David Dreier

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. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance 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 room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 1. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered and reported by the Committee on Financial Services on March 13, which is expected to file its report later today. Members are advised that the text should be available for their review on both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules Web sites by Friday, March 28. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure 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 their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time. I want to begin by congratulating the authors of this resolution, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and, of course, my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and my dear friend and neighbor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has spoken so eloquently on this issue of the war. I want to especially congratulate him because of his life experiences which he brings to this entire question and challenge. During the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve on the POW/MIA Task Force. I first was privileged to join this great body in 1981. I came, in fact, with my friend from California (Mr. Lantos). Shortly after arriving I met with a woman. Mrs. Masterson was her name. Her daughter looked at me and said, ``Congressman, please tell me that my father is dead.'' It was one of the most incredible things said to me because this young woman lived daily with the uncertainty as to whether her father had survived or not. He was missing in action, and still is, in Vietnam. That is why this resolution is so important and the message which has come forth as I have listened to the eloquent words of our new colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who talked about his uncle, as I have listened to so many people talk about this, this challenge we face will, I believe, lead every American to redouble our efforts to ensure that we bring about justice. This is a war of good versus evil. We are on the side of good, and the courageous men and women who have sacrificed and stepped up to the plate are in fact on the side of good. That is why our effort to underscore the importance of the safe return of those prisoners of war and any missing in action is of the highest priority for all of us. I congratulate my friends and look forward to their safe return.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet tomorrow, March 26, 2003, to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1413, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection 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 of the Capitol by 2 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26. Members should draft their amendments to the bill introduced March 25 by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr). Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should 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 move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 24 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and 1 copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in Room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Tuesday, March 25, 2003. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on March 18, 2003, which is expected to be filed on Tuesday, March 25, 2003. Members are also advised that the text should be available for their review on the Websites of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules by Friday, March 21, 2003. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate form. Members also 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, I rise in strong support of this rule and of the budget which will come forward from the Committee on the Budget. This is a wartime budget. Our Nation has been at war since September 11 of 2001. President Bush has made that very clear. And then, of course, last night that war expanded to our challenge of taking on Saddam Hussein. This rule is a very fair and balanced rule. I see having just walked into the Chamber my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). His substitute will be made in order. We will have a substitute for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Republican Study Committee. We will have the Progressive Caucus substitute that will be made in order. We will, of course, have the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) substitute. I will say to my friends that not since 1987, that is 16 years ago, have we seen the Committee on Rules under either Republicans or Democrats make in order a provision which allowed for anything other than a complete substitute. And so the rule that we are going to be voting on in just a few minutes follows that 16-year tradition again under both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the concept of the Skelton amendment. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, is one of the most respected Members of this House, and I believe very strongly in what it is that he wants to do here. We know that once we get this budget behind us, we are going to be dealing with a supplemental appropriations bill. It is no secret at all. It has been talked about as a measure which will range somewhere between 80- and $100 billion. We know that it will take a great deal of resources to win this war and obviously to rebuild Iraq. It is our hope that we will be able to see a lot of help in that effort, not just from the U.S. taxpayer. We know that there are tremendous oil resources in Iraq. We also know that the multinational coalition that is now supportive of the President is even larger than the 28-nation coalition that existed under President Bush No. 41 to liberate the people of Kuwait 12 years ago. And so as we see this coalition build to 35, 40 more nations, it is our hope that those nations will join in the rebuilding effort of Iraq. That is why I believe that the message behind the gentleman from Missouri's very thoughtful amendment, while not made in order under this measure because we make substitute budgets in order, is a message which is important, it has resonated, and I strongly support the idea behind it. I can assure him that we will address this issue. As we look, Mr. Speaker, at the budget itself, there are so many things that have been said, I do not have any charts showing credit cards or anything like that, but I will say that this is a budget that is focused on the situation that really created the economic challenge that we face over and above the war on terrorism and now our going to war with Saddam Hussein, and that happens to be the issue of economic growth. The economic downturn began in the last two quarters of the year 2000. I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. The economic downturn began in the last two quarters of the year 2000, before the last Presidential election. Since that time we have been able to put into place President Bush's tax bill. That reduction in the tax burden dealing with issues like encouraging investment, the marriage tax penalty, those sorts of issues, based on the assessment of virtually every economist, mitigated the downturn that we have seen in the economy, meaning that without President Bush's tax plan, the tax reduction measure, the economic downturn would have been much worse than what we have gone through. We went through two quarters of negative economic growth, meaning an economic recession last year, in 2001, and since that time we have seen growth that is not nearly what it should be. We enjoyed tremendous economic growth following the implementation of our tax measures in the mid to late 1990s, and I am happy to say that we have an opportunity to lay the groundwork for that to happen again. That is why the provision that is provided for in this budget for $724 billion of tax reductions is a provision which will encourage economic growth. Why is it that we are going into deficit spending? Well, yes, we have had to increase the spending on the war. Since September 11 we have had to expend over $100 billion in the war on terrorism alone. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we have this challenge because of economic growth which is not strong enough. Anyone who looks at what it will take to get us growing the economy again realizes that you do not increase taxes at a time of an economic slowdown; what you do is you cut taxes. I hope very much that we will be able to maintain and have intact the President's economic growth package, but I have a proposal which I hope we can include with that, and this budget makes provisions for that, which will make the President's package even better. It is a provision which would cut the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent down to 10 percent prospectively, meaning for new investment. It would say, Mr. Speaker, to people who are considering investing today, who may be waiting on the sidelines, that they would have an opportunity when the new investment that they would embark upon appreciates of having a rate that is cut from 20 percent down to 10 percent, from 35 percent to 20 percent for corporations. That kind of incentive for new investment is just what we need. That is the kind of tax reduction which will provide an important stimulant to the economy. As we look at the overall quest to ensure that we have funding for a wide range of priorities, including education, including veterans, I have heard people talk about so many of these cuts that we are facing that are going to hurt working Americans and those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and it is just not true. We are focusing with a provision that we have in this rule on the issue of Medicare. I feel very strongly about the need to address a concern that I have in my State for the reimbursement to hospitals for the disproportionate share on Medicaid funding for the tremendous burden that they have carried. It is my hope that within the guidelines of this budget that we will be able to address those very important priorities that are out there. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. I want to praise my colleague from Washington State (Mr. Hastings). He has worked day and night on the Committee on Rules. We worked until late last night fashioning this rule, and just the other night he was not able to be in the Committee on Rules because he was working until 1:30 in the morning on this budget in the Committee on the Budget. He is our representative from the Committee on Rules to the Committee on the Budget. He has done a great job in working on the budget, establishing our priorities, recognizing that this is a wartime budget, and at the same time moving us on the road towards economic growth and fiscal responsibility. He has also done a good job in fashioning, putting together and supporting and managing this rule. Mr. Speaker, it is a rule which allows, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) correctly said, for three options from Democrats to be considered, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus substitute, and the so-called Blue Dog package that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has brought forward. I think it is the right thing for us to do, to have a full airing. We are going to do that. This is one of the most solemn days in our Nation's history as we have begun this war, but at the same time no better signal could be sent to the rest of the world that the United States of America stands strong and ready and determined to continue with the greatest experiment in individual liberty known to man, that being the United States of America.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for his spectacular job in so ably handling the management of this rule. The proverbial ``Ground Hog Day'' is what comes back to mind. We have been dealing with this issue over and over and over again, and we tried desperately in the waning days of the 107th Congress to move ahead with a conference report on this because everyone agrees the problem that exists out there of abuse of the bankruptcy law needs to be fixed, and we know that members of the Committee on the Judiciary have worked long and hard on this issue, and we appreciate the fact that we have worked in a bipartisan way on the legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of the fact that when we looked at this rule, I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to have an open amendment process with every single proposal that was put forth to the Committee on Rules consider, but quite frankly virtually all of these issues were addressed in the Committee on the Judiciary, and they dealt with these questions, and we have the responsibility of trying to manage as well as we possibly can this floor and at the same time, as I said when I was here last week, working hard to ensure the rights of the minority. I do feel very strongly about that. I feel strongly about it because, as I said when I was here last week, I served for 14 years in the minority and I believe that we need to work as hard as we can to allow as many ideas as there are out there to address these concerns and have a chance to come forward. So that is exactly what we have done. Mr. Speaker, there were 14 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, and I am happy to say that we have two bipartisan amendments that we have made in order and three amendments offered by Democrats, exclusively by Democrats that have been made in order on this issue; and I know yesterday that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking minority member, referred to the Gutierrez amendment as a technical amendment. I happen to be very strongly in support of the Gutierrez amendment. I think it is a very important measure. It needs to be addressed, but it is a Democratic amendment. So, Mr. Speaker, as we try to focus on issues of individual initiative, responsibility for one's actions, while at the same time ensuring that those who are in fact really down and out and need to have as a recourse the filing of bankruptcy, I believe that as we look at those concerns that this legislation, when we pass this rule, will allow for an open discussion of the different alternatives and the proposals that people have, including the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Conyers) substitute, which we have made in order; and then at the end of the day I hope we can pass this and then move ahead and have action taken in the other body and a conference after years and years and years with so much hard work put into this. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the others on the Committee on the Judiciary who worked on this finally have a product that the President will be able to sign. So I thank my friend again for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his superb service on the Committee on Rules; and since I see two other members of the Committee on Rules here, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), I also thank them for their fine service on the Committee on Rules as well.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate this Saint Patrick's Day and all that is green, I would like to point to another important ``green'' milestone associated with March 17. Twenty-five years ago, on March 17, 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations prohibiting the further use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants from almost all aerosol products manufactured and sold in the United States. Even before that date, many U.S. manufacturers of aerosols voluntarily removed CFCs in response to environmental concerns linking CFCs to the depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer. Today, CFCs are used in only very rare and special circumstances, such as for medical uses like asthma inhalers, and even many of these ``essential uses'' are switching to non-CFC alternatives. Under the Montreal Protocol, more than 160 countries joined the United States and agreed to cease production of CFCs except for medical products. When environmental concerns over the impact of CFCs on the ozone first arose, producers undertook the extremely difficult and costly task of reformulating and retesting hundreds of products in order to assure that the new propellants would perform as well as CFC propellants had. But importantly, the U.S. aerosol industry not only complied with the 1978 regulation, it in fact led the way for the rest of the world. Unfortunately though, public perception has not caught up with reality. Public opinion polls, taken as recently as last year, have found that nearly half of all consumers--48%--are still unaware of the 25-year-old regulations that prohibit the use of CFCs in aerosols. This has often led consumers, unaware that aerosols cause no harm to the Earth's protective ozone layer, to bypass today's environmentally safe aerosol products. Research has shown that consumers are still being influenced by incorrect information regarding the environmental impact of aerosols and many are avoiding them as a result. This is unfortunate because there are a number of inherent benefits to be gained from the aerosol delivery system, such as the consistency of an aerosol spray which minimizes waste. Shaving cream, hair spray, spray paint, bug spray, fragrant body sprays, spray starch, and aerosol air fresheners, just to mention a few, are all aerosol products. And like all aerosol products, these do not contain CFCs. In addition to being CFC free, most aerosol packages are made of steel which, when empty, are also recyclable in many communities. The companies in the aerosol industry have worked hard to produce products that are efficacious and environmentally sound. In other words, they work, and they don't harm the Earth's protective ozone layer. The more than 100,000 Americans directly employed in the aerosol industry are proud of their companies and their products, and rightly so. March 17 will always be a day when we associate the color green with St. Patrick's Day. but it should also be a date that reminds us that U.S.-produced aerosols have been CFC free and environmentally friendly since 1978.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep regret at the tragic assassination yesterday of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. Prime Minister Djindjic worked closely with my friend, Jim Denton, and my chief of staff, Brad Smith, in pursuing democratization in Serbia. In a country that has seen more than its share of autocratic governments, the Prime Minister promoted democratic ideals throughout his political career. He was one of the founding members of the Centrist Democratic Party in 1989, one of the leading anti- Milosevic parties. He was also instrumental in fostering the mass protest that ultimately ended Slobodan Milosevic's rule in 2000. Since that time, he served as the Prime Minister of Serbia, promoting economic development and democratization within the former Yugoslavia. Prime Minister Djindjic was instrumental in delivering Slobodan Milosevic to face the war crimes charges before The Hague Tribunal. It may be well that Mr. Djindjic's unabashed support for governance and his efforts to end corruption led to his tragic death. As we here in the United States continue to take advantage of our freedom and representative government, we must remember that there are fragile democracies all around the world. Our Nation learned long ago that liberty does not come without a price. As other nations learn that same unfortunate lesson, the United States must continue to promote international democratization so the sacrifices of Prime Minister Djindjic and other revolutionaries will not have been in vain.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply will say as the distinguished majority leader has said, I actually made the announcement just a few minutes ago about the request that we have proposals submitted to the Committee on Rules by early next week so we will be able to consider this measure on Wednesday. It is our intention, as has been our intention in the past, to do everything we possibly can to make substitutes in order and as many substitutes as we possibly can. I want to assure the gentleman that is the goal of the Committee on Rules, and we will look forward to testimony from our many colleagues who would like to offer proposals.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 17 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004. Any Member who wishes 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 no later than 6 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18. As in past years, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules intends to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes. Members are advised that the text of the concurrent resolution, as ordered reported by the Committee on the Budget, should be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules no later than Friday, March 14. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure their amendments are properly drafted 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, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 17 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation to the Committee on Rules up in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Tuesday, March 18. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on March 12, 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 by Friday, March 14. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for reminding me.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to be a Member of this institution, and it is an honor for me to have the opportunity to follow my very good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House. As we have listened to the arguments that have been provided about the rights of the minority, I have to say that while the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) served for 14 years as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I served for 14 years as a member of the minority in this institution. When we won the majority in 1994, I felt very strongly about something that had existed under the democratic rule in this place for 4 uninterrupted decades. I felt strongly about ensuring that the minority had the right to come forward with at least an opportunity, through an amendment and a motion to recommit, which was denied us on many occasions. Now, last night when we had the testimony in the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) told me that he came here in 1955, and our good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) came here in 1965, and they had never known of any instance whatsoever when the Democrats had denied the Republican minority the opportunity to consider at least an opportunity to amend through a recommittal motion. I have to say that I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my friend; but I have a list right here of in the 100th Congress, 16 examples of where this was denied. Now, this issue of payback has come up. Well, so is this payback now that we are imposing on the minority? Absolutely not. Because when we passed our opening day rules package, having served 14 years in the minority, I was very sensitive to make sure that we would guarantee the minority that right to offer a motion to recommit with an amendment, and that is exactly what is going to exist under this process. Now, I believe that we should have as open and as fair a process as we can, and I stand here continuing to be committed to our goal of ensuring that the minority does have as many rights as possible, and I will continue to fight in behalf of that, because I believe in the Madisonian spirit of minority rights. I also know that we have a responsibility to move our agenda. And we are doing that, while guaranteeing these minority rights. Now, when we opened this process last night, I am very happy that my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), began by talking about the fact that we did meet his request to provide 2 hours. There will be a debate. There will be an opportunity for Members to voice their concern, regardless of what side of this issue they are on. I happen to think that it is very important for us to also recognize that the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce both had full markups with the exchange of ideas, and the people who have stood up to speak against this rule are people who in fact offered amendments through the committee process. The committee process has worked very effectively here. We have come together with a package which I believe, through both committees, can, in fact, have an opportunity to be heard; and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule and for the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER. I never said anything of the kind. I just would like the record to show that, Mr. Speaker. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Would the gentleman state the quote again that I said? I did not hear it correctly.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order on Thursday, March 6, 2003, to consider in the House H.R. 13; that the bill be considered as read for amendment; that the bill be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, to consider in the House H.J. Res. 27; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that the joint resolution be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of February 24 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 354, the Human Cloning Prohibition 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 in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Wednesday, February 26. Members should craft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on February 12, 2003, which is expected to be filed on Tuesday, February 25. Members are also 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 by that time. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to make sure their amendments are properly drafted and should 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 48 be laid on the table.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Committee for the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill has included language relating to the funding of the installment due on or before September 30, 2003 under the Consent Judgment entered on February 7, 2003 in Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation. By including this language it is not Congress' intent that the United States default in the payment of that installment. Creating such a default would be unwise. Instead, the intent of the language is to indicate that funds under the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act are not authorized to pay such installment. By so indicating, it is further intended that payment of the Peck judgment installment is ``not otherwise provided for'' as that phrase is used in Section 1304 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Appropriations exist and are available under Section 1304 for payment of such installment, and it is intended that such appropriations be so utilized.