David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, when I said everyone has signed, I know that my friend was raising the concern about majority Members signing the issue. That was what I meant, all of the majority Members of the House who were conferees have in fact signed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, in creating a new Department of Homeland Security, the House of Representatives is considering legislation which realigns the federal government in order to properly address a new threat. This bill promotes security, integrates new solutions to address new threats, recognizes the value and service of first responders, and defines clear lines of government authority. The primary mission of this new department will be the prevention of terrorist attacks within the United States, to reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur. In carrying out this mission, the Department of Homeland Security must be equipped with the proper expertise available in the various government agencies which currently perform the functions of border security, emergency preparedness and response, information analysis, and infrastructure protection. In all of this, the focus must remain the basic protection of our neighborhoods and communities from the threat of terrorism. On the front lines of that effort are first responders--local law enforcement, firefighters, rescue workers, and emergency response teams. This bill establishes a National Council of First Responders charged with the responsibility to provide first responder best practices, latest technological advances, identify emerging threats to first responders, and identify needed improvements for first response techniques, training, communication, and coordination. With this emphasis on improving first responder capabilities, we must not ignore the integral role of our local governments in the ability of first responders to succeed in their mission. Local governments have already dedicated millions of dollars on increased security, preparedness, and emergency response costs since September 11. Cities and counties have upgraded security at key public facilities, enhanced information technology and communications systems, and improved local bioterrorism response capabilities. Congress approved the Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill this week, which includes $151 million in grants to first responders. In providing this federal assistance, I requested consideration of local input regarding the application of federal first responder grants. In response, the bill requires state strategic plans for terrorism response to fully consult local governments. While this provides a good first step in integrating our local governments, we must keep the application of resources for first responders a top legislative priority. In order to successfully secure our communities and provide effective emergency response, it is critical that local governments are integrally involved in the National Council of First Responders, and in any regional strategic planning for terrorism response. Most importantly, local governments must be given the opportunity to directly access available resources. The task at hand is too critical to allow funding and other assistance to be swallowed up by bureaucracy, or hijacked to mask deficits. Local governments are in the best position to understand what the first responders in their community need and must remain integrally involved in determining the allocation of resources. I strongly support H.R. 5005 and commend the various committees of jurisdiction that deliberatively and expediously contributed to the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security. I also applaud the leadership of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, without which we may not have had the opportunity to enact this historic legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on July 23, 2002, or any day thereafter, to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 101) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration be waived; that the joint resolution be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (in opposition to the joint resolution) and a Member in support of the joint resolution; that consistent with sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion; and that the provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall not otherwise apply to any joint resolution disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam for the remainder of the second session of the 107th Congress.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider the conference report to accompanying H.R. 4775; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered as read when called up.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair and balanced rule which will allow us to proceed with the very important work that we have of appropriating the dollars that are necessary for our homeland security, among other things. Let me say to my colleagues that as I have listened to this debate, I think that some might conclude that we are dealing with something other than an appropriations bill here. This is one of the 13 appropriations bills that must pass the House of Representatives and the Senate and get to the President's desk for signature. This is one of the most important. It is the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It deals with Customs, Secret Service; it deals with a wide range of very important issues that must be addressed. Now, I sort of inferred from the debate that I was listening to that we were discussing a bill that will, at some point, possibly come from the Committee on Ways and Means. As I have listened to a number of my colleagues argue that this has to do with corporate greed and rewarding people who are less than patriotic, it is absolutely ridiculous. If one looks at what has been described by even people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, as a less than perfectly crafted amendment, this measure, as was pointed out to me by the chairman of the subcommittee just a few minutes ago, deals not with corporations, but with a subsidiary of that corporation here. So I think that the language in the amendment itself makes it very clear that the Committee on Ways and Means has to continue the work that it has already begun. Now, when I listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, talk about the fact that if we vote for this rule, we are somehow voting to reward corporate greed and all of this sort of stuff, I cannot help but think about the fact that we have taken very strong and vigorous action here to deal with an issue that the President is outraged about and that both Republicans and Democrats are outraged about, and that happens to be corporate mismanagement and corruption that has taken place within the corporate community. We know it is there. I will tell my colleagues, corporate CEOs, the President of the United States, Members of Congress, the American people are outraged at those who, in fact, have been responsible for wrongdoing. They need to be convicted, they need to do jail time. And guess what? By a vote of 391 to 28, we voted in this House 2 days ago to move ahead with language to do that. Back on April 24, just a few weeks after the President asked us, as a Congress, to step up to the plate and deal with the issue of corporate accountability, we passed a very good and a very strong bill in this House that will deal with the issue of transparency. I am very happy, while it took several months, the United States Senate has now acted and, just last night, the Speaker of the House appointed conferees who will be dealing with this issue. So to somehow say that because we are proceeding with what is the proper order here; we are allowing committees of jurisdiction to deal with this very important question and doing it in a proper way is the right thing to do. Why? Because we do not want to jeopardize the free market process. I will tell my colleagues that as angry as we are at those corporate CEOs who are responsible for wrongdoing, we do not want to penalize the job-creators in this country. We do not want to paint with a broad brush everyone who happens to believe in the free market process. That is why proceeding with the language that was proposed and passed in the Committee on Appropriations would be very irresponsible. I will tell my colleagues that even my very good friend from Maryland, who is the ranking minority member of this subcommittee, said that it is his intent to work with the Committee on Ways and Means to make sure that we craft the kind of language that is addressed here. So even he is acknowledging that this kind of work needs to be done in the Committee on Ways and Means. So that is why we are doing exactly what the Framers of our Constitution wanted. They wanted this to be a deliberative body. We can act quickly when we need to, but let us do it through the legislative process itself. We need to support this rule. It is a very balanced measure; it is the right thing to do. Let us get our appropriations work done on this measure so that we can proceed with the proper homeland security that we need to ensure that we will never face the kind of threat again that we faced this past September 11. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for his fine work on this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) who is, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said, is going to be bringing forward his last appropriations bill before he retires, and so I would like a great round of applause for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. Speaker, this is, as was said so well by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), an open rule. There has been a lot of confusion about this process, but I want to take a moment to go through a couple of provisions raised by Members. I oppose authorizing in appropriations bills. I do not believe it is the right thing to do, but sometimes it is necessary. We in the Committee on Rules have worked very diligently to ensure that we address the prerogative of the authorizing committees when we proceed. What that basically means is on rule XXI, which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) just raised as an issue, if we have opposition that comes from the chairman of the authorizing committee, we in fact do not provide that waiver of rule XXI. So what we have done is we have received a grand total of one letter, and I have it here someplace, and it came from two committee chairmen raising concerns about legislating in an appropriations bill, and it did not have to do with the Indian provisions because under the open amendment process, any Member can rise and strike those provisions that were included in the bill. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is here. He is chairman of the Committee on Resources, and he did not choose to object on that issue. So for that reason, we in fact did provide the protection; but a striking amendment will still be in order. The letter we did receive from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) deals with the two Everglades provisions. We found strong opposition from the authorizing chairmen who have jurisdiction there. So what we did do, what we chose to do was to make sure that those two issues could in fact be open to a point of order and be stricken. Now, I will tell Members that every Member of this House who serves on an authorizing committee will, I believe, have some issue that they hope that the Committee on Appropriations does not address, and they, in working with their chairman, can get a letter that is sent to us to ensure that that issue is addressed appropriately in the Committee on Rules. We have followed this pattern, which has worked very effectively on both the Indian gaming issue and on the Everglades issue and other concerns that were raised. So I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) who raised some concerns, he has the right to strike any provision that is in this bill, and he can offer an amendment to do that. But as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said, we have to proceed with the appropriations process. It is a priority. It is a constitutional responsibility that we have to appropriate the dollars to deal with our priorities. I urge Members to support this open rule which is very fair, addresses the concerns of both the authorizing committees and the Committee on Appropriations. Let us pass the rule and pass the bill itself. I urge Members to join with us in doing that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that we have been talking about a wide range of issues today, corporate responsibility, establishing the Department of Homeland Security, and many other challenges that we are facing; economic recovery, of course, being very important. But I would like to take a few minutes to share with our colleagues some prepared remarks that I have on a very unique challenge that we as Californians face when it comes to dealing with the issue of health care. As I said, California's public health care system is one of the most unique in our country. Unlike most States which run their own hospitals or States which have no public hospitals at all, California relies on a network of county-supported public hospitals working in conjunction with a network of private safety net hospitals. Together these public and private hospitals care for over 5 million Californians eligible for Medicaid and an additional 7 million Californians who are uninsured. Obviously, supporting this network of health care for low-income Americans requires a reliable source of funding. California, like a number of other States, relies heavily on Federal dollars paid through what is known as Medicaid's Upper Payment Limit Program. The safety net hospitals in my County of Los Angeles receive over $120 million each year through the Upper Payment Limit Program. UPL was initiated a decade ago based on the recognition that public hospitals are the hospitals of last resort for most needy patients. It is a mechanism that allows qualified public hospitals to receive reimbursement for services at 150 percent of the Medicare allowable payment rate. Only city and county public hospitals which provide trauma and emergency room services to a large number of uninsured and low-income patients are eligible for the program. The reason for the increased payments is very simple, there is no market incentive for hospitals to offer emergency services to patients who will never have the means to pay for expensive procedures. So it was with great dismay this past January when I learned that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services had instituted a rule to actually lower the upper payment limit and reduce Medicaid reimbursements for city and county public hospitals to 100 percent of the Medicare allowable payment rate. Mr. Speaker, implementation of this rule will have immediate and devastating consequences for the public health system in my State. By the time final implementation of this new policy is complete, California will lose over $300 million in Medicaid funding each year, an amount that cannot be replaced by any State or local source. The stated explanation for reducing UPL is that certain States were misallocating UPL payments and using them for non-Medicaid-related expenditures, and we all understand that concern; and we want to make sure that those States are in fact getting back on track. While several States were identified as misusing these Federal Medicaid dollars, it is very important to note that California was not among them. In fact, a number of States did misuse UPL dollars; California was not one of those States. In fact, we never spent any Federal Medicaid dollars on anything other than public health care. In its haste to close the so-called upper payment limit loophole, CMS has issued this regulation with too broad a stroke. This lowered upper payment limit punishes not only the States that were abusing Federal funds, and they should be punished, but it has hurt States like California which were operating properly. This program for 10 years, under both Democrats and Republicans, has been implemented and strongly supported. Moreover, this regulation ignores the will of this Congress in regards to the upper payment limit for public hospitals. When the allegations of misused UPL funds came to light several years ago, this body responded by severely limiting these supplemental payments and by fixing the upper payment limit at the 150 percent level. As I said, the House and Senate reached a bipartisan agreement that was codified when the Medicare and Medicaid Beneficiaries and Improvement Act was signed into law in the 106th Congress. By lowering the Medicaid upper payment limit to 100 percent, CMS is undoing a carefully crafted compromise that balanced the Federal Treasury with the need to ensure that health care remain available to the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today, there may be skeptics out there who say that when compared to the overall Medicaid budget for the State of California, the $300 million received under the 150 percent UPL is nothing more than a drop in the bucket. Well, to that let me say that the financial situation in California, and indeed in many of our State and local governments across this country, is so constrained that not one Federal dollar can be cut from the Federal Medicaid allocation without it adversely affecting the availability of care for Medicaid patients. Just recently, Los Angeles County revealed that it plans to close nearly a dozen community health clinics and lay off over 5,000 health care workers because of a lack of budgetary resources. What alarms me the most is that the county's budget does not include the tidal wave of Federal Medicaid cuts that are scheduled to go into effect next year, including the reduction in the upper payment limit. The fact is, if the UPL reduction is implemented by CMS, health care for low-income and uninsured patients will be compromised as a result. If the counties across California are forced to reduce hospital services because of decreased Federal support, those patients faced with long waits at the few remaining open public hospitals will turn to private hospitals for emergency care. While Federal law prohibits private hospitals from refusing to treat uninsured emergency care patients, it does not prohibit them from closing their emergency room doors. Faced with overflowing emergency rooms and inadequate Medicaid reimbursements, this is the choice that many private hospitals would be forced to make. Therefore, a decreased upper payment limit would force both public and private hospitals in California to curtail emergency and trauma care services resulting in an absurd situation where a constituent of mine from Claremont, California, could conceivably be forced to drive over 30 miles in rush hour traffic to the Los Angeles USC Medical Center to find an open trauma center. The prospect of such an occurrence is simply unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make clear that, in stating my opposition to the reduction of the UPL, I am not asking for special treatment for California. I am simply asking for fair treatment of California. Under its federally approved Medicaid UPL, California follows some of the most stringent requirements for UPL eligibility. To access those funds in California, more than 25 percent of a hospital's patients have to be Medicaid-eligible or uninsured. I reiterate that California has exclusively spent the money that it has received under the UPL program on health care, not on anything else. To punish California for the misdeeds of other States is unwise and unfair. We are all aware of the fact that California provides more tax dollars to the Federal Treasury than it receives in Federal support. Our State is third to the last in Federal Medicaid spending on a per capita basis. We can afford to fall no further. The public health system in California is at a critical juncture, and we must act now to prevent a crisis that will affect tens of millions of California taxpayers. Yet I am very cognizant of the fact that our Nation is currently at war, and because of that we face significant budgetary limitation this fiscal year and we will face challenges next year as well. I do not believe, however, that we should reduce health care services for our most disadvantaged people in our efforts to reduce costs. Such action will undoubtedly cause more instability and expense in the long run than any benefit that would be provided in the short term. Because implementation of the reduction of the upper payment limit is not scheduled to take place for California until fiscal year 2004, we have a unique opportunity to address these concerns without impacting the budget of this Congress, but we must take action this year. We must further the bipartisan compromise that was put together in the 106th Congress, and I am underscoring the importance of that. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask for the support of Members on both sides of the aisle to find a commonsense solution to this impending crisis and to protect California's public health system from financial attack. The people of California deserve no less. We obviously want to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that there is not a continued reliance on emergency services, and we are working on a broad range of reforms in the area of health care, including the delivery of prescription drugs to seniors and other reforms which we believe are very important. But in the meantime, until we bring about those reforms, we cannot leave those who are the most disadvantaged among us hurting. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle from California who have joined in working hard to deal with this Medicaid upper payment limit issue. We remain strongly united as a California delegation to preserve the health care system in our State and for the country.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate President Bush on the very bold speech that he made on Wall Street the other day demonstrating his outrage over the kind of business that we have seen within a number of corporations. I know many people are talking about these scandals; my colleague from Texas just mentioned it. I think that if we look at the way President Bush has responded, there are a number of issues on which he states his very strong feelings. There is nothing about which he feels more strongly than the fact in a capitalist system which is one of the greatest aspects of the United States of America, honesty and ethics are a priority and they are to be expected. And that is why I believe that the legislation which we have moved from this House and we hope we will be able to see legislation emerge from the Senate so that we can bring about a bipartisan compromise to deal with accounting reform that will not in any way jeopardize the free market system which is so important to us will succeed. I congratulate President Bush for the very strong leadership he has shown on this issue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this rule. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with, obviously, a very difficult situation when it comes to the American people who travel by air. On July 4 at Los Angeles International Airport, the area near where I represent, we saw a tragic shooting take place at the El Al terminal. We, of course, have for literally decades seen the hijacking of aircraft, and the greatest change, of course, took place when the definition of hijacking changed on September 11. It changed from simply having an aircraft commandeered and taken to another spot, to having aircraft used as weapons. It was obviously a horrible time for us. Since September 11, we have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out exactly what steps we can take, and I believe it is very apparent that we have taken positive steps that have dramatically improved the security concerns that exist for the traveling public. This proposal that we are going to deal with today, and I would like to praise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who made an excellent presentation before our Committee on Rules yesterday, this proposal is one which is not by any stretch of the imagination a panacea to the challenges that exist when it comes to safety for those traveling. But it is, I believe, one step towards increasing the safety level. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in his testimony before the Committee on Rules yesterday talked about the fact that we wanted to ultimately get to the point where these pilots do not have to carry weapons, but allowing them to have the opportunity to do that at this point, when we do not have all of the safety measures put into place on aircraft, is clearly a correct step. So at the end of the day there will be many other things that are going to be done. Increasing the safety of the cockpit itself is something we are working on doing, and other steps. But we cannot let the terrorists succeed in preventing the free flow of the American people around this country or people around the world. So that is why this step is a positive one. We have offered a modified open rule which simply had the prefiling requirement for amendments, and we will now be in a position where we can have a free-flowing debate and pass what I think is a very important step to deal with a very, very serious situation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I appreciate my friend's kind words.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend will yield further, I just want to express my appreciation for his understanding of our desire to find a procedure around which we can just as quickly as possible do something that we both want to do and that is ensure that we do not see a default and go ahead and have us pay our bills.

Mr. DREIER. Great. That is reassuring.

Mr. DREIER. Let me say, if the gentleman would continue to yield, that this is the second manner in which we have proposed this. We have already passed language out of here that would allow for conferees in the supplemental appropriations bill to consider increasing the debt ceiling, and now we have come up with a second procedure. People have said that they want to have this done just as quickly as possible. I do not know if it would be possible for us to put into place a procedure that would satisfy my friend, but we share the same goal.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, I think that my friend is among those who has advocated an increase in the debt ceiling. I may be wrong on that.

Mr. DREIER. No, there would not be an amendment. This would be a standard procedure as would have come forth from the Committee on Ways and Means. So I think it is a very appropriate one. And I think that we should try and move just as expeditiously as possible on this.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just like to clarify this. Over the last several weeks, we have had many of my friends on the other side of the aisle join with us in saying it is very important for us to as quickly as possible take action to increase the debt ceiling. The procedure which has just been outlined by my friend from Charlotte would in fact allow for the full hour of consideration and the Members of the minority will have an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time, and I would like to first congratulate her on her very strong commitment to our Nation's military and also for her ascension to the chairmanship of the very important Republican Study Committee, which is an entity within the Republican Conference that spends a great deal of time focused on the national security of the United States of America, and I believe she will provide stellar leadership there. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important measure. I had a lengthy conversation this morning with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations; and we were talking about our Nation's military forces, and we were reminded of the fact that we have an all- volunteer Army, all-volunteer military. And in light of that, it is very important for the United States Congress to provide the resources that will ensure that we attract the most capable individuals to serve in the military. It seems to me that one of the most important things for us to do is to make sure that in the area of military construction that we do just that. I would like to join in congratulating my good friends, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the leadership of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their strong leadership and dedication to this shared goal. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) comment about the fact that we continue to pursue this in a bipartisan way, and it is good to see this bipartisan sense here in this institution as we look at this important issue. The numbers were outlined very well by our colleague from North Carolina. One issue that was not mentioned was the fact that there are resources in here to deal specifically with counterterrorism, and I saw that there is roughly $582 million to deal specifically with that question, to ensure that as we proceed with military construction, that the safety and security of the men and women in uniform, as well as those families of theirs, are addressed. So I believe that we have got a good measure here that is going to be brought forth under an open amendment process that will allow for the consideration of different ideas; but the fact that we have come together with strong agreement from both Democrats and Republicans is I think a great testimony to the success of the work of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for his fine management of this rule. I have had the honor of participating in and witnessing some of the greatest debates that have taken place in the greatest deliberative body known to man, the United States Congress. The very best, the very best that I can say about this debate that we have gone through today is that it has been interesting. It has not been a great debate because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who love to stand up and talk about their strong support of free trade and their desire to open up new markets have said we are for giving the President this authority but not this measure. Now as we have listened to the debate that has come from the other side of the aisle, I have heard people say this is a violation of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. I have heard this described as a self-executing rule. I have heard all kinds of mischaracterization of what it is that we have done here. I never said that it was unprecedented. We went back and looked at the record. I said it was unusual. I think what was done in the United States Senate was unprecedented, and that is why we have responded with an unusual procedure here. We are trying to strengthen the hands of our negotiators so that the prerogatives of this institution, the people's House, the body which my friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) referred to this morning in a meeting as the most important of our Federal branches of government, the people's House, our prerogatives need to be recognized. We are not passing laws here. This is nothing more than a motion to go to conference, and in 1996 a similar procedure was followed, and we regularly followed the procedure of passing motions to go to conference. I will admit that there is quite a bit attached to this, but when we saw the United States Senate do what it did, we had little choice other than take the action that we are taking today. As we look at the challenges, as we look at the challenges that we have before us, we all know that this economy is facing real difficulty. We know that 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our border, and we know that unless we do what we can to open up those markets we are not going to have the opportunity to create jobs for the American worker. As I listened to my colleagues again mischaracterize the North American Free Trade Agreement, talking about its failure, we have seen a doubling of trade between the United States and Mexico since its passage. We have seen the middle-class population in Mexico grow to be larger than the entire Canadian population. It has been a win-win. And it is true, we want to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to a free trade area, the Americas. A lot of us here, Mr. Speaker, are interested in seeing the technology sector of our economy improve. We faced a real downturn there, and it has hurt our overall economy because so much of the GDP growth in the past several years has come from that sector of the economy. Let us look at what a free trade area, the Americas, would bring us. There are about 12 million computers south of the border, but 500 million people. We need to do what we can to open up those markets. The Andean Trade Preference Act is designed to help wean those in the Andean nations off of the crops of drugs, and so what we need to do is realize that ATPA is very important in dealing with that battle that we face today. So while many people can make all of these arguments procedurally against this, which really do not stand the test of what we are doing here at all, I believe that if my colleagues are for increased economic growth here in the United States of America, if they are for realizing that this is a bicameral legislature and we have the prerogatives of the House that need to be followed, and if they are committed to doing everything that we possibly can to make sure that the United States of America, at this time of war, plays its proper role as the paramount global leader, they will vote in support of this rule, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this that is self-enacting. All we are trying to do is strengthen the hand of those negotiators. My friend does understand the procedures of this House and the rules of this House. Nothing is self-enacting in this rule at all.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if any of my colleagues have done this, but I simply wanted to rise and extend congratulations to the U.S. World Cup soccer team. Over the last weeks, we have had the chance to watch a phenomenal group of individuals under the leadership of Coach Arena move all the way to the quarter finals. We saw the spectacular win earlier this week over our dear friends from Mexico. Today, unfortunately, we saw them lose 1-0 to Germany. There is little doubt that the game that was played today probably saw the best performance through the entire World Cup by the U.S. team. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say from Friedel to Donovan to McBride, and all of the wonderful players on the U.S. soccer team, congratulations on a job well done. You represented the United States extraordinarily well.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the legislation. I was not going to speak. I know we want to move ahead just as expeditiously as possible. But the fact of the matter is, as I listened to my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), talk about the fact that we have not done anything on Social Security, we have not got a prescription drug plan, the fact is if we can put into place legislation that will allow those 76 million baby boomers who are approaching retirement to begin making long-term plans, that would go a long way towards dealing with the problems of no Social Security plan that they keep talking about that is out there, and we of course very much want to address that. It can deal with making sure that people have access to affordable prescription drugs if we allow people to have more resources as they approach retirement. So we know that there are a lot of problems out there in the accounting field and corporate America. We are aware of that. We have dealt with that here by trying to bring about some major reform and accounting practices and in other areas, but to say that as we encourage people to make long-term plans for retirement beyond the year 2010 is somehow going to undermine the financial stability of the United States of America is just plain wrong. This is very good legislation. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) have worked long and hard on this. It is important for us to expand it beyond the year 2010, and I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support both the rule and the legislation itself.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I appreciate her management of this rule. I also want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for pointing to the fact that we have proceeded with an open-amendment process here. Obviously, if we look back at September 11, and a great deal of time has been focused understandably talking about the tragic circumstances that surrounded that day and all of the action that we in this Congress and that President Bush have taken to respond to it, dealing with airport safety is a very high priority. And as we have looked at some of the proposed regulations that have come forward as it deals with small aircraft, it seems to me that this legislation which will deal with the challenge of ensuring that we have the safety precautions taken and a degree of flexibility for small airports is the right thing to do. I think that we have been able to move ahead with again, as I said, an open-amendment process which is right on target; and while I oppose the Oberstar amendment and I urge my colleagues to defeat it, I do support the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) right to offer that amendment. As we look at this extremely challenging time, there are a lot of small airports that have been unable to take advantage of the AIP funding, and this legislation will provide that opportunity for utilization of those very important funds. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule, oppose the Oberstar amendment which will be considered under the open-amendment process; and after we defeat that amendment, support this very important legislation.