David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 14, 2003, to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules up in room H-312 in the Capitol by 10 a.m. Tuesday morning, July 15, 2003. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 10, 2003. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), who chairs our Republican Conference, on her superb statement. I think she really hit the nail on the head when she quoted Ronald Reagan, making it clear that the commitment in one's heart to priorities is not based on the size of the Federal budget. It is interesting that as I listened to my friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, go through the litany of concerns that she has with this bill, and we are regularly hearing from the other side of the aisle that we are spending too much, we are concerned about the deficit, and they try to paint it as if Republicans only are the ones who are responsible for spending. I know that there are many who believe that this tax cut; because one of her closing lines here, I was struck with that, that we somehow are appropriating dollars, and that is how I inferred it, because she said we are spending dollars on millionaires and cutting off those who are in great need. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we have done, Mr. Speaker, and I know that my friend, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, is focused on this tax cut, we put into place a jobs and growth plan, which, frankly, is already beginning to work. We know that the best way to ensure that we have the resources necessary to deal with these issues is for us to make sure that we get the economy growing. The challenge that we face fiscally here is that we have seen a slowdown that began the last two quarters of the year 2000, and we are emerging from that. Virtually every economist has acknowledged that the economic recession that took place in the early part of 2001 was, in fact, the shallowest economic recession since the Great Depression. Why? In large part due to the fact that we put into place an economic growth plan, and it is one which I think we should stick by. Now, let us talk about the bill and this legislation itself. I know that my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), has very appropriately pointed to the hard work and success of the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). We obviously are living with very, very challenging fiscal constraints that have been imposed on us by the budget which passed this House, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was one who, as has been said by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), willingly stepped forward as a subcommittee chairman and chose to, without complaint, live within the strictures imposed by the 302(b) allocations that, in fact, do have limitations on the amount that can be spent. But it is important to note that his pursuit of vigorous reforms and dealing with priorities will, in fact, allow those very important needs to be met. Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) likes to refer to this as the Love Thy Neighbor bill, because with 280 million Americans, virtually everyone is touched by some aspect of this bill, whether it has to do with health issues, education issues, we can go right down the line. We all as Americans are touched by this. So it is for that reason, as we look at a wide range of these very important, serious, challenging societal needs, that he has come forward with a fiscally responsible measure that will allow us to address those. I would like to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to talk about one of those needs. He very generously allowed my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and me to join with the very capable writer and commentator George Will in testifying before his subcommittee about the need for us to ensure that the National Institutes of Health has the resources necessary to deal with the challenge of Down Syndrome. I have friends, included among them George Will and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and my former staff director of the House Committee on Rules, Vince Randazzo, who have in their family children who are faced with the challenge of Down Syndrome. And I believe that the recognition that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has made in reporting out this measure will go a long way towards dealing with that challenge for future generations. Mr. Speaker, we can go all the way down the line in looking at all of the diseases that exist; we can look at all of these different issues. And we know that there are some who have talked about the idea that we may not be providing the same kind of increase for the National Institutes of Health that have been provided in the past. Since 1994 we have doubled the level of spending for expenditures for the National Institutes of Health, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has very appropriately said that with large Federal bureaucracies, it takes a while to absorb many of these resources that are provided. So while my friend from Rochester talked about the fact that we should be increasing funds for this and this and this and this, all of these issues, which are obviously priorities and are a concern to all of us, we have to recognize that within the structure that is there today, we have got to allow these resources that have been increased dramatically over the past several years, as I said, since we won the majority, doubled at the National Institutes of Health, we have to allow it to be absorbed. That is why I think when I talked about reforms earlier, that is the kind of thing that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is pursuing in his measure. So, Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said, we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric as the debate begins on this measure. There are going to be a lot of people who will try to paint those of us who are supporting the very important work of this committee as being less than concerned about those who are in need. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are doing it responsibly, we are doing it within the fiscal constraints that have been set forward, and we are doing it with a great deal of compassion. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the very important measure that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has worked so hard on.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would say, I know as I see the chairman of the subcommittee here, this view that somehow Draconian cuts are going to take place that jeopardize the opportunity for people to be in the Head Start program dealing with SCHIP and a wide range of things I believe is a real stretch. Let us look at this bill, which I believe is going to pass and be successful, and I believe it is a measure that will, in fact, meet those very important needs that are out there.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 311 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the first revision I would like to make to my very good friend and the role that I play was leading us through this morning as we did, in fact, as has been pointed out, beginning late at night. We began late at night because we were all working together to fashion a bill which I am convinced that at the end of the day will enjoy bipartisan support in this House of Representatives. It has been the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker, who, as the author of this legislation, has been in the lead on not only the issue of bringing about measures to strengthen and protect and improve Medicare but also to put into place a very important expansion of medical savings accounts, which I joined him in championing for many, many years. This is a historic day, as many as have said; and my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), has been working diligently over the last several days and weeks and months to get us here. I mentioned the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert). There are lots of other people, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; but I would like to talk about the Representatives who did at 12:50 this morning appear before the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) represented the Committee on Energy and Commerce and did a wonderful job; but no one has been more intimately involved in dealing with health care issues than the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and I was very impressed with the fact that she was able, in her presentation before the Committee on Rules, over a 90-minute period, to deal with virtually every question that came forward; and, Mr. Speaker, it was so apparent that her grasp of this issue, coupled with her commitment to ensure that our senior citizens finally have the opportunity for the first time under the structure put in place for Medicare have access to affordable prescription drugs; and, Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to note that while there was bipartisan praise for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) as this hearing began at 12:50 this morning, the final panel that came before us at probably about 4:30 or so, I cannot remember exactly what time it was, maybe 4:15 this morning, had a Democrat on the final panel praising the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), not necessarily agreeing with everything that she said, but praising her for the fine work that she has involved herself in on this issue. I believe that as we look at what it is that we are trying to do here there are so many very important and positive developments that have taken place. I know my friend from Ohio has just mentioned the very important issue of the disproportionate share of hospitals that provide assistance under Medicaid. Increasing the level of funding for those hospitals that are shouldering that responsibility has been one of the challenges that the Los Angeles area, which I am honored to represent, has faced; and we, I believe, are going to be able to help deal with that. At the same time, I have to say that in looking at some of the things that have been said that were critical of this rule and of the measure, first on the rule, Mr. Speaker, we have put into place what I believe is a very fair rule. In the 107th Congress we all know that we dealt with this issue, and there was no substitute made in order. So in this Congress we have done that, but in bringing the health savings accounts, which are a very important item, designed to provide incentives for people to make choices and plan for their long-term health care needs by bringing this measure in with our very important Medicare package, what we have done is we have provided the minority with three opportunities, the substitute and two opportunities to offer motions to recommit, and there was no substitute offered on the other and I suspect we would have made that. We conceivably could have had four opportunities for the minority, if they had submitted those to us, that would have been made in order; and we, as the majority, have basically one opportunity and that is our bill. I acknowledge that as members of the majority we have been able under Speaker Hastert's leadership to put this package together; but anyone who claims that we are not giving an opportunity to the minority for their proposals to be considered is really wrong, and we have provided the proposal which was submitted to us by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and ranking minority member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. So I believe we are going to, as this debate proceeds, find that there are Democrats who will want to join with us; and I congratulate them for understanding the fact that this is going to be the first opportunity to truly provide access to affordable prescription drugs to our senior citizens. I will tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in voting ``no'' on this package, at the end of the day we will see Members saying no to our attempt to put into place a program that will meet that very important need. So I just want to say that I know there a lot of staff people who have been involved in this, and I particularly want to express my appreciation to the members of the Committee on Rules, very ably led staff on our side by my friend Billy Pitts, and we on this committee had members on both the Democratic and the Republican side who did meet from 12:50 this morning until our filing of the rule by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and I at 6:20 this morning. And the reason we did it is that this is such an important issue. The reason we did it is that we want to make sure that we get this done for the American people, and I am convinced that our chance to come together has been made possible by all those who were involved in this, and I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And let me begin by expressing my appreciation to him for the hard work that he put into the Committee on Rules meeting last night. My friend just mentioned the fact that measures that are considered under suspension of the rules are nonsubstantive and his concern is the fact that we may bring up substantive measures under suspension of the rules. The fact of the matter is major substantive pieces of legislation should come up under suspension of the rules. They can only pass if there is a two-thirds vote. The only requirement is that in fact 61 Democrats joined with every Republican to pass the measure. I thank my friend for yielding. I just wanted to make that clear.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of June 23 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence filed its report in the House yesterday, June 18, 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in Room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 24. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just one clarification. I do not know of any Member of this House who has offered a proposal that would eliminate Medicare. I do not believe that either committee will be moving a proposal that would eliminate Medicare. Our goal is a very clear and simple one: it is to make the Medicare program as efficient as we possibly can to ensure that our seniors have the best quality health care and access to affordable prescription drugs. So I just wanted to make it clear that I do not know of any proposal to eliminate Medicare.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply say that it is true that the Committee on Rules has traditionally had this 9 to 4 ratio, and we continued another tradition that we learned when you were in the majority of maintaining that. My point is very simply that we will take this issue very seriously. The Committee on Rules has yet to act. No decisions have been made. I think that it is important for us to underscore that. I know that there will be members of the minority who will come before the committee who will offer proposals, and we will look forward to hearing about those proposals, and then we will deliberate on it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the fact that my friend from Maryland has again raised this issue. I will tell the gentleman that the Committee on Rules is anxiously looking forward to considering the measures that will emerge from both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means as we deal with this extremely important issue. The American people have spoken very clearly. They want us to put into place, and the President very much wants to have, a package which will provide access to affordable, quality prescriptions for seniors. We want to do this in a way that will allow for a wide range of issues to be considered. And I know that based on the 8 hours that was expended by all of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, through their markup, that many proposals were offered there, and I know that this process is an ongoing one. I will assure my friend that the Committee on Rules will deliberate, and we will make a determination as to exactly what it is that we will move forward with. The distinguished majority leader just talked about the fact that we will hope that measures will fall within the guidelines of the $400 billion that was allocated in the budget over a 10-year period to deal with prescription drugs; and when the majority leader was talking about that, I know that what we are looking at will be something that will fall within the strictures that were put forth in the budget, and that is all that the majority leader was indicating. His hope is that if a substitute is submitted that it will fall within those guidelines. The gentleman from Maryland is correct when he refers to the fact that the Committee on Rules does have the power to provide waivers. And waivers are often provided to the minority just as they are to the majority as well, for amendments, for substitutes. So I just want to assure my friend that we plan, as we take this up next week, to take this issue very seriously, as we do all others; and we will take whatever requests that the minority makes into consideration as we deliberate. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my good friend and able colleague, and I thank her for her fine leadership on this and other issues. Obviously our goal here is very simple. We want to empower individuals rather than the lawyers. That is what this comes down to. There is bipartisan interest in doing that, based on a number of amendments which have been proposed. And I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that we have a very fair and balanced process around which we are going to be debating this issue. We have heard this juxtaposition between the consideration of this measure in the 107th Congress and what we are doing today. In the 107th Congress, we had a rule just like this one. It was a structured rule. We also have a structured rule in this measure. We had 8 amendments that were filed, 6 Democratic amendments, a bipartisan amendment and a Republican amendment. Two amendments were subsequently withdrawn. We made 4 amendments in order. Three of those 4 amendments have been offered by Democrats, including something they did not offer in the 107th Congress, and that is a Democratic substitute. We make a Democratic substitute in order. In the last Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) talked about the number of amendments made in order. Well, of the amendments made in order, 55 percent of them in the last Congress were Democratic amendments, and in this Congress, it is 75 percent. Three of the 4 amendments made in order have been offered by Democrats. That is why when we hear this issue of fairness continually raised, I argue that this is a very fair, a very balanced rule, that will allow us to take on one of the very, very important issues of the rights of individuals under this system of justice that we have. I congratulate the members of the Committee on the Judiciary who have worked long and hard on this. We continue to try and bring this back, and we hope very much we will be able to bring about a resolution in behalf of the American people.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is fascinating. I know when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) yielded to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) he talked about the fact that he is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. But clearly if you look at the pattern that we have gone through for decades and decades, it clearly has not been Democrats who have stood forward as the great champions of fiscal responsibility. It is wonderful to see them join us now as we work towards encouraging economic growth so that we can get back onto this course of balancing the budget. I would like to take just a few moments, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to talk about some substantive issues here. My friend the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Frost), the ranking minority member of our Committee on Rules, has talked about the fact that he knows exactly what the other body is going to do. I do not. I do not know what the Senate is going to do. But I do know this: We passed $726 billion in tax cuts with the budget that we put into place, and we know that action was taken over in the other body that imposed a limit of $350 billion. But I think it is wrong for the United States House of Representatives, the people's House, the one that has every Representative here on behalf of the between 600,000 and 700,000 Americans, simply kowtow to action over there. I think we have a responsibility to do everything that we can to take action, and let me say that I believe we need to do everything that we can to stand up for what it was that we did in our budget, to try and ensure that the American people can keep more of their own hard-earned dollars and to put into place tax policies which will encourage economic growth. That is exactly what we are doing here today. Now, we heard in our Committee on Rules yesterday and we have heard here on the floor that somehow the President of the United States has made a determination as to exactly what he wants to do. I have here, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy. That is the statement of the President of the United States. Contrary to some of the arguments put forward by my Democratic colleagues, this is what the statement of administration policy says: ``The Administration supports passage of H.R. 1308, the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003, and urges the House and Senate to quickly resolve their differences.'' The administration understands the bicameral process that takes place here. For some reason, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to just buckle under, and not realize that we can do even better than what was done in the other body. That is what we are striving to do. We are striving to get this economy growing. We have already seen very positive signs from what has taken place with passage of the Jobs and Growth Act. We have seen positive signs with the Dow above 9200. That has taken place since we have passed this legislation. We have indicators out there that we can get this thing growing to the point where we will be able to generate the revenue that we need to deal with the very important prescription drug program, which we are working on right now as part of Medicare reform, education priorities, transportation issues which we were addressing earlier. This measure today is a very important part of that, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this package.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, following that fascinating display, I would like to rise and indicate that as the economic downturn began during the last 2 quarters of 2000, we worked very hard to ensure that we could put into place policies that will encourage economic growth that will once again get us back on the path of a balanced budget. Now, we all know that the challenges with which we have had to deal stem from not only the economic downturn that began during the last 2 quarters of the year 2000, but also September 11, the war with Iraq, and I am proud that we were able to stand together in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans, to stand up to the threat of international terrorism and the repression that Saddam Hussein was imposing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have seen from today's debate that this is an extraordinarily serious matter. This coming September 11 will mark the second anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history. We all know of the terrible loss of life and we know of the threat that existed on that date to this institution, this building, which, as we all know, is a symbol not only to Americans but around the world of freedom and democracy. For that reason, after this nearly 2-year window of time when we have taken a lot of action in response to September 11, it is important for us to now step back and, in a deliberative manner, to very thoughtfully look at the ways in which we can assure that we proceed with fair and balanced representation to maintain a continuity of our Nation's governance. I believe that we have in this resolution which will establish this joint committee an opportunity to, in a bicameral way, look at this very important question. As I said earlier, exactly 10 years ago, in 1993, I was privileged to be a cochairman of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, which looked at a lot of the institutional questions that both bodies face. Now we will, in the wake of this very, very serious challenge that we face, have the opportunity to look at those questions which continue. Obviously, it is important for us to recognize the disparity that exists between the two bodies. The other body is one which has different constituencies than ours, obviously different terms of office and, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has pointed out, different ways for succession. This institution is known as the People's House. We are the only federally elected officials who must be elected to have the opportunity to serve in our positions. I feel it is very important for us to maintain that status, as James Madison envisaged it over two centuries ago; and I believe that, at the same time, we can, in working with our colleagues in the other body, proceed with a very fair, bipartisan process, which will allow us to address this. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, from having listened to the debate which will simply put into place this joint committee, that there is disagreement. But I believe that as we take the input that has been provided by a wide range of individuals, academics, former colleagues, people who spent a lot of time thinking about this, who will be providing us with recommendations, I am convinced that the work of this joint committee will be among the most important things that this 108th Congress will be able to address. Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who very ably led, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the effort to deal with the continuity of Congress in the 107th Congress.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Metairie, Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who worked very hard on the commission and was very actively involved in it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman has raised. Let me first say that I was very pleased, and my colleagues on the Committee on Rules will recall this, as we proceeded with implementation of the PATRIOT Act I insisted that we have a sunset clause so that this institution would be required to take another look at the ramifications of the PATRIOT Act, and I know that there are wide-ranging concerns that have been raised. Second, on the issue of the constitutional amendment, I have stated that I am very concerned about the prospect of moving ahead with a constitutional amendment which would take this institution from being the body of the people to becoming, as the other body was designed in the Constitution, to be the body of the States, and make this the body of the States again which I believe would make it the case if we were to have governors appoint Members of the House of Representatives. I think this joint committee is designed to look at these concerns, look at the issues out there. We have all talked about the gravity of it. We know it is a very, very serious matter. I will assure my friend there is no way this committee, if it were to come forward with a proposed constitutional amendment, would act without going through the process of having the Committee on the Judiciary look at the prospect of amending the Constitution, and we in the Committee on Rules would address it again, and of course it would have to go through the confirmation process.

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

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