David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to inform our colleagues of the sad news that we received yesterday of the passing of our former colleague, Congressman John Rousselot. John Rousselot was one of the most dynamic and hardworking Members of this institution. He loved the People's House. He was an individual who in many ways was proposing ideas far ahead of his time. I was talking to our staff director of the Committee on Rules, Billy Pitts, who reminded me that he helped John Rousselot decades ago author the first balanced budget proposals. We all now know that both sides of the aisle talk about fiscal responsibility as we pursue our goal of trying to rein in wasteful Federal spending. No one did that with greater enthusiasm and passion than John Rousselot. He served with distinction on both the Banking Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, and he often would come forward with many creative proposals. I have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of now representing much of the area that Mr. Rousselot represented, and he is remembered very fondly by his constituents. No one was more tireless in their work in behalf of the concerns of the individuals whom he represented. I know the thoughts and prayers of all of my colleagues go to the family members of John Rousselot. I want to say that I personally will miss his advice and counsel greatly.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 12 to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003, which may require that amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration on the floor. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered the bill reported on April 9, 2003, and filed its report in the House on May 1, 2003. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 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 rise in strong support of this rule. When we won the majority back in 1994, we decided that we were going to guarantee that the minority had something that we on numerous occasions were denied. That was an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. I will admit that we very much wanted to try to put together a structure whereby we could allow a substitute for the minority. But as we looked at what this bill is called, Mr. Speaker, it is called the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. What that means is we are putting into place policies that will reduce the tax burden so we can stimulate economic growth. Unfortunately, the package that was submitted to us yesterday by the minority to be offered as a substitute consisted, as was just said by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, of tax increases; and it also goes into a wide range of other areas which have nothing to do with the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. In fact, we would have to provide waivers of almost every single rule imaginable to have made in order their substitute. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that we have done the minority a tremendous favor, a tremendous favor by saving them from casting a vote in support of a tax increase as we deal with what Secretary Snow yesterday described as a wobbly recovery. We all acknowledge that we are dealing with economic challenges. As we listen to our friends talk about the unemployment rate, we know jobs have been lost, and we know also that this downturn began the last 2 quarters of 2000 before this administration came into office. We also know as we looked at the statements that were made by the President in his campaign, he said if we faced war, recession or a national emergency, we would be forced to go into deficit spending. And guess what, we have encountered all three. We are working diligently to ensure that we can climb out, and the best way to climb out is to unleash the potential of the American people which we know is limitless if we can provide that kind of opportunity for them. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a fair rule which does guarantee them their motion to recommit, and we also will have a chance to put into place a package which will do what President Bush has been arguing consistently, to give the American people a chance to keep some of their own hard-earned monies, generate economic growth, and then have the level of revenues that we need to balance the budget, to meet our priorities when it comes to education and health care and homeland security and national defense. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a wonderful package here. We have saved the Democrats from themselves. Let us support this rule, move ahead with a rigorous debate, and then pass our growth package.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that we believe that we have the potential to get back, if we can unleash this economy to the kind of bold, dynamic economic growth that we saw in the latter part of the 1990s, if we do that, if we do that, I am convinced that we will have a level of revenues that outpaces even the kinds of projections that are included in this budgeting process itself. So I thank my friend. We have shared interests here. We have shared goals. I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike very sincerely want us to get this economy growing so that we can have the revenues that we need to balance the budget and to deal with our priorities. Along with homeland security, along with the war that we have dealt with in Iraq, we can deal with education, transportation, health care, a wide range of other concerns that are out there; and I thank my friend for his thoughts. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that I know that there is time on the other side of the aisle. I have enjoyed having this exchange with my colleagues and appreciate my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that repetition is sometimes good, and so I guess I repeat once again. He talked about the fact that we put into place what we considered to be an economic growth plan in 2001, and that economic growth plan was put into place before September 11, 2001. So I am repeating again what I said earlier, we have had to expend $100 billion-plus in the war on terrorism, and we know that September 11 played a big role in creating an economic slow down; and we also know that the cost of the war, which we have just gone through, has also played a role in slowing the economy, with increased oil prices and a wide range of other concerns. We know that as we look at the challenge, Mr. Speaker, of trying to get this economy growing, doing things like reducing the top rate on capital gains for new investment, which is a measure that I have been pushing for a while, which would take the top rate and cut it from 20 down to 10 percent for new investment, if there were a 1-year holding period. I have talked to a wide ring of economists, Democrats and Republicans, and they believe that that would provide an incentive for new investment and could play a role in getting the economy growing. So, Mr. Speaker, my point is that we need to have growth-oriented tax cuts. Our goal is to do just that, so that we will have the revenues that we need so that we will not have a further debt burden, so that we will not have the kinds of deficits that unfortunately we are going to have to deal with because of these economic challenges that we face for a while.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that virtually every economist, virtually every economist has acknowledged that had we not put into place the tax cuts, the economic growth plan that we did in 2001, that the slowing in the economy would have been even greater than what we have suffered in the past and the recession which began as we all know during the last two quarters of the year 2000 was, in fact, during those two quarters in 2001, in a position where we were in economic recession, but it is clear that the plan that we had did, in fact, diminish the slow down that we witnessed.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. None of us are ecstatic about the fact that we are here, but we have a requirement that we complete this budget process. We have spent a great deal of time on it already this year. We have had a full and very vigorous debate on the budget, and we had a very close vote that took place here. And now we have gone through the conference process. So as I listen to people say that they have had no chance to look at this whatsoever, it is very clear the Committee on the Budget did its job. And the conferees met, and they have come forward with this report. Now, one of the things that we just discussed upstairs in the Committee on Rules is that, whether you like it or not, it is often a prerequisite to actually meet deadlines if we are going to get things done and have deadlines set. And everyone is enthused about the prospect of meeting our deadline to have this done by the 15th of April. Everyone is enthused about the prospect of our adjourning for the district work period that is upon us. And we want to deal with a couple of things. We want to deal right now with completion of this budget conference report; and we also, when we pass another rule, look forward tomorrow to consideration before we leave of the supplemental appropriations bill which will pay for the war effort. Now, I see my good friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) here with whom I am very pleased to work on a wide range of issues, and we have just been working upstairs. And I wanted to clarify one issue, and that is rule XXVII clause 2 makes it very clear that there is not a 10-year requirement, but when specificity is designed as is outlined in this measure, a 1-year debt ceiling increase is in fact allowed under the rules of the House. Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are all continually concerned about an increase in the national debt. We are concerned about increases in spending. And I think my friend was very correct in raising the fact that things changed on September 11 of 2001. And while he talked about the fact that he believed that the overall program for economic growth should change because of what took place on September 11 of 2001, we have found that it is absolutely essential for us to deal with things that did change on September 11. We embarked on that day on a war on terrorism which has cost us over $100 billion just for the war on terrorism itself. We know that with the war that is, actually, we hope very much, coming to an end right now, that we will be able to realize what we have spent. Tomorrow we will be dealing with the spending of $74.7 billion, and so it is true that things have changed. But we feel very strongly that the most important thing for us to do is to put into place an economic growth plan that will generate the kind of revenues that we need to pay for the war on terrorism, to pay for this $74.7 billion in supplemental appropriations that will be necessary to deal with the expenses dealing with the war in Iraq in which we have all strongly supported our troops in a bipartisan way on that and had a great celebration of that today here in Statuary Hall. So, Mr. Speaker, our plan is to try and get the economy growing. We all realize that during the 1990s, the latter part of the 1990s, we saw a strong, bold, dynamic economy. We saw rates of growth at 6 percent and even beyond that. We have seen this diminution, the flow of revenues to the Treasury, not only because of increases in spending, not only because of the war on terrorism, not only because of the war that we are dealing with in Iraq, but because we have seen a slowing in our economy. We happen to believe that reducing the tax burden on working Americans, putting into place plans to have growth-oriented tax cuts will, in fact, generate the kind of revenues that we need to deal with this. And so I would say to my friends who are now talking about a level of fiscal irresponsibility, that what we are trying to do is we are trying to get the economy growing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Contrary to many of the things that have been said by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have literally turned ourselves inside out to try and accommodate the concern of the minority. Members of the Committee on Rules and staff stayed until two o'clock this morning, and the Committee on Rules convened at seven o'clock this morning, working very hard to go through the 77 amendments that had been filed for consideration. As we look at the committee process, my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), is here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is in the back of the Chamber, two very important authorization chairmen of the committees that considered this effort. We also had the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the other two committees that considered this. In their work they went through 88 amendments through this process. I remember the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said in his testimony there were 32 votes that took place in his committee. Of the 88 amendments that were considered through this whole process, 74 of them were offered by minority Members, and 14 were offered in either a bipartisan way or by majority Members. So we have obviously, through this process, with four very large committees involved, provided Members with an opportunity to consider a wide range of issues. I heard my dear friend and fellow Californian (Mr. Schiff), I am honored to represent the district that adjoins him, stand up and talk about the debate on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We are going to have a very full and vigorous debate on that issue. This rule allows for consideration of that measure. We are going to have an opportunity to consider a wide range of other concerns that have come forward. Mr. Speaker, back in 1992, energy legislation was considered in this House; and quite frankly, the percentage of minority Members' amendments that were offered were 27 percent. Twenty-seven percent of the Members that were Republicans at that point in 1992 that offered amendments, 27 percent of the amendments that were made in order at that time were offered by Members of the minority. In this bill that we are going to be considering today, over 54 percent of the total amendments are offered by minority Members. That is a 38.3 percent increase in the number of minority amendments allowed from the 1992 bill. We also have to realize that we have got four bipartisan amendments that are being offered of the total that we have made in order. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. We are going to have a debate on a wide range of very important issues. It has been 11 years since this place has really moved ahead with a full debate on energy legislation. We all know how important this is. Just down in Statuary Hall, Mr. Speaker, I was participating in a ceremony in which we are honoring our courageous men and women in uniform who have fought so vigorously over the past 21 days in Iraq, liberating the people of Iraq; and some have talked about the issue of that versus debate here. This is a very fair and balanced opportunity for us to consider a question that is going to be critical to our Nation's national security future and to our Nation's economic future, and so I hope very much that we can pass this rule in a bipartisan way. Let me say again, I hope that we will have a bipartisan vote in support of this rule because we have worked very hard to try and make as many minority amendments in order as possible so that we can have that free-flowing debate.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as coalition forces enter the fourth week of military action to disarm Iraq and liberate its people, we have seen daily reminders of heroic actions. These men and women answering the call to duty have served with distinction as they continue to advance, freeing those long oppressed and removing once and for all the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. While I stand here to salute the service of all those now serving, among those is one man whom I had the honor of nominating, along with my former colleague Carlos Moorehead, to the Air Force Academy in 1992. Captain Chris Wachter, who graduated in 1997, currently serves as a pilot aboard a B-1B Lancer, the backbone of America's long-range bomber force. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, following the intelligence reports that indicated a possible sighting of Saddam Hussein, Chris piloted his B-1B to a location where four satellite-guided bombs were dropped on target. It serves as one example of the tireless dedication, determination and professionalism of our men and women in uniform. Mr. Speaker, the price of freedom is never free and there are more days and dangers ahead. I stand with the American people united in support of our troops and in remembrance of those who paid the ultimate price in this fight.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the Davis twins here, who have moved this measure forward for us. They have outlined quite well exactly what it is that we are trying to do. When I was a kid, Mr. Speaker, I got my first passbook savings account; and I was stunned when I put a little bit of my allowance into the account. It actually grew without my doing anything other than having it there in that account. I was told by my father I needed to establish some credit. It has not always been great, but he told me that I needed to establish credit, which was another very, very important lesson that I learned as a child. I believe that the whole idea of individual initiative and responsibility for one's actions is very important. I had that instilled in me as a kid. But one of the things that we found, tragically, is that with the proliferation of credit cards, just mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the issue of just trying to balance a checkbook, which my friend from Virginia raised, we have young people who do not have an understanding of the basics of what it takes to meet one's financial obligations. So that is why the Jump$tart Coalition, and a wide range of other groups, have joined in providing strong support for focusing on April as Financial Literacy for Youth Month. Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and others who have been cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services; the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford); the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), as well as others. One of the things we found over the past several years, Mr. Speaker, is that we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of bankruptcies, up to 1.6 million bankruptcies last year alone. Mr. Speaker, I have talked about my having a passbook savings account when I was a kid. We have noticed that the personal savings rate has dropped from 4.7 percent in 1998 to 2.3 percent in 2001. I believe that this legislation will help us focus some attention on this initiative. Now, the National Council on Academic Education is an organization which has put together some of the tools for schools around this country to try and enhance financial literacy among our young people. I am very pleased in the district which I am privileged to represent, the Cucamonga Middle School, the Glendora High School, Monrovia High School, Ranch Cucamonga High School and San Dimas High School have all utilized the information that has come forward from the National Council on Economic Education. We also have others around the country who are doing the same thing. I want to say that the stellar leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has led him to expeditiously move this legislation, which I believe is going to enjoy strong bipartisan support due to the strong and resonant statement from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). I urge my colleagues to join in supporting it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we look at the tragic loss of life which has taken place through this war which, thank God, is being successful, there are obviously the families of those men and women in uniform, but there are also some familiar faces who tragically have been lost. Michael Kelly, we got the word last Friday, was lost; and over the weekend, we heard the word that my good friend and a great reporter, David Bloom, tragically died. I got to know David Bloom because he was a student at one of the Claremont Colleges I attended, and we became friends several years ago. While he did not cover Capitol Hill, I had the opportunity to travel with him, and we were, oh, so proud of his reporting. A couple of weeks ago, I had dinner with a Marine Corps general who was talking about the great coverage that MSNBC was providing, and David Bloom was one of the great reporters. He had that ``Bloom- Mobile,'' which traveled, as the chaplain just talked about, how we are all watching on television. We saw him move and provide fascinating reports. He was praised by his colleagues over the past couple of days, and I just would like to say that my thoughts and prayers go to his wife, Melanie, and their lovely daughters.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I guess I am the only Member in the Chamber who had the privilege of serving with Norm Shumway. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for moving this legislation. I think probably the greatest testament to the success of Norm Shumway is the fact that it took both the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to fill his shoes because both represent the area that Norm Shumway was first elected to. My colleagues have gone through the litany of accomplishments in his great work on his church mission. It has been mentioned that he speaks fluent Japanese, and I believe that is a great talent which he utilized here. At one time, he was the only Member of Congress who spoke Japanese, and I do not know if anyone since he left speaks Japanese but he is very, very thoughtful and very aware of all of the issues as they relate to Japan. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting with Mr. Shumway on the Committee on Banking, and he had an unwavering commitment to free market principles. I always knew that I could follow the lead of my senior colleague on the committee when it came to dealing with issues that related to financial services. He was a very, very principled Member, and I think it is a great tribute for us to name this post office for him. I had the privilege of campaigning with Norm Shumway on behalf of the election of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), and he still won in spite of the fact that I was campaigning for him. We were at the University of Pacific stadium, had a wonderful evening there, and Norm gave a great speech in support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) in that effort. Even after having left the Congress, he has maintained a strong commitment to this institution. I would like to join with my colleagues in extending congratulations and best wishes to his wonderful wife, Luana, and their six children and 30 grandchildren whom we just heard about. So I again thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for moving this important legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for doing a reasonably good job at succeeding Norm Shumway.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of April 7 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 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, April 8. Members should draft their amendment to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on April 3, 2003. Members are advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web sites of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules today. Members should use the Office of Legislative Council 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 would just say that we will certainly take the recommendation of our friend, the minority whip, into consideration as we proceed; and I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would say that the majority leader has outlined the goal that the Committee on Rules has on every piece of legislation. We demonstrated that this evening, allowing an opportunity for Members to consider a wide range of issues. And we know, as has been said by everyone, that the energy bill is going to be a very complex piece of legislation. There are a number of committees that have been involved in the process, and we anxiously look forward to resolving some of those questions in the Committee on Rules, and then we will come forward with an opportunity for a wide range of considerations.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. My friend from California, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, who has overseen most of the very important work that is in this package, has really, I think, put it very well. I listen to the speeches from the other side of the aisle. This is a bipartisan measure that we are moving forward. We know that it passed by a vote of 59 to zero from the Committee on Appropriations. There is going to be strong support from both Democrats and Republicans in this House for this measure. I do not know how anyone can describe our stating that this is an open rule as chicanery, but we have to live with the rules of this House. Yes, the Committee on Rules does, in fact, have a job of providing waivers, and we have protected the bipartisan, and I keep hearing it described as the majority bill, the bipartisan 59 to zero package. We have, in fact, provided protection for that measure that has been reported from the Committee on Appropriations. Democrats and Republicans alike realize that it is very important for us to provide the $74.7 billion to pay for this war and all of the issues that are surrounding that, and I believe that the Committee on Appropriations has done a terrific job on this. I praise the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); I, of course, praise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I followed the markup as it proceeded in the Committee on Appropriations, and when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) began talking about article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that we had the responsibility to make sure that the power of the purse lies right here, and he also talked about the issue of accountability, and I heard my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in that markup talk about the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike, when they are down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue want to do what they can to place more power in article 2, the executive branch, than in article 1, the first branch of government, the legislative branch, and I totally agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We have seen that, and that is why I praise his work and the work of the full committee in ensuring that there will be a greater degree of accountability and that the administration does not get the blank check that some of them may have wanted. That is why I say that this bill, which we are going to proceed with when we pass this rule, is a bipartisan measure. Again, a 59 to zero vote. Say what you want, I really do not care what it is that they say, this is an open rule. I am going to say it again: this is an open rule. What it means is that members of the majority and members of the minority will have an equal opportunity to offer amendments that comply with the rules of the House. The only waiver protection that we provided, Mr. Speaker, was protection for the bipartisan 59 to zero, $74.7 billion supplemental appropriation bill that came forward; and after having provided protection for that unanimously passed package, we proceed with an open rule. That is why this is a very fair measure. It addresses so many important issues. One thing I am particularly pleased to have been able to play a role in, which I worked on right after September 11 as we looked at that supplemental, was to try and ensure that resources get to our first responders. Mr. Speaker, we know full well that throughout our Nation's history, when we have talked about men and women in uniform and international conflicts, they are men and women who are like those who are over, moving into Baghdad right now, men and women in the military, but the tragic thing that we found following September 11 is that men and women in uniform, who are firefighters and policemen and -women, those people are now on the front line in an international conflict because of the war on terrorism. We need to make sure that we provide resources directly to them, and we know that some States have made an attempt to keep some of those resources, and that is why the language in here, which requires within 45 days that 80 percent of those resources that are to get to the first responders will, in fact, go there; and I am pleased to have played a role in encouraging that, from my State of California, the State of New York, realizing that there are areas that are really of greater threat than others, and there needs to be a particular emphasis on homeland security in those areas that face the greatest risk and the greatest threat, and we need to get those resources to those first responders. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I believe is important to offer as a caution is the fact that because States and localities are dealing with fiscal crises, just as we are dealing with our fiscal challenges here in Washington, D.C., I find that many States will want to, under the rubric of homeland security, try to address basically every fiscal challenge that they have, and so that is why we again have the responsibility to, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) puts it so well, deal with the question of accountability as those resources do get out to ensure that we do not, under the name of homeland security, have Governors all over this country claiming that they should have a blank check from Washington, D.C. We have got, I believe, a very good bipartisan package here, Mr. Speaker. We have a challenge that does need to be addressed, and I hope very much we can move ahead. We can pass this open rule, this open rule, Mr. Speaker, and then move ahead with the important debate to which we will see many, many amendments offered that lots of our colleagues will have, and we will have a good exchange. I do want to mention one issue since I am here before I sit down and that is the question of Turkey, which I know will come up in the debate itself. Like every American, I was very disappointed when we found the challenge of dealing with Turkey when it came to the issue of stationing our 68,000 troops for a movement through the northern part of Iraq. I was saddened when I saw that vote of 261 to 254 in the Turkish parliament that refused to allow us to station our troops there. I do know this, Mr. Speaker. I had the chance a few months ago, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), to go and travel throughout Turkey. We met with then-Prime Minister Gul and talked with him about the challenge of our prospect of our going to war with Iraq. We met with men and women who are based at Incirlik, our air base in the southern part of Turkey; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have an alliance with Turkey which is very, very important to recognize. Prime Minister Gul was prime minister at that time. He had not been elected, but he was selected because due to some problems with something that the man who was elected, who is now prime minister, Prime Minister Erdogan, he was unable to be seated at that point. We also know that there was a huge turnover in the parliament; and for that reason, even though we have strong support from Prime Minister Gul, Prime Minister-now Erdogan, we unfortunately did not have the votes in the parliament. Why did we not have the votes in the parliament? Mr. Speaker, Turkey has suffered greatly going all the way back 12 years to the liberation of the war of Kuwait. They have suffered because of the economic sanctions and the inability to see the movement of goods and services across borders, a downturn there. We also found that, of course, because of the Kurdish population in the northern part of Iraq and also in Turkey, it has created a huge upheaval. Those domestic challenges led the parliament by that 261 to 254 vote cast to make a decision to not allow us to station our troops there. Having said that, we know that Secretary of State Powell has been in Turkey over the last couple of days, and he has been in meetings; and we have just gotten word that has not yet been confirmed this morning that some equipment is moving from Turkey into our operation in northern Iraq. While I was disappointed at the decision that was made by the parliament, I do know that the leadership there, and I have met on several occasions with the Turkish ambassador here in the United States about this issue, and there has been a desire to try and establish a mechanism that would allow us to deal with our needs in Turkey. I know some are looking at the prospect of offering an amendment that would cut the assistance that is very important to Turkey. I believe that would be wrong, Mr. Speaker. We need to do what we can to help Turkey stabilize itself economically; and we need to realize again that they have been a very, very important ally, strongly supporting the interests of the United States of America around the world. I would implore my colleagues as we do move ahead to oppose any attempts that would bring about a reduction there. I will just say again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her stellar leadership on the Committee on Rules, her leadership as chairman of the very important Republican Study Committee, and I will encourage Members to support her in her quest to pass this open rule.

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. 735, and that consideration of the bill 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 Government Reform. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except the following amendments, which may be offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by the Member designated or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 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: (1) the amendment numbered 1 in the Congressional Record by Representative Waxman of California; and, (2) the amendment numbered 2 in the Congressional Record by Representative Tom Davis of Virginia. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be ordered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

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 for the state of the Union for consideration of H.R. 522, and that consideration of the bill 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 Financial Services. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except the following amendments printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, which may be offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by the Member designated or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 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: (1) by Representative Ose of California; and, (2) by Representative Rohrabacher of California. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 735, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 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 H-312 of the Capitol by 4 p.m. on Monday, March 31. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered by the Committee on Government Reform on March 6. Members are advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web site of the Committee on Rules later today. Members should use the Office of the Legislative Counsel to make sure that their amendments are properly drafted in the most 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 ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 152 be laid on the table.