David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am not asking anyone to apologize. I am just suggesting we start the 2 hours of debate and continue this exchange.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a procedural comment, I made a request that there be 2 hours of debate once there is agreement in the House to this unanimous consent request that I have just propounded. This is a fascinating exchange that is taking place between the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. I would like to think if we could accept this unanimous consent request to have 2 hours of debate, we could continue it under that procedure.

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

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield under his reservation, I would like to congratulate both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations; and it is an honor to stand between the two very distinguished chairmen of these committees, Mr. Speaker.

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 in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes; the joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment; the joint resolution shall be debatable for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from Miami, Florida, for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of both this rule and the Department of Justice conference report. It has been over two decades, 22 years to be precise, since we have actually had a Department of Justice authorization bill. This has been done through the appropriations process in the past. I believe that if we look at the issues that the Committee on the Judiciary and others involved in this process have been able to address, I believe that it is a very, very good measure. We have in Southern California tremendous problems with overburdened courts because of drug cases. I am very pleased that the State of California, and specifically southern California, will be benefiting from five new judgeships for southern California, six overall for the State of California. I believe that that will go a long way towards dealing with the challenge that we have of our overburdened court system in California. Another issue that has an impact on California that is included in this measure, which is not California-specific, however, is the very balanced approach to the H-1B visa program. We know that as we deal with the challenges of the 21st century economy, Madam Speaker, one of the problems that we have had is the inability to get the best expertise possible for our high-tech sector of the economy, and other sectors, quite frankly. The fact that we have had a bureaucracy dealing with this has been a challenge, but I am pleased that through legislation that we have been able to get through in the past, we have been able to increase the number of H-1B visas. It was the high-skilled workers who have been able to come in and who filled this need so that the United States of America can remain on the cutting edge technologically. There has been, as I said, a bureaucratic mess that has existed for some. And so in this conference report we see the inclusion of a 1-year period, a grace period which will allow for those who were holding H1B visas to be here to continue their very important work. And so, Madam Speaker, this is a very good rule, it is a very good conference report, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, over the last several months we have seen the terrible fires that have hit Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and other parts of the country. We are feeling the impact of the droughts. But now the fires have hit the Los Angeles area, and over the past several weeks we have had what was known as the Curve fire burn over 20,000 acres, and right now, the Williams fire, which started 5 o'clock Sunday afternoon, has hit the Angeles National Forest, the number one most-used national forest, national park in the country. We have had many structures damaged. I would like to congratulate the President and thank him for the fact that we are going to, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have reimbursement to those who are fighting the fire. I also want to say that our challenge will be dealing with reseeding which, as we face the rains that will hit come this winter, the mudslides can have an even more devastating impact. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who are on the frontline fighting these fires, and we look forward to a quick resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his very important efforts on this legislation. I also join in commending the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for reporting out this very important State Department authorization. This, as we know, covers a wide range of issues; and I would like to take just a moment to focus on one particular issue, and that has to do with the new degree of flexibility which is being put into place to deal with our war on drugs. We know that President Uribe from Colombia is here in the United States. He met with President Bush today and met with a number of us yesterday. I believe that efforts are being made by leaders in Latin America to deal with the tremendous scourge of drugs that have been flowing into this country. But we had a very antiquated structure for certification, decertification, was something that went on. In fact, it was very, very poorly crafted and I believe that it played a role in exacerbating rather than improving the situation. The language that is included in this conference report provides, as I mentioned, a degree of flexibility. So it basically uses the two words ``demonstrably failed'' in describing what it is that countries would have done who are dealing with this issue. So the point is, we need to congratulate, encourage and support those nations which are helping us deal with the illegal drug problem that we have faced as a Nation. I particularly want to congratulate President Fox who has faced a great deal of challenges in his country. He has come forward and in dealing with this question, there is the horrible Tijuana-based Arellano Felix drug cartel. Under President Fox's leadership, two of the very powerful members of that cartel have been arrested. There are other ongoing efforts taking place between the United States and Mexico. I believe that the language that is now incorporated in this conference report will help us further deal with this difficult challenge. I want to congratulate all those involved in this very important effort and to say that I strongly support the rule that is being managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the conference report that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will be managing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have been able to pass these five appropriations bills and we are working to move these measures forward. These measures that we have, and I have yielded and I am going to close the debate here now, we have had, in fact, these other very important measures that need to be reaffirmed here with this measure that we have, and we are going to continue to work on this appropriations process, and that is our job and we are going to continue to do it. So let me say, Mr. Speaker, I have already yielded, I am going to close the debate now so that we can move ahead with the vote on the previous question and so that we can then move ahead with these very important measures. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that it is the right thing for us to do to reaffirm our support for permanent repeal of the death tax, which has been pointed out by my colleagues, again, in a bipartisan way, how punitive this is, how it hurts economic growth and it stifles the progress that small businesses and family farms have been able to make. I also believe that when we look at the benefits with 7 million people having, since 1996, come off of the welfare rolls, the ability that we are going to have to strengthen that. We need to reaffirm our support from this institution for that very important welfare reform. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule and for these resolutions so that we can, in fact, move ahead with our very important work.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his management on what clearly is a very important measure here. It has been mischaracterized by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we are very proud of what we have been able to accomplish in this 107th Congress. It is clear that Republicans are in the majority, but we have what is today a six-vote majority. It is extraordinarily narrow, but we have been able to work in a bipartisan way to address the issues that we are going to be bringing up once we pass this rule. It was with bipartisan support that we brought about reform of the welfare system. It is with bipartisan support that we passed repeal of the death tax. It is with bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to bring about pension reform. These are measures that Democrats and Republicans alike supported in this body, and we are very proud that we were able to provide, under the leadership of Speaker Hastert, the encouragement and the direction and the momentum to get these measures through. Now, we have done this along with our work on the appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important for us to note that in the past when our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled this body, we had, in fact, continuing resolutions. We have always gone through challenges when we have dealt with the appropriations process. Where are we today? Well, this House has passed five appropriations bills, appropriations bills that deal with both domestic and international issues and our national security issues as well. We have passed the Interior appropriations. We have passed the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, both of which have measures that deal with domestic issues here. We have passed the Military Construction appropriations bill. We have passed the Department of Defense appropriations bill, and we have passed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, obviously dealing with this institution, dealing with the very important security here in the Capitol. So we are very proud of the fact that we have been able to pass these appropriations bills, and we know, Mr. Speaker, that we have even more work that the committee has done, the Committee on Appropriations, dealing with the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. As we sit here debating these issues, our colleagues should know, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Committee on Appropriations and the leadership is working together on these issues. So we hope very much that we are going to be able to complete as many of these measures as possible. The resolution that we are dealing with today, in fact, is focused on the accomplishments, the accomplishments of the 107th Congress. We have passed a prescription drug bill from the United States House of Representatives. We have been able to provide tax relief to middle income wage-earners in this country providing child care benefits and repeal of the marriage tax penalty. We have been able to deal with a wide range of issues in a bipartisan way again, Mr. Speaker, since the tragedy of a year ago on September 11. We have been able to pass a supplemental appropriations bill that has helped us deal with our national security. We have been able to come together and work on a wide range of issues to combat this war on terrorism. Those things have been done in a bipartisan way. So that is why it is very troubling, Mr. Speaker, to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the fact that we have not acted. Yes, there continues to be more work to do. But we have been able, as I said, to get these measures out of the House of Representatives and, unfortunately, the Senate has not taken up a number of these measures.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and of the underlying legislation. We marked the tragic first anniversary of September 11 yesterday; and I think, as we focus on our priorities, clearly national security, winning the war on terrorism, dealing with the threats that exist from tyrants around the world is our number one priority. But it is important to note the very key distinction that exists between those evil-doers, as the President calls them, and those here in the United States. It is clear that before September 11 of last year, education was our top priority. It was the issue that both Al Gore and George Bush agreed on in the election; not exactly how to do it, but they all agreed. As my friend, the gentleman from Rochester, New York (Mr. Reynolds), has just said so well, Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all agree that it is very important for us to focus on the importance of education. That is why this House, in a bipartisan way, did pass the No Child Left Behind Act. It saw broad bipartisan support, and President Bush was able to sign it. In the tax measure, we were able to focus attention on that very important group of Americans who have to deal with the challenge of paying for higher education. So what is it that we did? We were able to provide tax incentives for people to deal with the horrendous costs that exist today for higher education. So now we have moved ahead with legislation to deal with those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, those who are trying to focus on the very important primary and secondary education challenges that we have. Now, it has been labeled ``nothing but politics,'' and it cannot be signed into law. I will tell the Members, we can look at a wide range of legislation that began in this House with Members saying it would not become public law that in fact did become public law, I think all the way back to welfare reform measures in the middle part of the last decade. I look at this tax measure that dealt with the issue of providing incentives for people to move with higher education costs. That measure, as Members will recall, we tried to move it. People said it would never be signed into law; but, in fact, as we repeatedly have proceeded with measures from this House, we have been able to see them become public law. Similarly, this Republican majority is saying to those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, we want to make sure that they can get into that first rung of the ladder. We know that $3,000 would go a long way towards dealing with the challenge of making sure that books are available; and tuition, any tuition costs for those on the private side, although, as my friend, the gentleman from New York, has just said, 90 percent of those benefiting from this are in public schools; dealing with the issue of transportation; dealing with computer technology. These are the kinds of costs that families face today, and we believe that single parents earning less than $20,000, married couples with incomes of $40,000 or less, they should be able to specifically benefit from this package. It is a program that is focused on ensuring that those who are not in the upper income brackets have an equal opportunity to get the best quality education possible. That is why this is a very good piece of legislation. I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means for proceeding with this. I believe that it is specifically geared towards that. That is why we should keep it on that issue, so we should vote against a motion to recommit that my colleagues want to move on the other side of the aisle, want to move on that, which does not even relate to this issue of providing incentives for those who are seeking opportunities to improve their education. Mr. Speaker, I encourage an ``aye'' vote for this rule and an ``aye'' vote for the very important underlying legislation, and opposition to any measure which would jeopardize the potential success of it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to first express my appreciation to my good friend and fellow Californian (Mr. Lantos), as well as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for moving this very important resolution and, like everyone else, I rise in strong support of it. We all know that today we mark this first anniversary of one of the most tragic days in America's history. As we think about the families of those victims, our thoughts and prayers go to all of them. We all have sort of mixed emotions on this day. We all, of course, recall exactly what it was like here in the Capitol a year ago today, and we think about the day first and foremost with sadness because, as I said, of all of those whose lives were lost. But we also think about today with a great deal of resolve and defiance. In some sort of strange way, we also celebrate the success that we have had in pushing back those, as the President calls them, ``evil-doers,'' those who would, in fact, bring an end to our way of life. Just yesterday here in the District of Columbia and in 12 other States, there was a great celebration in that we had elections where people were choosing their leaders. We are continuing with our work here in the U.S. Capitol right now. So that is why we all have mixed emotions as we deal with today. But it is also, I think, very important, Mr. Speaker, for us to take a few minutes to look at the history of what led up to September 11 and to realize that as we, with this resolution, are remembering and honoring those who were killed on September 11, I think it is also important for us to realize that this is an international war on terrorism, and it is not a war that began on September 11 of last year, it is a war which has been going on for decades. Just a few minutes ago I sat down with some of my staff members and started talking about some of the horribly tragic events that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies have perpetrated over the past couple of decades, and I thought it appropriate that we take a moment as we reaffirm our strong commitment, as the President has said, to win this war on terrorism, and look at what led up to that tragic day one year ago. On the 1st of April in 1983, 63 were murdered and 120 injured when the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by the Islamic Jihad. On the 23rd of October in 1983, we all remember the tragic Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine barracks when we lost 242 of our Marines. On the 14th of June, 1985, Robert Stethem, the U.S. Navy sailor, was murdered and thrown from that TWA flight 847 which was hijacked by Hezbollah terrorists who also held 145 innocent passengers hostage for 17 days. On the 26th of February, 1993, we all remember very well the World Trade Center bombing in which six were murdered and 1,000 people injured. On the 25th of June, 1996, 19 U.S. military personnel were killed and 240 injured when the Khobar Towers housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia was bombed by Osama bin Laden's allies. On the 7th of August, 1998, 12 Americans and hundreds of Kenyans and Tanzanians were murdered in the bombing of the U.S. embassies at Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, directed, as we all know, by Osama bin Laden, and on the 12th of October in 2000, 17 sailors were murdered and 39 injured in the bombing of the USS Cole. That was a horrible, horrible day. These events, Mr. Speaker, underscore the fact that this is a war which has been going on now for decades. So when I think about some of the challenges that we face as a Congress ahead, we are going to be dealing with a resolution which will help us confront those who have in fact provided shelter and refuge to al Qaeda and, of course, I am referring to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. So this is a war which is one which really reaches all across our globe. It is one which I am happy to see our allies have joined in providing strong support for, and it is one which will continue probably beyond our lifetimes. As I think about some of the very wonderful quotes throughout history that lead to our dealing with these challenges, I am reminded of a couple. There is one that I like to recall. At the beginning of every one of Winston Churchill's volumes, he has what is called the moral of the work, which is basically four points. He says: in war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity; in peace, good will. I think that underscores where it is that we are headed in dealing with this challenge, which is going to continue in the future. Shortly after September 11, President Bush went and delivered a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio. As I think back on many of the brilliant statements that have been made following September 11, I think that one of the most poignant, which underscores, again, the sacrifice that was made a year ago and where we are today, President Bush said, ``Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.'' These attacks can shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. So, Mr. Speaker, as we move ahead, I again would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for this very important resolution, and provide strong support; and, as everyone is doing, extend my thoughts and prayers to the families of those who tragically lost their lives a year ago today.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the first anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history, our attention obviously goes to those who lost their lives and their loved ones, but we also have a renewed focus on the men and women in uniform, the first responders, policemen, firefighters, medical technicians, and also our men and women in uniform who are deployed overseas. These people have dedicated their lives to protect our freedoms, and they put their safety on the line every day without any expectation of recognition. To acknowledge the service of our public safety and military personnel, Hewlett-Packard created the ``Give thanks, America'' initiative, which allows families of military personnel and the general public to send video e-mail messages of appreciation to these heroes. To date, tens of thousands of Americans have participated in this effort. Tomorrow at the Pentagon an interactive kiosk will be dedicated as a permanent exhibit, allowing service members, family members, and visitors the opportunity to join in showing their deep gratitude and faith to our military personnel. I congratulate all those associated with this very important program for pursuing this.

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 the bill (H.R. 4727) to reauthorize the national dam safety program, and for other purposes, and the consideration of the bill proceed according to the following order: The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with; points of orders against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 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 instruction.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) for this very important resolution. He mentioned the fact that Flight 93 was destined to come to this building. And as we rapidly approach the anniversary of September 11, we know that this Capitol dome is a symbol, not only here in the United States, but to the entire world, of freedom. So the sacrifice that Tom Burnett and the others on Flight 93 made is something that is very, very worth recognizing, and I think that naming this post office is a very appropriate effort that the gentleman has put into place here. And I would simply like to congratulate my friend for what he has done here.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is 1:30; but we have been debating this bill since 1994, because 1994 is when this authority expired, and we have been working long and hard to promote free trade. As I have listened to the horror stories that have come from the other side of the aisle, I would have to remind them once again, we have seen 134 trade agreements established in the world since that expiration, and the United States is a party to only three of them. We have not had the authority that will allow us to respond to many of the problems that exist out there. The world has access to the U.S. consumer market. What trade promotion authority will do is it will allow us to pry open markets where 90 percent of the world's consumers are. That is about creating jobs right here in the United States. That is what trade promotion authority is about. Vote ``yes'' for the rule and vote ``yes'' for the conference report.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. Do not get me wrong. I am also concerned about majority rights, too, especially when I am a member of the majority, too. But I am also sensitive to the minority rights. But, again, at 4:00 this afternoon the gentleman's office received by e-mail a copy of this conference report which we are prepared to file now. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is here, who is chairman of the conference, and he is prepared to file this report, and I hope that we will be able to move ahead with its consideration. It has been 10 hours.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I appreciate many of the points he has raised. I have prided myself to being strongly committed in minority rights, having served 14 years on the minority.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. I would like to take a few minutes to describe how we got to where we are. We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement 9 years ago and so we are rapidly approaching the tenth anniversary of the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. And, clearly, the implementation of NAFTA has been one of the greatest things that has happened in the relationship for this hemisphere. We have been able to take tremendous strides in enhancing the economic relationship among Canada, the United States, and Mexico with the North American Free Trade Agreement. We have seen free trade between the United States and Mexico more than double in the period of time that we have put NAFTA into place. And I think one of the most important products has been the successful implementation of full democratization in Mexico. We all know that they had 71 years of one-party rule and bringing about the economic liberalization that came under the leadership of President Miguel de la Madrid and Carlos Salinas went a long way towards encouraging democratization. We saw political liberalization follow economic liberalization. And we know that while there are still very serious problems, we have migration problems, we have water problems, other issues that exist between the United States and Mexico, clearly the election of President Fox is something that was heralded in that country and here in the United States and throughout the hemisphere and, for that matter, throughout the world. The reason I point to that is it is very clear that expanding trade is one of the most important vehicles toward expanding democratization. And that is really what this is all about. We are here right now having spent nearly a decade because we saw the authority, what was known as Fast Track, what we now describe as Trade Promotion Authority, expire shortly after implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. And during that period of time, I am very proud of the fact that through the Clinton presidency, I worked closely with President Clinton, with his U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Cantor and then Charlene Barshefski to try to grant President Clinton the authority to proceed with NAFTA-like agreements so that we could establish what our goal is here, and that is a free trade area of the Americas. And we know that there are very serious problems that exist in South America, in Venezuela, in Argentina and other countries. And virtually everyone agrees that if we were to have the chance to expand this NAFTA concept to a free trade area of the Americas, we would be able to more effectively address the political problems and economic problems that exist in those countries and, similarly, in other parts of the world, we have those challenges and, of course, the national security question for us. We have just successfully passed a bill establishing a Department of Homeland Security, and that is very important in dealing with our security here. But we know that economic liberalization and democratization are very important to encourage in other parts of the world where, in fact, terrorist threats have begun. And so I think that the vote that we are going to cast granting this same- day rule will allow us to bring up and consider the bill that grants President Bush trade promotion authority. Now, Mr. Speaker, I underscored the fact I, as a Republican, I am a very proud Republican and no one has ever questioned my Republican credentials. Some did when I worked so hard to try to grant President Clinton trade promotion authority, but I believed was the right thing to do. And that is why I like to think that Democrats who join and understand of the very important benefits to economic liberalization and the expansion of freedom and democracy will join with us in bringing us support in a bipartisan way, which trade has traditionally been. But we are right now at 11:34 in the evening still working at this, trying to address some concerns that are out there because we, as conferees, went through a laborious process trying to address concerns and, of course, we have a Democratic United States Senate and we had to work closely with the senators to come to an agreement. And I believe that the agreement that has been struck is deserving of wide bipartisan support, and so we have taken this step to establish same-day consideration. We are on what we certainly hope is the last day of this type in the Congress before we go into our summer break, and I hope that Members will join in providing support for this same-day consideration of the rule and support for this very important trade promotion authority bill that we hope to be considering in the not too distant future.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, what I will say is that when the gentleman said there was a particular concern about a signature and was looking to this side of the aisle, I inferred from the way he said it that he was concerned about a signature from this side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is the majority Members have signed the conference report. Does that answer the question that the gentleman posed? I thank my friend for yielding to me.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. Let me say that, in fact, all of the conferees have signed that report, and the gentleman is correct that it has yet to be filed; but at 4 o'clock this afternoon a hard copy was delivered to the minority members of the Committee on Rules; and as has been said by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), it has been made available on the Web site. That is the report that will in fact be filed. This is the report that was agreed to by both the Members of the House and Senate in the conference.