David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I want to congratulate him. He has worked for 12 years. I would like to thank several other people, including the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) who is here; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has spent a decade working on this issue. We are here with legislation which is designed to ensure that we have a Patients' Bill of Rights. We want everyone to have recourse. But as I listened to the arguments from the other side of the aisle, we are hearing the same old, tired and failed class warfare, us versus them, the haves and the have-nots. I have not heard much talk about the real reason that we are here beyond ensuring that there is a recourse for those who have been wronged. There are a couple of important reasons. Frankly, they are going to be addressed in the amendment process that we have here. We want to make sure that we provide both availability, increase the availability of health care and increase the affordability. Now, we have heard from witnesses before the Committee on Rules, and I would like to thank my colleagues of the Committee on Rules on both sides of the aisle for working until the middle of the night and then just a few hours later being here to report this rule out today. But we heard in testimony before the Committee on Rules that we have a very serious problem with the uninsured in this country. There are some who have predicted that we can see an increase by 9 million in the number of uninsured if we do not take action. That is one of the reasons that the proposal of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), which I believe is a very important one, along with a number of our other colleagues, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and others, dealing with medical savings accounts, is a very important provision. Last night the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) told us how the 18- to 29-year-olds are increasingly drawn to the prospect of putting dollars aside to plan for their health care. This is a very important step that we can take to deal with the issue of the uninsured; and, of course, affordability. Affordability is something that we are all very, very troubled about. And how is it that we most effectively deal with it? Well, obviously, we have to have some degree of competition, and I think that we have a chance to do that as we move ahead with this legislation. We have all worked hard. People keep talking about looking at the fine print. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) said on Meet the Press last Sunday, 98 percent of this bill was agreed to in a bipartisan way. We focused on a very small part of it that was an area of disagreement, and we have seen the President of the United States step forward with a wonderful array of proposals. This morning he talked to us in the Republican Conference about the wonderful successes that we have enjoyed over the last 6 months in the area of education, tax relief, his faith-based initiatives, the energy measure which we successfully passed here late last night, and now this issue on a Patients' Bill of Rights. It was a key plan of his platform when he ran for President. He said all along that he did not want to veto legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have here the chance to, from the House of Representatives, pass legislation which the President of the United States can sign so that we can enhance those issues of affordability and availability that are so important and so badly needed, and so that we can ensure that we have a meaningful and balanced Patients' Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the Norwood amendment, and to support the other two very important amendments we have on medical malpractice and on the issue of accessibility with medical savings accounts. Support the rule and support those measures.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise to not only congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but also to congratulate, from my perspective as a Californian, one of its three most important members, the gentlewoman from Palm Springs, California (Mrs. Bono). Focusing on the issue of renewable energy and conservation is a very important thing and pursuing this program, I believe, will go a long way towards doing just that. So I compliment her and thank her very much for the leadership that she has shown on this very important issue.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that this falls in line with the remarks that I made during consideration of the rule. I believe it is very important that we address the potential unintended consequences on this as we head into conference, so that we ensure that our very important friends in the technical industries that are creating 45 percent of the GDP growth in this country are not affected in a deleterious way on this issue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, from this point forward, let no one say that the wonderfully diverse California congressional delegation, 52 members strong, cannot come together and unite around a very important issue. Cleaning up our environment and doing everything that we possibly can to decrease energy costs is what this amendment that my friends from the Committee on Energy and Commerce led by the gentlemen from California and others from the California delegation are pursuing. This is not simply a California issue. We have States all across the country that are very interested in this. Washington, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and South Dakota, among others, are very interested in seeing us do this. I happen to represent the Los Angeles Basin area that is impacted by groundwater contamination, and all of us in California are concerned about air quality. By proceeding with this amendment, we have a chance to dramatically improve the groundwater, drinking water in California, and our air quality. It is the right thing to do. We should have strong bipartisan support, beginning with California, spreading all across the country.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my friend from Washington, who has worked long and hard to deal with our Nation's energy needs, and specifically raised very important issues that affect the area of the country he represents. Let me say that there is no group of people who know better how important this is than the people I am privileged to represent in California. We, for the first time in a quarter century, Mr. Speaker, are moving towards a comprehensive energy package, and the leadership, the President and the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, have been very, very important with regard this issue. We have worked very closely with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fashion a rule that is fair. Contrary to the rhetoric we have heard from virtually everyone on the other side of the aisle, this is a very fair and balanced rule. We need to move ahead and try to attain energy self-sufficiency. We need to do what we can to encourage conservation. We need to take the kinds of steps that are necessary to increase the energy supply. I believe that we are going to, in the next 12 hours, have the opportunity to do that. Yes, we are going to have 12 hours of debate. Some people who are trying to claim we shut things down are way off base. We are going to have a full debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, at this point, enter in the Record a letter the Speaker received from the minority leader and the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Rules, the Democratic Caucus Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). House of Representatives, Office of the Democratic Leader, Washington, DC, July 20, 2001. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: During the past two weeks, the Rules Committee has dealt with major legislation inconsistently and in a manner which seriously undermines open and fair debate, and in doing so, has done serious harm to the practice of affording the minority opportunity to put forward amendments it has sought, both substitute and perfecting. For example, the Rules Committee made in order 14 separate amendments instead of allowing them to be offered as a substitute to the committee-reported campaign finance reform bill while making in order only a substitute instead of allowing individual amendments on the faith-based/charitable choice bill. We want to take this early opportunity to set out exactly what the minority is seeking on any rule relating to energy legislation, which may be sent to the floor before we adjourn for the August District Work Period. It is our understanding that the Rules Committee may package the various energy bills that have now been reported to the House by four separate committees into one omnibus package to be considered by House. If that is indeed your intention, the Minority hereby requests that the House be given the opportunity to have legitimate up or down individual votes on the various parts of the package as well as the opportunity to offer any substitute that may be drafted. Allowing these votes, rather than just giving the Minority one substitute and a motion to recommit, is particularly important in light of the fact that some of the key provisions in these bills have bipartisan support or bipartisan opposition and thus, should be allowed to be considered and voted on separately. Given the importance of these issues and the magnitude of their impact on the entire Nation, we believe this is the only right way to approach the construction of any rule dealing with the energy issue. The most important matters that clearly deserve a separate up or down vote include the following: (1) CAFE standards: The provisions relating to automobile and light truck efficiency standards are controversial and there are Members who wish to have the opportunity to offer a strengthening amendment. (2) West Coast electricity: As you know, West Coast Members have sought many opportunities to have a vote on this issue and just such an amendment was offered in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup. While that amendment was defeated, this issue is of such great importance to a great many Members and the Inslee bill (H.R. 1468) is certainly deserving of an opportunity to be debated and vote on during the consideration of a major energy package. (3) Tax-related matters relating to conservation and production: While the Ways and Means Committee has reported a bill which provides for many of the tax incentives Democrats have endorsed to promote conservation, increase efficiency, and promote increased domestic oil and gas production, this bill provides no off-sets for the reduction in revenues that would occur if the package were to become law. Democrats believe strongly that Members must be given the opportunity to offer tax code offsets for these and other provisions and because of the way the bill may be structured. The offsets may require waivers in order to be eligible for consideration. (4) ANWR: As you know, this is a very controversial issue and Members on both sides of the aisle want to have an opportunity to have a straight up or down vote on the question of ANWR. In addition, there are other issues in the Resources Committee reported bill that Members would like to have the opportunity to amend or delete. (5) Fuel oxygenates: This is a very controversial issue that has supporters and opponents on both sides of the aisle. Henry Waxman offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup to waive the requirements for California, and while the amendment was defeated, it does deserve to be debated and voted on during the consideration of any omnibus energy package. (6) Alternative and renewal energy sources: The Science Committee has reported a very solid proposal; however, some Members would like to have the opportunity to offer increases and expansion of these important elements in an overall national energy strategy and to pay for that increased spending with offsets from the tax code. This, of course, would require waivers in the rule. (7) Appliance standards: Two very important amendments were considered in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup relating to efficiency standards for air conditioners. These amendments, one of which would have required the federal government to purchase only the most energy efficient air conditioning systems and the other which would implement the air conditioning efficiency standards promulgated by the Clinton Administration, were defeated on straight party line votes. We believe these amendments, as well as any other appliance efficiency amendments should certainly be included in any list of amendments allowed under the rule. We are of the opinion that since this is the first piece of energy legislation the Republican leadership has brought to the floor in the past six and one-half years, these amendments, as well as other important proposals which may be offered by Members, should have the opportunity to be heard. If ultimately the rule reported by the Rules Committee does not give Members the opportunity to take a clean up or down vote on these matters, the rule will fail and the House will never have the opportunity to reach the merits on this legislation that is so vital to the future of this country. We would like to work with you to avoid the fiasco of the campaign finance rule so that we can actually debate, in a fair and democratic fashion, legislation that will affect each and every American citizen now and well into the future. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely yours, Richard A. Gephardt, House Democratic Leader. Martin Frost, Chairman, House Democratic Caucus. The letter basically says that we should make in order almost everything that we have done. Almost every provision that was requested as priorities from the Democratic leadership we have made in order. We are going to be having a full and fair debate on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We are going to be having a full and fair debate on CAFE standards. And I wanted to congratulate the minority leader, he encouraged in his letter for us to make in order the fuel oxygenate amendment, which is going to be very important to the people I represent in California. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for urging us to make this amendment in order. So, if one looks at the issues that we are going to be addressing, we have got very, very important ones. I do want to state one concern that I have, however, and that has to do with the exemption for partners in the Energy Star Program. I am concerned about the potential unintended consequences it might have on our technology industry. I am happy to say I have been talking with my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and, as we head into conference, I have every assurance we will be able to effectively address the concerns that have been raised by our friends in the tech sector of the economy. This is a very fair rule. It represents the priorities that have been set forth by both Democrats and Republicans. So I think the rule, as well as the legislation itself, at the end of the day should enjoy broad bipartisan support.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in just a few minutes, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) will begin the debate on the very important U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, but I want to take a moment to talk about a very important issue which we are going to be phasing in in the not-too-distant future, and that is the issue of Trade Promotion Authority. Since that authority expired in 1994, our trading partners have been very busy negotiating a web of trade agreements that excludes the United States. Today we sit here wasting valuable time that the President and his trade negotiators could be using to improve the lives of families here in the United States and around the world. Free trade has been a boom for the American family, from higher paying jobs to lower prices. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization have increased the overall national income by $40 billion to $60 billion. Continued efforts to open new markets help working families that bear the brunt of hidden imported taxes on everyday items like clothes, food, and electronics. And, with 97 percent of exporters coming from small or medium-sized companies, increased exports mean better, higher paying export jobs for workers that make up the heart and soul of this country. Along with American workers, open trade has helped to raise more than 100 million people out of poverty in the last decade. A recent World Bank study showed that developing countries that participate actively in trade grow faster and reduce poverty faster than countries that isolate themselves. We should grant the President Trade Promotion Authority as soon as possible to ensure that the United States continues to lead in the global economy and the fight to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I, of course, was going to begin by talking about the great importance of bringing about stability in the region and the benefits of this U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement to economic growth and all, but since both the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have gotten to the issue of labor and the environment and this very important exchange of letters, and I congratulate the chairman for having put that arrangement together. I think it is important to underscore why it is that there seems to be this disagreement. We believe very passionately that the best way to deal with those important issues of labor and the environment is through economic growth. Mr. Speaker, there is a great arrogance that exists as we proceed with this debate on trade for the United States of America to try to impose on developing nations around the world, nations that are struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, standards with which they cannot comply. They cannot comply. I recall so well, following the very important December 1999 Seattle ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, the cover of the Economist Magazine the week after that meeting was very telling. It said, when they talked about the imposition of sanctions, when President Clinton talked about the imposition of sanctions on issues of labor and the environment, the cover had a picture and above that picture was the caption: ``Who Is the Real Loser at Seattle?'' The photograph, Mr. Speaker, was of a starving baby in Bangladesh. It is so apparent that those countries which we hope to help get into the international community are being prevented because of, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said appropriately, the imposition of a domestic agenda on other nations. It is unfortunate that Jordan was caught in the middle on this issue; however, we do want to see environmental standards and worker rights improved in Jordan. We believe that the economic growth that is going to follow this kind of effort is important for the stability of the region. It is very important for bringing about greater stability as it expands throughout the Middle East. I hope this is just really the second, following the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the second in steps that will help us bring about the very, very important economic growth and stability that is needed there.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet this week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process to H.R. 2563, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a very brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in H-312 of the Capitol no later than 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 31, which is where we are right now. Amendments should be drafted to the text of H.R. 2563 as introduced in the House. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to notify Members that this morning the Committee on Rules sent out a Dear Colleague letter announcing that it intends to meet next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. The consolidated bill was introduced this morning and the text is available on the Committee on Rules Web site at www.house.gov/rules. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment must submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a very brief explanation, very brief explanation, of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol no later than 6 p.m. on Monday. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, that is no later than 6 p.m. this coming Monday. Members should draft their amendments to the bill that was introduced this morning. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield very briefly, I would just say this is not rocket science. What they do out at JPL is rocket science.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting both the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for the superb job they have done on this bill, especially in the area of investment in scientific research and our Nation's space program. I am joined by my very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Glendale, California (Mr. Schiff), who has also joined with me in representing the area of Pasadena, which includes the Jet Propulsion Lab, and I would like to make a couple of comments about this. Unfortunately, the vision that I just mentioned that the chairman and ranking member and the work of the subcommittee and the full committee reported out is not shared by the piece that came out from our friends in the other body. It not only does not provide sufficient funding for the National Science Foundation and NASA, but it goes so far as to propose the systematic dismantling of one of our Nation's national treasures, the Solar System Exploration Program. While the proposed transfer of the Telecommunications and Mission Operations Directorate to the Consolidated Space Operations Contract is portrayed as an effort to save money and consolidate space operations, the cost savings are illusory and the transfer would be devastating to the space program. The proposal assumes that an industry contractor can absorb the telecommunications and missions operations activities, but, in fact, because the deep space environment is substantially more hostile than the near-Earth environment, the personnel who presently operate the Earth orbiting satellites do not now possess the experience or training required to operate a spacecraft in deep space. Therefore, the contractor would have to hire new people to do the work. Furthermore, in order to achieve the level of savings promised by the Senate, the contractor would be forced to conduct the missions with fewer than half the personnel presently on the missions. Unfortunately, we have already learned the short-staffing lesson the hard way. The Young Commission's findings on the loss of the two Mars missions concluded that the principal failure for both missions was the result of NASA headquarters' limitations on participation by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's expert staff. Unfortunately, the bill from the other body ignores this finding and further weakens JPL's role. In addition, the Senate proposal would transfer the mission operations and communications for all of the solar system exploration missions, including Galileo, Mars Global Surveyor, Ulysses, Cassini, Voyager and Mars Odyssey to an outside contractor. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that this body did not authorize and appropriate the millions of dollars needed to fund these programs with the idea that they would then be outsourced to a new and inexperienced operations and communications team. We expect, and indeed should demand, that the operations of these high-risk, high-reward missions be conducted by the most capable, most qualified and the most experienced personnel available. Mr. Chairman, I know personally NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the authority on deep space exploration, and the House cannot allow the Senate to place these vital missions in jeopardy simply to fulfill the parochial interests that exist in the other body. I am joined, as I said, by my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and others to ask that you refuse to accept any of these shortsighted proposals during conference; and, in a bipartisan fashion, we offer whatever assistance we may have in this effort.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is probably the last time that the United States Congress will engage in what has become known as the annual ritual of debating normal trade relations with China. No matter what side of this trade debate you are on, you cannot deny that China is rapidly emerging as a nation. They are already a regional power in Asia, and they have the capability to be a world player. This is not a value statement; it is clearly a fact. Another fact, and one that I have asserted many times over the years, is that market reform is a powerful force for positive change in China. As it develops economically, a massive class of better educated, wealthier Chinese people is emerging, people empowered not through politics and the ballot box but increasingly empowered through property rights and information technology. This is China's entrepreneurial class. We all recognize that the Chinese government does not share our values. The people who make up China's entrepreneurial class increasingly should share our values, but they often do not. The disturbing reality is that we appear to be losing the hearts and minds of the Chinese people. Now, there is no question that many Chinese leaders do not like America and the values that it embodies. But we need a national policy toward China that is able to penetrate through the haze of the Chinese information ministers and make it clear to the people of China that the people of the United States are their friends. The vast majority of the 1.3 billion people in China share the hopes and dreams that we hold. They want good jobs, strong families, and a peaceful future. The desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may have been penned by an American, but there is no reason to believe that the dream does not extend to people in China or anywhere else. That is why America has been a symbol for hope and human freedom for over 200 years. That is also why we must be committed to ensuring that the average Chinese family does not believe that America stands in the way of those basic goals. In short, we need to stand up to the Chinese government for freedom in ways that do not put us on the wrong side of the Chinese people. Mr. Speaker, the House is going to reject this resolution of disapproval because ending trade with China is bad for the American people and it is bad for the Chinese people. We may not need to go through this exercise again, but we should be thinking about how to build ties to the emerging Chinese entrepreneurial class. Winning the trade fight but losing the hearts and minds of those in China who should be America's friends may very well prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. For the people of the United States and the people of China, vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding me this time; and, Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment. We all are very concerned about the scourge of HIV/AIDS around the world. We just, upstairs in the Committee on Rules, reported out the very important rule on foreign operations, which we will be considering in this House. In it there is nearly a doubling, a doubling, of the level of funding for HIV/AIDS. We all are very concerned about it. We all want to do everything that we possibly can to bring this very, very serious problem to an end; and that is why we have doubled the level of funding. But to proceed with language which undermines one of the most basic principles on which this country was founded, that being property rights, is something that I find extremely troubling. We know that intellectual property is important to our State of California. I see my colleague here, the author of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who knows very well that in California we have a very important biotechnology industry. In California, we have the extremely important entertainment industry. We know that that property which our California constituents have must be recognized, and this amendment clearly undermines the opportunity that our U.S. Trade Representative has in dealing with so-called TRIPS challenges, the intellectual property challenges that exist. Because there are people around the world who are stealing our property. It is wrong. The prospect of eliminating those methods that we have for recourse to those who are stealing our property should not take place. When I look at the tremendous innovation that is taking place in the area of medical research, we are right now in the midst of the debate of embryonic stem cell research. Very compelling evidence has come forward about the prospect in looking at ways in which we can deal with the very serious ailments out there such as, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, hemophilia, AIDS, asthma, cancer, on and on and on. Guess what? This innovation is being done right here in the United States, the idea of saying to those who are looking at new and innovative ways to deal with these diseases and others who are potentially going to have their private property stolen if we eliminate this very important power that exists with the U.S. Trade Representative. We obviously all share very serious concerns about the spread of HIV and AIDS. I believe that we again have demonstrated our concern when we in this House vote out the foreign operations appropriations bill which will double the level of funding for dealing with that. This is a very bad amendment. It seriously undermines the right to protect the important property rights that we as Americans cherish so. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield under his reservation?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I will say that I know that there are consultations that have gone on in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say it is obvious that we very much, in a bipartisan way, want to move ahead with campaign finance reform. My friend and I discussed this late last night in the Committee on Rules, and we fashioned a rule and it is quite possible that we could, as we have discussed with the side of the gentleman, propose a modification to the rule. As we work on that unanimous consent request which has just been propounded by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), it is so that we might continue an interesting discussion on the issue of campaign finance reform and, during that time, ensure that we have a package put into place that will allow us to proceed with a full and fair and vigorous debate throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet this week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on campaign finance reform legislation. Let me say that I and Members of the Committee on Rules and our staff have been working very closely with the key authors of this very important legislation, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). And we have the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on House Administration, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), here, and we have been working with him on that. I would like to say that the Committee on House Administration, as we all know, reported H.R. 2360, the Campaign Finance Reform Citizen Participation Act of 2001, as well as H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 on June 28; and the reports are expected to be filed later this afternoon. While we have made no final decision on which version will actually end up being the base text for further amendment, I would like to ask Members to draft their amendments to both bills, both the Shays-Meehan bill and the Ney legislation as they were introduced in the House. Members must submit 55 copies of each amendment and one copy of a very brief explanation of each amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-313 no later than 8 p.m. today. So they have until this evening, Tuesday, June 10. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the Rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I am going to run upstairs to see if there are any amendments that have been filed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to congratulate the gentleman on his statement and say that we look anxiously towards that program which will be held later this month. I, last week, had the opportunity to meet with some people at MGM, and the motion picture which is going to be coming out on the work of the Navajo Code Talkers should be fascinating. I have the trailer upstairs. I have not seen it yet, but I know from the early reports we have seen that it will be a wonderful presentation of the work of these courageous people and the role that that they played during the Second World War. I would like to strongly support the effort that is being led by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and it looks to me as if the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is also working on this. I believe that it should be a great motion picture and a wonderful ceremony here, and I thank my friend for the leadership role he has played on this.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my friend, for yielding to me. I join today in recognizing Anne Holcombe. This is her last day as the senior legislative clerk, so I, along with my colleagues, thought it appropriate that we take a 1 minute, since you enjoy them so much, Anne, a special order. I know that you enjoy sitting here through special orders. If you had a chance of a 1 minute or a special order, I suspect that you might prefer a 1 minute. Anne is moving to Charlotte, North Carolina to be closer to her family and to start a new chapter in her life. I want to wish her well. Our colleague, the former Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, Sue Myrick, will become your representative here in the House. Anne's professionalism on the dais has been a steady source of confidence that the records of the House will always be in order, that is why we are all very sad to see her leave. I cannot imagine why Anne would want to leave the House. I know that you greatly enjoy sitting here waiting until 3 o'clock in the morning until the committee that I am privileged to Chair reports a rule down here. As I said, I know how much you enjoy special orders that often extend up to, under our great reform process, midnight we know, but you do, obviously, grace the dais extraordinarily well. You have worked here for many years. Anne started in September of 1996, Mr. Speaker, as a legislative information specialist and was responsible for researching, editing, and maintaining the legislative database that we, in the House, as well as the general public, depend on for information about what is happening here in the Congress. In October of 1997, Anne was promoted to assistant chief floor clerk, where she made sure that the words we spoke on the House floor were transposed into marvelous eloquence, of course, while still complying with the rules of the House. Then in January of 2000, Anne was promoted again to senior legislative floor clerk. She has done a terrific job in serving this institution and her country very well. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would also like to note that we also have two official reporters, one of whom is right here, who is actually finishing her last day, Cindy Sebo, who has worked long and hard, and also Vicky Stallsworth, who is also completing her last day here. I guess the place is going to be empty when we come back. No one will be here to do any work. I hope very much that these positions are filled. Let me say to all three that we wish them well in their future endeavors, and I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and the former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) the former Rules Committee staff member and now our distinguished colleague and obviously, as he said, a very close friend of Joe Moakley's. This has been a very challenging and difficult time for all of us. It is obvious that we are saddened by the passing of Joe Moakley, but we are here today to, I believe, spend some time talking about the wonderful life and the amazing impact that he had on so many of us. Just yesterday, I was very pleased that the Committee on Rules was able to report out a resolution which I would like to share with our colleagues, Mr. Speaker. Every member of the Committee on Rules was present and participated in speaking in support of this resolution which reads as follows: Whereas, John Joseph Moakley served in the House of Representatives beginning in the 94th Congress; Whereas, John Joseph Moakley served on the Committee on Rules beginning in the 95th Congress; Whereas, John Joseph Moakley served as Chairman of the Committee on Rules from 1989 to 1994; Resolved, that the Committee on Rules, with profound sorrow, marks the death of John Joseph Moakley on Memorial Day, May 28, 2001, and expresses its gratitude for his many years of dedicated service to the Committee and the House of Representatives. We, as I said, reported that resolution from the Committee on Rules last night. I have a lot of things that I want to say and I plan to take time doing that, but I would just like to begin with the resolution that was offered here in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.