you and your team, I see here on the floor Seth Webb and a number of people from the Speaker's office who work, I know, very closely with you. These staff members will not have an opportunity to speak here on the House floor, but I know that every single one of them would want us to express our appreciation to you for your effort. I would like to take just a moment to read the resolution, which we overnight have gotten on parchment, and I am going to personally present to you here. This was voted unanimously by the Committee on Rules at 7 o'clock, foggy, yesterday morning. Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III has served the House of Representatives with dedication and devotion in the Office of the Parliamentarian since May 20, 1964; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III learned the Rules, practices and precedents of the House under the tutelage of Lewis Deschler, who served the House as Parliamentarian from 1928 until 1974, and his good and great friend W. Holmes Brown, who served as the House Parliamentarian from 1974 until 1994; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III has used those lessons to honorably serve as a universally respected Parliamentarian of the House from 1994 until today; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III has, as a teacher of House rules, its practices and precedents, taught respect for the institution of the United States House of Representatives to countless Members of Congress and their staff; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III has provided to the Committee on Rules countless hours of advice and counsel as well as assistance in its work as the traffic cop of the House; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III has ensured that the Office the Parliamentarian will continue to operate with the high standards and non-partisan manner that he and his predecessors have demanded by assembling a knowledgeable, skilled and experienced staff who serve as a vital part of the operation of the House; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III, or ``Charlie'' as he is known in the House, will continue to serve the House as he continues the work of Lew Deschler and Bill Brown by finishing the Precedents of the House; and Whereas his good humor, kind smile and love of baseball will be missed by all who know him in the House of Representatives; and Whereas Charles W. Johnson, III will officially retire from the United States House of Representatives on May 20, 2004, exactly 40 years after he first came to this body: Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Members of the Committee on Rules express their deep and lasting appreciation for the service Charles W. Johnson, III has given to the Committee, the House of Representatives and the people of the United States of America. I look forward to giving this to you personally, Charlie. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Congress has consistently approved the eligibility of undocumented immigrants to receive emergency services, and I firmly believe that providing emergency health care is not inconsistent with curbing illegal immigration, which continues to be a high priority for me and others here. H.R. 3722, which we discussed yesterday and will be voting on today, would require hospitals to gather information on patients in emergency care situations, including a biometric indicator to be retained in hospital records for a minimum of 5 years. This data would be transmitted to the Department of Homeland Security to initiate the removal proceedings for undocumented immigrants. Hospitals oppose H.R. 3722 because it will, in fact, compromise public safety. The American Hospital Association states: ``H.R. 3722 could pose a significant public health threat for entire communities because the fear of deportation would inevitably preclude undocumented immigrants from seeking care for communicable diseases until these individuals are extremely ill.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything we can to ensure that we do not pass H.R. 3722.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is painful for me to rise in opposition to this legislation. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and I have worked together on immigration issues for years, and I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to the issue of protecting our borders. I have had legislation to dramatically increase the size of the Border Patrol, and I believe it is very important for us to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. But I happen to have come to the conclusion, while I support the right to offer this legislation, I believe it is wrong. My concern is that it will send a message to many people who may not know that they have a contagious disease that the threat of deportation is on the horizon. Safety and security for the American people is our number one priority. I strongly support anything that we are going to do to ensure that the American people are safe and secure, that we are able to protect our families. My concern is that someone who could conceivably see the threat of deportation as they go through this process, and when I think about the process of State and local governments shouldering the responsibility of having to deal with possible incarceration of these people, the cost is tremendous and the possibility of the spread of disease is very great. I appreciate the fact that there is an exemption, but people may not know whether or not they have a contagious disease, and it is for that reason I think the right thing for us to do now is to oppose this legislation and work in a broad way to deal with the challenge of illegal immigration, which is a very serious and important one for us.