David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative. This bill seeks to authorize $30 million total for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), to assist in constructing two water recycling projects which will add 75,000 acre-feet of new water annually to the area's water supply. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a new initiative--Water 2025--Preventing Crisis and Conflict in the West--aimed at preventing chronic water supply problems in the Western United States resulting from drought, growth or other challenges. In addition to the federal strategy, California, more than a year ago, established a special Water Recycling Task Force, managed by the State Water Resources Control Board. The Task Force concluded that by the year 2030, California should develop 1.5 million acre feet of new recycled water. Water supply issues in California and other Western states are of paramount concern, especially in light of ongoing challenges with the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement. In order to meet the water needs of the Inland Empire, and to help alleviate California's overdependence on the Colorado River, I see this legislation as a key federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water supply to the region. The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative includes two projects, the first of which will be constructed by the 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 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. I am pleased that the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. It is also consistent with regional watershed plans, the California Department of Water Resources water recycling task force, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's comprehensive water study, and the Department of Interior's ``Water 2025'' plan. I also want to recognize the hard work of IEUA and CCWD, which serve the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, and Fontana. Their dedication to providing the water needs of the region is commendable, and I urge my colleagues to support the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2309, the Stephen Horn Post Office Building Designation Act. Our good friend and respected former colleague, Steve Horn, Retired from this body after 10 years of distinguished service to his community. One of the cities Steve represented throughout his tenure in Congress is the City of Signal Hill, California. What many people may not know about Signal Hill is that it is a small city geographically surrounded by the larger city of Long Beach, California. Unfortunately, they did not have their own postal designation which separated them from the rest of the region. This resulted in problems with higher insurance rates, misreported sales taxes which affected the city's revenues, and misapplied utility taxes by long distance companies. Steve took it upon himself to work with the U.S. Postal Service and the City of Signal Hill to give this community their own postal zip code. This small legislative accomplishment, critically important to one of the many cities he represented, was indicative of Steve's career in Congress. He never turned his back on his district's needs, great or small. He brought those needs to Washington, and without partisan politicking, effectively solved problems for his constituents. We all still look with awe at Steve's distinguished and vast public service career. He served in the Eisenhower Administration under Labor Secretary James P. Mitchell, and then worked for California Senator Thomas Kuchel on historic legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In addition, Steve dedicated 18 years to the California State University, Long Beach, where he was recognized as one of the most effective college presidents in the country. With all the honors Steve and Nini Horn have received over the years, I know that they would never lobby to have his name placed on a public building. But this is a fitting tribute to a man of character, whose devotion to the City of Signal Hill and their cause gave them a stronger identity and a little more community pride. And by the way, that Zip Code is 90755.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. There is nothing extraordinary about it at all. This is a standard rule for consideration of an appropriation measure. It is an open amendment process. For my colleagues, I would like to explain exactly what it is that we have done. The subcommittee, very ably chaired by our friend from New York (Mr. Walsh), worked its will, went through its subcommittee process, worked through the full committee, and it had a number of very important items focused obviously at its number one priority, dealing with the veterans of this Nation. Do I wish that more could be done for veterans? Absolutely. I was just having a conversation with my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), subcommittee chairman on the authorization committee. Obviously, we would like to be able to do more. We live within the constraints of the 302(b) allocations, and I believe that the gentleman from New York did a phenomenal job with those limitations that have been imposed on him. There are a lot of other issues that are included in this measure, Mr. Speaker, some that are important to me. I happen to be privileged to represent the Jet Propulsion Laboratory just above Pasadena, California, in La Canada-Flintridge. They are phenomenal projects that they have been pursuing, the Prometheus Project, the Jupiter program. They have been involved on the cutting edge of exploration, which is improving the quality of life for all of us. Important funding for that is included in this measure. As the full Committee on Appropriations worked out its package, they came to the Committee on Rules and asked for, as is usually the case, a waiver to simply protect the work product of the subcommittee and the full committee. Chairman Young, who does such a great job, was supportive of that request that came forward to provide the protection for the bill itself. And then, Mr. Speaker, what we did is we made in order what is called an open rule. An open rule means that any Member can offer a germane amendment that relates to this appropriations bill. That means they can offer striking amendments, cutting amendments. Those are in order. Those amendments are in order. That is why, while I am very sympathetic, very sympathetic, with the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues as it relates to veterans, we need to recognize everything that has been done for veterans. The dedication that the United States Congress and our government has made to those who have sacrificed for our country is very strong. I was just telling the gentleman from Connecticut that my father was a drill instructor, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Marine Corps. He passed away 6 years ago this past March 3. I miss him greatly, but he inspired me. The service that he provided to our country inspired me. I cannot in any way turn my back on that kind of dedication, that kind of commitment to our country. I believe that this measure does effectively address the challenges that we have, and I hope very much that we will at some point be able to do more. I appreciate the work of so many of our colleagues on this. But I think that we need to move ahead and get this bill done. Chairman Young has done a phenomenal job with the appropriations process, but we have a lot of work ahead of us so I hope we are able to move quickly. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time.

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, September 3, 2003.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of H.R. 2765, which shall proceed according to the following order: The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except section 119. The amendment printed in House Report 108-230 may be offered only by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendment are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 334 be laid on the table.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to rise as a strong supporter of the Superfund program. We have dealt with real challenges in southern California with Superfund clean-up. I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for the $1.3 billion level for the Superfund that exists. And I know that there are other needs that continue to exist out there, and I would support efforts to find ways in which we could address those needs. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I believe as we look at the challenge of space exploration and the NASA program, it would be extraordinarily short-sighted of us to make this kind of attack, and it is an attack on NASA and the Prometheus program. In the last couple of weeks we have just seen the launching of the very, very innovative and a program with great potential, a Mars program which will have a scheduled landing for January, 5 months from now. The Prometheus program is designed, Mr. Speaker, to enhance the opportunity to increase the speed of travel. As we look toward ways to increase that, I believe the Prometheus program is the one way in which we can pursue it. My very good friend from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), cosponsor of this amendment, used the term ``going nowhere'' in describing this Prometheus program, and I have to say from having spent a great deal of time, as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and I have, with a number of the engineers, those who are involved in this program, we know that if you do not take risks, you are not going to learn anything. That was said to me by the former director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, Dr. Ed Stone, and I believe that we do need to do everything that we possibly can to pursue it. My friend from New Hampshire loves Model A automobiles, and I know that at the time that that brilliant new vehicle came on line, the Model A, there were many people around who were focused simply on the horse as a means of transportation. It is obvious that, as we look towards our future, we have great potential in space. We also know that the NASA program itself has been undergoing some great challenges after the Challenger disaster and other difficulties that they have faced in the past. That is why I urge my colleagues to, while we support the concept of dealing with Superfund and want to enhance that, please do not attack this very, very important Prometheus program in so doing. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Exactly, I would say to my friend; it was exactly midnight in Los Angeles. At that point, we began our tribute to Eve and we are continuing it, 15 hours and 45 minutes later. I thank my friend for actually getting into greater detail than I did, but I want to join again. I am sandwiched between two Virginians and a Marylander here, so I am bringing some bicoastal balance to this effort to say how much we appreciate again your wonderful service to this institution.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I just would like to say that it was exactly 15 hours and 47 minutes ago that I was standing at this exact spot, that means 3 a.m. this morning.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, July 29, 2003, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 259, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues who are still in the Chamber if they could give their attention to the remarks that I am about to make. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to Eve Butler-Gee, who is sitting right here, who is our Chief Journal Clerk. Eve will be retiring at the end of next month after 20 years of stellar service to the United States House of Representatives. She was appointed to her position by the former minority leader, Bob Michel, and she has had a very, very, very great career, spending many, many late nights, tonight is just another example of that, working very, very hard in behalf of this institution. Mr. Speaker, let me say, too rarely do we recognize the diligent efforts that are put into the work offered by so many of our wonderful staff members. I have had the opportunity to sit up there in the chair late at night with Eve sitting right there, and she is going to be with her husband, Tom, retiring, and I know that they are going have many, many wonderful years together. I would like all of my colleagues to join me in a round of applause for the great service that Eve has provided to us.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to yield to the gentleman. What are the facts?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a limited amount of time.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of these agreements. I was not intending on speaking. Yesterday, I certainly had my say; for an hour, we had a very interesting exchange with a wide range of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue. But I was listening to the debate upstairs and heard some aspersions cast at our great U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Zoellick. I will tell my colleagues that I have had the privilege of serving now approaching a quarter century in this institution, and I have worked closely with a wide range of U.S. Trade Representatives and I have never known one to be more open to input not only from Members of Congress, but from a wide range of entities that are charged with providing the kind of information that is necessary for him to do his job. I also want to say that we, in a bipartisan way, have had great leadership on this issue. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, has, and I know this makes him sound like there is a huge disparity in our age, in fact, there is a huge disparity in our age. When I was a child, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) was providing great leadership on the goal of breaking down tariff barriers and openness. I have heard a number of our colleagues talk about this issue, and freedom is really what this is all about. We referred to the fact yesterday that 71 years of one-party rule in Mexico came to an end on July 2, 2000, and we know that that came about in large part due to the economic liberalization that was implemented in Mexico; and we saw political freedom follow. Clearly, we, by breaking down barriers, are expanding freedom worldwide. In 1947, following the Second World War, leaders of the United States and Europe came together to establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the goal was a very simple one, Mr. Speaker. It was the elimination of tariff barriers, knowing that Adolph Hitler was emboldened by the fact that the United States Congress had passed a Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and we stuck our heads in the sand and did not engage in Western Europe, and that played a role in bringing him into power. Similarly, we have seen very repressive societies in recent history, and we have been able to break down that repression through the further expansion of freedom and opportunity, and that is what this is all about. Clearly, trade, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) taught me, is a win-win. It benefits both sides. Are there dislocations? Are there difficulties with which we have to contend? Absolutely. The economic theory of comparative advantage says we do what we do best.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has made his point. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time and say that comparative advantage does, Mr. Speaker, say that we do what we do best. Do I want a manufacturing sector of our economy? Absolutely, but I do not in any way want us to arbitrarily keep into place an antiquated society. We have to recognize that this is a global economy and the world is changing. We have to be prepared to compete in that global economy.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, earlier this legislative day, we made history by passing two very important measures which are designed to eliminate tariff barriers in our relationship with both Singapore and Chile. And now we have people who have injected the issue of free trade in this debate. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, as we look at this challenge, what it is that we are dealing with is government subsidization, government cost controls and mandatory licensing, which is antithetical to the entire concept of the free flow of goods and services and ideas. Vote against this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Chamber is not packed to hear my words for the next 2 minutes, so I will simply say that I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to open up new markets for U.S. workers in both Chile and Singapore. This agreement is going to enjoy broad bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the rule and ``yes'' for the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the point that needs to be made is that with this agreement, we are focused. The gentleman talks about the rollback of the Jordan agreement. That was a separate agreement. This is an agreement that was struck between the leaders of Chile and the United States and the leaders of Singapore and the United States. The fact is we are enhancing living standards through greater trade, greater opportunities for that free flow of goods and services. And on those jobs that you talked about, the auto sector, I believe that by the elimination of the luxury tax in Chile we create a chance for his auto workers to have a chance there.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and ask him to yield to me.