David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, April 22, 2002, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility and Transparency Act of 2002. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, to the Committee on Rules up in H-312 here in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services, which is expected to be filed on Monday, April 22. The text will be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules. 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. In addition, today a ``Dear Colleague'' will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is also planning to meet next week to grant a rule on H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 3231. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment by 12 noon on Wednesday, April 24, to the Committee on Rules in H-312 in the Capitol. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which will be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules. Once again, Mr. Speaker, 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 their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are doing this today not because of any public opinion poll, not because our constituents have said that we should do this or not do it; we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. If we do not take this action, in 10 years we will see the largest tax increase in our Nation's history inflicted on the American people. That is just plain wrong. It is very clear that this tax measure which we put into place, Mr. Speaker, has played a role in mitigating the economic downturn that we have suffered since September 11. I believe that it is important for us to let every single investor know, every single American taxpayer know that we are not going to put into place this massive tax increase. It is just an incredible irony when we listen to the horror stories about how people have said we should live very productively for the next 10 years, but in 2010, before this thing expires, one has to drop dead. I think that the idea behind this whole measure of phasing it out was just plain wrong. Some of my colleagues have been putting forward ridiculous claims that the idea of phasing it out initiated right here in the House. It did not. It was part of the Byrd rule in the Senate that required that. So we passed out of the House of Representatives a measure which, in fact, did exactly what we are going to do today right here. We did it with bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans supported this measure. I happen to believe very strongly in guaranteeing the minority the right to a motion to recommit, and I think it is the right thing to do, and we have guaranteed the minority the right to offer a motion to recommit, and they did it when this bill came forward. It is not unusual for this procedure of our concurring in a Senate amendment as we are doing here today. In fact, in the 103rd Congress, in 1993, we saw on six occasions our Democratic colleagues do this exact same thing. I am not saying because one side does it that the other should do it. We are not doing this in retaliation at all; we are doing it because this has been a standard procedure. But when people claim that the motion to recommit is not being allowed, you have got to realize that every Member of this House has had a chance in the past to vote on an identical measure that we are going to be voting on today when it comes to the tax portion of this bill. And so it has been debated; and in fact, we gave the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) not only a motion to recommit but a substitute, so there were two bites at the apple when this measure was considered before. It is the right thing to do. Let us move it through. We had to try four times to get the economic stimulus package through the United States Senate. Many people have said that the other body will not bring it up. I hope very much that they will, in fact, follow our lead once again and do the right thing. announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman is not in the Chamber because I want to say some very nice things about him. I am talking, of course, about the author of this important measure, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). He has been on the forefront of our effort to realize that the technology revolution has brought about some incredible changes to our lives. And clearly when it comes to the issue of telecommuting, dealing with the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area is a very high priority because we have so many serious problems here. I happen to hail from Los Angeles where we have even worse problems. In fact, I like to say that I live in two of the most congested areas on the face of the Earth, Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C. where we have very serious traffic problems. So the idea of encouraging telecommuting is something that I believe is important for us to pursue and I think it is very apropos that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) lead the charge in doing that. Let me say that this rule is an open rule that will allow for a free- flowing debate on this issue, and I think there should be a strong bipartisan consensus on it. And my colleagues have begun the debate on the budget process, as we proceed with the rule, the special rule for consideration of telecommuting legislation; and we are going to have an opportunity to discussion this during the rule debate this afternoon. But let me just say that it is very clear that the package which we have come forward with first on the rule which allows for the consideration of legitimate substitutes, there was not a legitimate substitute put forward, and that is the reason that we made the decision as has traditionally been the case that only legitimate substitutes would be given an opportunity for consideration. The supposed substitutes that were put forward were simply, as described by one of the authors, perfecting amendments to the chairman's proposed budget, to the budget that came from the Committee on the Budget and some modifications of numbers going from utilization of the Congressional Budget Office for the scoring process to the Office of Management and Budget. And so we are going to have this afternoon a very important debate with this war-time budget that we are going to be addressing. I believe that we should enjoy strong bipartisan support because when we came together following September 11 behind the President of the United States with the number one priority being to win the war on terrorism, this budget that we will be voting on is directly tied to that shared bipartisan American goal that we have. And so I hope very much that we will be able to have strong support for it. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the State of Virginia for yielding me time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, and I guess have participated in it briefly with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I have to say that I am reminded, as I have heard the exchange take place over the last hour or so, of the words of a very famous former Democratic President who was known for his colorful but poignant words when Harry Truman said, ``Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a beautifully crafted budget which has come forward from the hard work of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the members of the Committee on the Budget working to address a challenge the likes of which the United States of America has never faced, this war on terrorism, while at the same time focusing on the important need to make sure that we have the resources to win the war on terrorism and to address a wide range of other priority needs which have come forward: transportation, which the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) addressed; national security issues; and education issues. That is why it is so important that we focus on stimulating our economy and making sure that we grow this economy so that we have the resources necessary. Why is it that we have seen this slowdown? Because of September 11 and the slowing economy that followed. And what we have done is we have seen time and energy put into place to craft, like carpenters, this beautiful plan which I believe does deserve bipartisan support because we are all together in our quest to win the war on terrorism, and the way to do it is to make sure that we have the resources necessary and a budget in place that will do that. What is it that we have gotten from our friends on the other side of the aisle? Absolutely nothing. My friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) just talked about the fact that we had substitutes submitted. There were no substitutes submitted. Mr. Speaker, every single time we have made in order substitutes that have come from the Blue Dogs, from the Progressive Caucus, from the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and yet, we saw the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget tell us that 96 pages, 96 pages, Mr. Speaker, were put into a package which simply criticized the package that came forward from the Committee on the Budget, and in fact, there was no alternative provided whatsoever. Vote in favor of this rule and in favor of this very fair, responsible budget.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Goss

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in the testimony that the gentleman from Texas gave yesterday before the Committee on Rules, he made it very clear that what he was offering was, and this is a direct quote, ``a perfecting amendment to the chairman's budget.'' That is how he described what did come forward, he said as a substitute. He described it as a perfecting amendment to the chairman's budget. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of March 18 to grant a rule which will limit the amendment process for floor consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003. The Committee on the Budget ordered the budget resolution reported on March 13 and is expected to file its committee report late tomorrow. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19. The text of the concurrent resolution will be available at the Committee on the Budget and on that committee's Web site. As in past years, the Committee on Rules intends to give priority to amendments offered as complete substitutes. Members should also use the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Budget Office to ensure that their substitute amendments are properly drafted and scored and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their substitute amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet on Tuesday, March 12, 2002, to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration on the floor. 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 in the Capitol no later than 1 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12. The Committee on the Judiciary intends to file its report on the bill on Monday, March 11. The Committee on Rules will post the Committee on the Judiciary version of the bill on the Web site of the Committee on Rules as soon as it becomes available. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, 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 make sure their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say at the outset, as far as the first question that my friend posed about the control that the large media has had in preventing people from having the opportunity to engage in a debate on whether or not we should have a nationalized health care system, I would say very clearly, my friend from Vermont and I have together appeared on a number of fora on television programs that are provided because the technological advances that have been made in this country due to large investments that come from those in the media providing a wide range of choices for the American consumer and the television viewer to engage in debate.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, let me totally disagree with the assessment that my friend from Vermont has just provided. For starters, I do not think I have ever owned a share of stock in General Electric, and I have no idea whether I have received contributions from their lobbyists here. I suspect some of them may have contributed to my campaigns. But I happen to believe that companies like General Electric have dramatically improved the quality of life for the people in the United States of America, and I say that because it is very clear that consumer products, regardless of where they are manufactured in the world, that are sold here in the United States, the best quality at the lowest possible price, is something that is very good for the United States of America. I know that we have the most productive workers on the face of the Earth; and when it comes to technology, the United States of America is on the cutting edge, creating a wide range of new technologies. This is one of the reasons that I was so proud to work on behalf of Trade Promotion Authority, so that we can pry open new markets around the world which will create an opportunity for goods and services here in the United States to be able to move into those economies in other parts of the world. When it comes to the issue of ownership, I am convinced that with cable television, with the multifarious radio programs that are out there representing a wide range of views, and I know from having talked with many of the owners, they do not exercise control over much of the programming. Some of them may be more sympathetic than some of the others; but I will tell you, we happen to believe that the editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post have a leftward tilt, and I think the success of talk radio on the conservative side is in large part a response, a response, to a level of frustration that many Americans have felt over the message that has come from the New York Times and the Washington Post editorial pages. So I happen to believe that we have some wonderful, wonderful things taking place in this country; and we need to do more to encourage creativity. And the idea of having the government clamp down, jeopardizing the opportunity to pursue new technologies, which it will take investment to do, would just plain be wrong. I have to go upstairs, but I thank my friend for yielding; and I very much appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion and look forward to again another free-flowing debate with hundreds of thousands of people following us as we talk about whether or not we should have a national healthcare system.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman has asked the question, what does General Electric do? I am happy to tell you what they do.

Mr. DREIER. I disagree.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield on that point, I would say that there clearly is a leftward tilt by a lot of the ownership, then. I represent Los Angeles. A lot of people in southern California spend a great deal of time in their automobiles. I will say that I, as I know my friends from both Vermont and Illinois, participate on these programs. There are a wide range of programs that are carried by people who my friend from Vermont would describe as progressive or very liberal. I am happy to participate on those shows. I can name them for you in Los Angeles.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point, that is just a preposterous claim, to say that it is based on the ownership. The programming that has come forward and the demand for more conservative talk radio is in large part due to a level of frustration that the American people have with what is interpreted by many to be a leftward tilt for the control of what is called the mainstream media. Let me just say, I am not one of those harsh critics who says that. I happen to believe that we need to do everything we can to encourage a free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues and concerns. But I will say this. I know full well that the ownership of the media out there does not play a role in the editorial comment when it comes to the talk show messages that are getting out there.

Mr. DREIER. I consider myself a progressive, yes.

Mr. DREIER. I did not say that. That is not what I said.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. I would say the answer is, number one, it has to do with the market and the listenership. The fact is those programs would not be on were it not for the fact that there is a demand for that listenership. I would say that there are other programs that are out there that do, in fact, offer a perspective. I consider myself to be very progressive myself, I should say.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me.

Mr. DREIER. If I could just raise one more issue before you pose that. That is, that we at this moment, and I know that as chairman of the Committee on Rules that we are not to address those who might be outside of this Chamber viewing it, but because of technological advances that have been made in this country due to investment that has taken place into a wide range of new and innovative and creative areas, we are able to have this coverage carried beyond this Chamber. I think that by virtue of our having a discussion right now on this issue that my friend raises is a very important one, that has come about because of the level of creativity that exists in the United States. I should say that it is a complete mischaracterization to say that we are not committed from this side of the aisle or in a bipartisan way to dealing with the concerns of veterans, because we have dramatically increased the level of funding for veterans. At the same time, the focus on education and health care continues to be a priority.

Mr. DREIER. Let me give my friend a little bit of advice. I have found, from having appeared on the different CNN and Fox News Channel and MSNBC programs, you can provide whatever answer to whatever question you have. I know that my friend who is so committed to bringing up the issue as to whether or not we should have a national health care system, that he can engage in that debate regardless of what question that they are posing to him.

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

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