David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to Speaker Hastert for his leadership on this very important issue of the continuity of the Congress. H. Con. Res. 190 creates a joint committee of the House and Senate for systematic review of what congressional procedures, coordination, devices and leadership are necessary to handle a time of national crisis. Today, Mr. Speaker, we act to assure the American people that there will be continuing representation and congressional operations in the face of any catastrophe. For a number of months, I have been considering the continuity of Congress, homeland security, and what measures we need to have in place to make sure that this institution functions in a time of crisis. I am pleased today to bring before the House a measure which has been sponsored by all 13 members of the Committee on Rules, Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, only on a few occasions in the past have we acted to establish bicameral, bipartisan panels to review the structure and the functioning of this institution. The last time we did so was a decade ago, back in 1993, and I was privileged to be a cochairman of what was called the 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Now, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our perception of national priorities clearly has gone through dramatic changes. Congress's initial response to the act of terrorism included establishing the Department of Homeland Security, our Select Committee on Homeland Security; H. Con. Res. 1, which established the opportunity for the Speaker to have an alternative place and designation for us to meet; the task force that was put into place, led by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); and, obviously, within the Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to praise the work of my friends, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and the other Members who contributed to the thinking that went into the continuity of Congress issue as well as the security of this institution. I also want to extend my congratulations to the Continuity of Government Commission on their work. But I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that more needs to be done, and we need to take a close look at all of those things that have been proposed from a wide range of different sources. The Presidency has been transferred in critical situations on numerous occasions: war, assassination, and impeachment. But only two or three times in our Nation's history have emergencies tested the ability of the United States Congress to conduct its business under extreme circumstances. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, Congress should undertake a thorough review of House and Senate rules, joint rules, and other related matters to ensure the functioning of Congress in the event of any catastrophe. Mr. Speaker, the two Chambers, of course, do have formal and informal devices to bring Representatives and Senators together. We, of course, have conference committees, we have bicameral leadership meetings, but these mechanisms for bicameral organization are typically on an ad hoc basis and they address the legislative and political dynamics of questions that are out there. We have no formal structure in place to jointly address how we would deal with things in the case of an emergency. Passage of H. Con. Res. 190 would inaugurate a special joint committee study of the ways we can ensure that the structures, procedures and lines of communication between the two Chambers are effectively organized and coordinated so that the legislative branch can fulfill its very important constitutional duties during times of crisis. Specifically, the concurrent resolution establishes a committee of 20 Members, equally divided by Chamber and party. The Speaker and the Senate majority leader would appoint the cochairman of the joint committee as well as the other Members after consultation with the respective minority leaders. The joint committee is to issue an interim report by January 31 of 2004 and a final report by May 31 of 2004, roughly a year from now. Among the specific topics the joint committee could consider are continuity of Congress and joint processes and procedures for consideration of homeland security legislation during times of national crisis. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not wedded to any particular issue. If I am selected to serve on the joint committee, I want to hear from other chairmen and Members about their ideas, including what are we going to be legislating on during a crisis, what do we need to have in place procedurally to deal with this, do we have the proper funding mechanisms in place, and how can we address special elections in order to assure a quorum. I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to address the proposals of a constitutional amendment that are out there. I want to say that we had an interesting exchange yesterday in the Subcommittee on Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules, chaired by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), in which we discussed this. I know there are some people who have come out strongly in favor of amending the Constitution. I am one who is very hesitant to move in the direction of an amendment to the Constitution. I will say that while I keep an open mind, I have yet to be convinced that that is the right thing to do. But I will listen and, clearly, be open to arguments that are there. I do think it is only fair for me to let it be known that I do have strong feelings about that issue myself. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that it is time for us to step forward and take this action. It has been nearly 2 years since September 11 of 2001. We have had a lot of input and a lot of recommendations. We just had yesterday the report come forward from this commission. We obviously will expend time and energy looking at that. So I think that this, as the greatest deliberative body known to man, is now poised to deliberate over these very, very serious, important questions that are over our heads regarding the question of our governance during times of crisis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to express my appreciation to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for his very kind and supportive words on this important issue as we proceed with this very weighty matter. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we yesterday held a hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House, chaired very ably by our friend, the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder). Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would just like to say that again we looked at this modeling it after the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress from 1993; and I want to congratulate the now minority, then majority, for in fact putting into place a structure whereby we would in fact ensure that in moving ahead it must be done in a bipartisan way. These issues that we are going to be addressing, Mr. Speaker, are of such gravity that it is important that just as we are here to get total agreement today with the establishment of this joint committee, that as we come forward with our recommendations that we in the same way have the kind of bipartisan agreement that will be necessary.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 190) to establish a joint committee to review House and Senate rules, joint rules, and other matters assuring continuing representation and congressional operations for the American people, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to join my friend in welcoming Reverend Medina, who has just informed me that he is a constituent of mine. We are very appreciative of the prayer and the very kind words.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of June 9 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered the bill reported on May 21, 2003, and is expected to file its report with the House tomorrow, June 6, 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 10th. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which will be available tomorrow for their review on the websites of both the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of June 9 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. The Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill reported May 21, 2003, and is expected to file its report in the House on June 9, 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 Wednesday, June 11. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary which will be available early next week for their review on the websites of both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at a very early point in my life, I was taught that you can celebrate your birthday the week before and the week after the actual date. A week ago today, we all know that Bob Hope celebrated his 100th birthday. We are actually in the midst of the celebration of the 50th birthday of our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). When I think about Bob Hope, he is someone who I have been privileged to know for many years and have had the opportunity to spend time with him and his wonderful wife Delores and their family. But I will tell you, even when you are in small company with Bob Hope, you cannot help but be in awe of an individual who is virtually unparalleled in his commitment to the United States of America. A year ago we were able to honor him by naming the Chapel at the Veterans Cemetery in West Los Angeles, with the help of his friends, Mary Jane and Charles Wick. There are countless people all over this world who have to continue to be indebted to Bob Hope for the great sacrifice that he has made and the happiness that he has brought to so many millions of individuals. Happy birthday, Mr. Hope.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the very, very able chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time, and I thank him for the tremendous time and energy he puts into so much of the heavy lifting that goes on in this institution. I rise in strong support of this very important legislation. As we think about the sacrifice that has been made, and it has obviously come to the forefront in the past several months, I believe that steps towards recognizing those sacrifices that have been made by people regardless of their background and citizenship, I think this piece of legislation which has been crafted in a bipartisan way to address this important need will go a long way toward sending a signal of great, unwavering appreciation of those of us in the United States Congress and the American people on behalf of that sacrifice that has been made. I want to congratulate my fellow colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for her work on this, obviously the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and the others who have been involved in this legislation; and I look forward to its speedy passage.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. We have, I am very happy to say, in the Committee on Rules worked with the minority to put into place an agreement where, under unanimous consent, we will establish a joint committee that will be addressing the issue of the continuity of Congress. We are going to be tomorrow working on this with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and this request will simply allow us to bring this measure up.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider House Concurrent Resolution 190; The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment; The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. That is a very good question. I think what I have basically said was this downturn began in the last two quarters of 2000. I did not say whose economy this is or is not. I would say we are all in this together as the American people. We all together stood outside the Capitol as Members of Congress following the tragedy of September 11. We all have been faced with the war with Iraq, and we have all been faced with a downturn that began in the last two quarters of 2000, and we are struggling to emerge. We are struggling to get this economy back on track. That is why the measure that we passed in 2001 which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) was talking about did play a role in mitigating the economic downturn. Virtually every economist indicated had we not passed that measure, the problems would have been worse than they are today. I believe that passage of this measure will go a long way towards creating the kind of revenue flow that we need. As I was saying, every single time we have cut the top rate on capital gains, we have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. We saw it when John F. Kennedy did it and when Ronald Reagan did it. We doubled the flow of revenues to the Treasury during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan brought about that reduction. In fact, we saw a 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues when the top rate on capital gains was reduced from 28 to 20 percent in 1981. Unfortunately, in the 1986 tax bill, we saw that rate go back up. That 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues that came by unleashing that potential that was there, unfortunately we saw a diminution of it once we increased that rate. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are going to observe a dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury once we put into place this measure that cuts for most Americans the rate from 20 to 15 percent, and for those in the 10 to 15 percent bracket, reduces it to a great big zero. When I think about those at the lower end of the spectrum, I think about those individuals who are starting their businesses, maybe have a home that has appreciated, they want to be able to have the chance to create jobs and get onto that first rung of the economic ladder. This measure is designed to create the opportunity for people to do just that. This is a very good start. It is a good piece of legislation. I am very proud of the work that has been done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means, our colleagues in the other body, and of course President Bush in providing stellar leadership for this, as well as Speaker Hastert who has constantly pushed in the direction of trying to reduce that burden.

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

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question. And what I will say is that, frankly, as we look at the numbers, 1 percent of the American people provide 37 percent of the tax revenues that are paid in this country, and 5 percent of the American taxpayers provide over 52 percent of the tax revenues. But what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again, is that this measure will cut taxes for virtually every American who pays taxes. And I am so excited about the fact that it cuts taxes not only for those job creators by dramatically increasing expensing for small businesses, by bringing about the kind of increased depreciation which is very important and necessary, but also I am enthused about cutting the top rate on the capital gains tax. I am very privileged to have worked for years and years and years here. In fact, I have a bipartisan bicameral Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus. And guess what? This measure creates a zero capital gains, and not for those who are in the highest income tax brackets, not for those who are out there creating huge numbers of jobs, but this measure will, in the year 2008, establish a zero capital gains tax rate for whom? For those who are in the 10 percent tax bracket and those who are in the 15 percent tax bracket. And, Mr. Speaker, it also provides a zero tax in the year 2008 for those who have dividend income. And there are many Americans who fall in that category. So we are achieving, with passage of this measure, a zero capital gains rate for those who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. And, yes, we are, in fact, cutting it for those in the higher end as well. We are cutting it from 20 percent to 15 percent. We also know, as we look at the broad cross-section of the American people who are going to be benefitted by this expanding and making permanent the marriage tax penalty, that that relief is very, very important. Also expanding the child credit up to $1,000, another very important provision, will be helpful to middle-income wage earners in this country. So while I hear this measure described by my friend from Texas as only benefiting millionaires, that is an absolutely preposterous description of this very important legislation. I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud of the fact that we have stepped forward, acknowledging that there are real challenges that our States are facing. My State of California has, tragically, a $38.2 billion deficit. And what is it that we do in this measure? We step up to the plate and provide $20 billion in assistance for those States that have come to us and talked about the very important needs that they face. So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we have done the right thing. We are going to lay the groundwork to provide a tax-defined effort to create jobs and growth in this country. This measure deserves strong bipartisan support. The President of the United States stood here at the Capitol this morning and said he looks forward to signing this bill. While it is not exactly what we wanted from the beginning, we have said that we are excited about the fact that the argument has been over what the size of the tax cut will be, because we know that when our friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority the debate was so often over what the size of the tax increase would be. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the lines about the desire to keep these dollars in the pockets of the American people because they have earned them. We all know that is the case; but we also have to realize that these proposals which have come forward from the other side of the aisle to increase taxes, which is the proposal that we had last week that came from that side, would do nothing to create jobs and encourage economic growth. In fact, as my friend from New York has so eloquently said, it would have exacerbated the economic challenges that we face. The downturn began in the last two quarters of the year 2000. That was before President Bush was elected President of the United States. Since that time this Nation has faced all three of the factors that the President outlined in his campaign that indicated that he possibly would have to lead into deficit spending: war, recession, national emergency. No one needs to have September 11 redefined for them. We all lived through that right here in the Capitol; and tragically, many of us lost friends on that day. We also have just gone through a war liberating the people of Iraq, and we know it has been very costly. We also know, as we have looked at this deficit, the real problem is the fact that we have seen a slow economy. How is it that we are going to generate the revenues to deal with these very important priorities that we have? It is to generate a flow of revenues that we need.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise to say that this has been a great day for us. We have been able to pass out, in a bipartisan way, with an overwhelming vote, a spectacular defense authorization bill. We have been able to deal with one of the most pressing needs out there by extending unemployment benefits to those who are really hurting. And now we are dealing with what truly is the number one priority for us economically, and that is we are going to be putting into place a measure which is designed to create jobs and increase economic growth in this country. I am looking at the clock. It is now 6 minutes before 11 p.m. Now, I know my friend from Texas has described this as the dead of night. But I have to say that it is 6 minutes before 8 p.m. in California, and I suspect that there may even be a broader audience following the debate at this hour across the Nation than there might be at noon following a debate that takes place here in the House of Representatives. I also have to say that I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who are anxious for us to complete our work and get this done so that we can create jobs for the American people, which is what this measure is going to do. Now, I am very proud to be a Republican, and by virtue of being a Republican, I was born to cut taxes. And I am proud, I am proud of the fact that we are putting this measure into place. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' was a great line that I heard. I thought that was very creative. But if we are using it on the model of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I guess it should be broadly bipartisan. And, frankly, this is a measure which cuts taxes for virtually everyone who pays taxes.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As we have worked in structuring this rule, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for all of the effort he has put into this great piece of legislation. I do not step forward to challenge him on an issue lightly. This is a very serious matter. I will take a back seat to no one when it comes to the national security of the United States of America. The gentleman from California and I came together with Ronald Reagan in 1980, and I would not be supportive of any legislation which repealed regulations to ensure that the transfer of sensitive technology would go into the hands of our adversaries. I have great confidence in Condoleezza Rice. I have great confidence in the leadership of this President. And I believe that the correspondence that we have had, having worked closely on fashioning this amendment with the administration, having worked closely with the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, having worked closely with the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and Democrats on the other side of the aisle to ensure that we have this opportunity to do it, guarantees that we will address our national security concerns. Pass this amendment. Repeal this outdated moment. Please vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, we are making an attempt to move into the 21st century; and quite frankly, we have found from the war on terrorism and the war with Iraq that one of the most phenomenal developments has been the technological advances that have been made in dealing with our national security concerns. One of the things that we found during that process is the fact that we have a very outdated structure known as millions of theoretical operations per second, MTOPs, which has not enhanced our ability to move ahead technologically and has undermined our ability to compete globally. We believe very strongly that it is important for us to have in place a structure which would in fact allow us to deal with the potential transfer of sensitive computer technology to our adversaries. This amendment which I have offered along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) will allow for the administration to have 120 days during which time they would come up with another method of dealing with this, and they must do it in full consultation with the relevant committees here in both Houses of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.