David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the coauthor of the amendment, and that she may control that time.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. That letter has nothing to do with what we are looking at here today.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I will admit that my number one economic priority is not the extension of unemployment benefits. My number one economic priority is to create jobs and to put into place the kinds of mechanisms that we can to encourage job creation and economic growth. My very good friend from Santa Clara County who just talked about what she described as a depression in the Silicon Valley and I will be offering an amendment later this afternoon which will, I believe, play a role in creating the kind of jobs in the Silicon Valley which are so important to improving the quality of life not only for people in that part of our country, but throughout the rest of the Nation. I also believe that as we look at the jobs and economic growth package which we are going to be considering, it is geared towards job creation and economic growth. Now, having said that, I will acknowledge Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right when he says that there are a lot of people out there who through no fault of their own have been victimized by this downturn which, by the way, began during the last two quarters of 2000. Now my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), just described the job loss since President Bush took office; but virtually every economist has acknowledged that the downturn began during the last two quarters. We also know, and I do not need to remind my colleagues again, that we have suffered greatly over the past couple of years through the tragedy of September 11, and we are just emerging from a war with Iraq, and we are still in the midst of this very costly war on terrorism. We are working together in a bipartisan way to deal with these issues; but quite frankly, they have played a role in creating the economic downturn. And that is why we as Republicans are proud to step up to the plate and deal with the extension of unemployment benefits. I know that there are parts of States as have been described by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that are suffering more than other parts of States and the overall level is not as high as it is in other States that will, in fact, end up receiving a 26-week extension. But I believe that our dealing with this question before we get to the expiration is the right thing for us to do. Let us move ahead. This will be a problem that we will continue to address as we face it. But I hope and pray that passage of the Dreier-Lofgren amendment this afternoon, that passage of the jobs and growth package that we have will deal with the challenges that we have. And so I encourage my colleagues to provide support for this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply respond by saying, first, I do appreciate the fact that when Democrats were in the majority, they did allow for consideration of a wide range of Members. I would argue that we made every attempt to deal with both the civilian personnel issue as well as the environmental issue; and we tried to do so in a bipartisan way, as I outlined, by approaching the minority leadership saying the request that was first made of me, that we allow for a striking provision to be made in order. We said we were willing to do that. On the issue of the environment, the Hefley language, which I know was worked on in a bipartisan way, is in fact included in the Hunter measure. I would argue that we tried our doggonedest to do just what was said. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It follows the procedure which, as I said here yesterday, has been addressed year after year. We are coming forward with a second rule which has a wide range of amendments. Contrary to what my friend from Dallas just said, this is a very bipartisan bill. And I will make a prediction, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the day we will have strong bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans, voting for the Defense Authorization Bill. Now, as we proceed with this process that has just been described as, frankly, less than bipartisan, the rule that we are addressing here happens to include amendments from my fellow Californian (Mr. Lantos), the ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations; my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), has an amendment in order; my Committee on Rules colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), has an amendment that is made in order. There is a bipartisan amendment that my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), is working with some Republican colleagues on. We have amendments made in order by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has two amendments that are made in order. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), came to me and asked that we make in order an amendment that dealt with an important issue to him. We made that in order. Those are all Democrats I have talked about, Mr. Speaker. So I think it is clear that we have, in fact, proceeded in a bipartisan way to try to allow some concerns that have come forward by our Democratic colleagues to be addressed. Now, I do know that these two hot buttons of civilian personnel and environmental questions are still out there. Now, I happen to believe that while we did consider this process, as we considered the option of other amendments, we did come to the conclusion that, in fact, the Hefley language that was included in the Hunter amendment was the appropriate way to deal with this issue. Yesterday, a number of us had a chance to meet with our colleague, with our former colleague, now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and talked about the environmental consequence and what impact this will have on our young men and women in uniform. And I know that the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has talked about that and we heard some horror stories of what compliance has in fact done. But this measure does not, in fact, eliminate the compliance with important legislation like the Endangered Species Act and the Mammal Protection Act. Now, I know on the civilian personnel question we also have this issue that has come to the forefront. Now, I went through this explanation and I know that my very good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), has come forward and we have now had, and I will acknowledge a change in positions, but initially a request was made of me that we consider making in order an amendment that would strike out the civilian personnel provisions. Why? Because they have made it very clear that they do not like those provisions. Well, what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is there has been a change that has taken place since that time. I recognize we could, in fact, deal with that change; but we chose to approach the minority leadership and indicate that we would be willing as was first asked of me to make in order an amendment that would allow for the striking of the civilian personnel provisions; and they decided that they did not want to have that considered. And so now they are complaining that we have not made another amendment in order. And, yes, it is true, we had nearly 100 amendments submitted to us. We did not make an additional amendment in order on that issue. But we still, Mr. Speaker, are proceeding in a bipartisan way making numerous amendments. In fact, 11 amendments that Democrats have submitted are made in order. I will be offering an amendment in a bipartisan way with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Northern California (Ms. Lofgren), to deal with the very important computer security issue which I hope we will have bipartisan support on. So I do want to say, contrary to what we will be hearing, the spirit of this rule has been pursued in a bipartisan way as has been the legislation. I urge support of the previous question. I urge support of the rule, and I urge my colleagues to come together and provide strong support for the critically important defense of our Nation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, does he propose that that American who is earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, does he propose that they receive a $93,000 tax cut? Is that what the gentleman is proposing?

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

Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to respond to the query that was put forth.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. We have a lot of people who wish to speak on this issue as well.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not wish to yield to me?

Mr. DREIER. Excuse me. I think it is wonderful for the gentleman from Massachusetts to come to that conclusion, but let me just suggest we do this. I will yield back my time now to my friend, and I am happy to stand here and field questions from the minority on their time.

Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield further, but I do not know how we stand time-wise. We are using up our time here.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has not said that. The Committee on Rules acted on one of two rules last night when we passed out this rule granting 2 hours of general debate and allowing for the consideration of nine amendments, which we hope to proceed with in just a few minutes. We will be meeting sometime mid-afternoon for consideration of a second rule which will allow for consideration of other amendments when we proceed with this tomorrow. So I think that it is really incorrect for anyone to conclude that all of the action on the Department of Defense authorization rule has in fact been completed. It has not been completed. But I want to say that the issue of the environment is one that is very important to me as a Californian. It is one that is very important, I believe, to a broad cross-section of the membership of this House, Democrats and Republicans. We also know that there have been requests made by this administration to deal with the situation that was outlined so well by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, where in fact we may be jeopardizing the lives of our men and women in uniform if we do not take some action. So I understand this is going to be debated. This will be discussed. There is no doubt about the fact that this will be a topic of discussion when the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) comes up, and this will be a topic of discussion as we consider this rule as it is right now, as well as the second rule which we plan to report out tomorrow. Let me just say that this should be a noncontroversial rule, and I do not want to foreclose the opportunity to consider any proposals that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. We will, in fact, have an opportunity to do that this afternoon, and then tomorrow we will debate a second rule that will allow for further consideration.

Mr. DREIER. I think I may have heard it before.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I really am somewhat perplexed to hear all of the criticism of our attempts to be bipartisan on this legislation. Someone's been shut out in this process? Let me explain this rule to our colleagues, Mr. Speaker. It is a rule which makes in order 2 hours of general debate, and it makes in order nine amendments for consideration that had been submitted to the Committee on Rules by the deadline we stated. But let me tell my colleagues what happened last night in the Committee on Rules. In our quest to try to have as many proposals as possible considered, what happened? It is the first time that I can remember, in this number, that this has taken place. Three proposals were offered by our Democratic colleagues to actually knock out consideration of amendments that are made in order under this rule; meaning that while we were trying to provide an option of debate and then an up-or-down vote so we could in a bipartisan way address these issues, the Democrats were trying to shut out Members from having the opportunity to offer amendments. Now, I do not want to say it is unprecedented, but I do not recall it happening on three occasions as it did last night. This should be, Mr. Speaker, a totally noncontroversial rule, because it is the same process that we have gone through. What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have said that we want to go with the two-rule procedure, which the Democrats did regularly and which we Republicans have done regularly in consideration of this massive Department of Defense authorization bill. The great chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), was here and he has talked about the fact that this is a $400 billion measure. As was said so well by my friend, the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I agree with the fact that on an issue as important as our national security we should proceed in a bipartisan way, and we want to do that. Now, we know that one of the issues of concern, and that has gotten a great deal of attention, is the environmental question. That was raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) when he made his presentation from the well. And I want to say that we have been sensitive to that. I happen to believe that the provision that is made in order under what will be tantamount to a manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) does in fact move towards addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the members of the minority. I will acknowledge that there are some who would like to do more. But we happen to believe that the step that is taken by addressing the issues that were raised by our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), will in fact be able to be effectively addressed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week, the week of May 19, to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported yesterday, May 14, 2003, and is expected to file its report in the House tomorrow, May 16, 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy with a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 20. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Armed Services, which will be available tomorrow for their review on the Web site of both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just do not want to predetermine what the Committee on Rules might do as we want the committee to work its will and take into consideration these proposals, and I know the gentleman would not want to predetermine what the Committee on Rules might do.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I will simply say that we just a couple of hours ago completed the hearing portion for consideration of the measure, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking minority member on the Committee on Resources, came forward with a substitute which he asked that we make in order, and we had four other amendments that were proposed, and we are working with Members of the minority right now to see which of the proposals we might be able to accommodate. So we are going to try our darnedest to make sure there are options that our colleagues have as we proceed with this very important piece of legislation, which I am happy to see there is strong bipartisan consensus to move ahead with this bill. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the majority leader is absolutely right. We know there is a full schedule which the distinguished majority leader has just outlined for next week, but, clearly, most of the time for next week will be spent on this House floor dealing with this very important issue, the defense authorization bill. In light of that fact, my friend from Maryland can clearly be assured that there will be a wide range of amendments that will be made in order for consideration of the measure.

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