David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Sanible, FL (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology in the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), my friend and the very distinguished former chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), an able member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), another great friend of Mr. Moakley's.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Palm Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, at the funeral for Mr. Moakley, his lifelong friend, the former president of the State Senate in Massachusetts, now president of the University of Massachusetts, Bill Bulger, encapsulated the Aristotelian view of politics when he said that ``Politics is the art of making people happy.'' We all know that Joe Moakley spent a great deal of time making people happy in many ways. First and foremost would be the very serious responsibility he took with his work here, knowing that public policy was very important to ensure happiness for people. He obviously focused on that great sense of humor because he knew that that brought happiness to so many of us. And he also focused on his very important constituent service, and by constituent service I mean any other human beings. We were all constituents of Joe Moakley's because he wanted to help us. The Speaker of the House stood here and talked about how Joe helped him with an amendment, he regularly helped me with many, many different things. So I think that view that was first outlined by Aristotle is a very appropriate one when it comes to the life of Joe Moakley. There are many stories, I said last night up in the Committee on Rules, as we reported out our resolution, that I was going to share some of them with our colleagues here on the House floor. This is a very sad time, but we obviously are celebrating his life. And among those stories I am reminded of what was described by this great Massachusetts delegation, who has no Republicans. There are no Republicans in the Massachusetts delegation, I know they are happy about that, I wish we had one or two Republicans at least in the Massachusetts delegation. While I am not an honorary member of the Massachusetts delegation, having chaired the committee on which Joe served and having the job Joe used to have, and he desperately wanted to have back, in my chairmanship of the Committee on Rules I sort of feel as if I am in many ways tied to them. And, frankly, through Joe's illness, have spent more time with members of the Massachusetts delegation than my California constituents would like for me to, probably. But during that period of time we were able to hear many of Joe's great stories, and his partisanship, his commitment to the Democratic party did come through because he often ribbed me with stories. And I will tell you one of them that came to mind when I went to the funeral and Joe's two great brothers reminded me of one of the stories that I had regularly told. Joe liked to tell this story, and I said that I did not think he was ever going to die because he told the story about Mr. O'Leary, who went to the registration desk and said that he wanted to change his registration from Democrat to Republican. The man at the registration desk said, ``Mr. O'Leary, you've been a Democrat your entire life. Your brothers and sisters are all Democrats. Your father is a Democrat. Your grandfathers were both Democrats. Why in the world would you consider changing your registration from Democrat to Republican?'' He said, ``Well, I just went to the doctor last week and he told me that I have 6 weeks to live, and I'd much rather lose one of them than one of us.'' That is why I said to Joe that I did not think he was ever going to die because he did not change it. Well, when I went to the service, his brother Bob came up to me and he said, ``David, I took Joe a registration card to his deathbed, but he would never change from Democrat to Republican.'' And he was extraordinarily loyal and dedicated to so many. The comment that he made about loving this institution, I mean it was such a thrill for all of us to be able to see this litany of honors that we were able to present to Joe before he passed away. They have all been mentioned: the fact that the President of the United States in his first address to a joint session of Congress, he a Republican, Joe a Democrat, recognized Joe Moakley and the challenges that he was facing; the fact that we were able to waive the rules and pass a bill naming, while he was still alive, the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in Boston; the fact that the President of the United States held his first Rose Garden signing ceremony in recognition of the signing of that bill that named the Moakley courthouse; the fact that we had a great dinner with over 800 people here in Washington honoring Joe; the fact that we saw the dedication of the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse and then a big dinner that followed that; and then, of course, the portrait unveiling which took place here in Statuary Hall. And only Speakers of the House have had portrait unveilings in Statuary Hall, so it was a great tribute to Joe that we were able to unveil his portrait there. I quoted the artist, Gary Hoffmann, who said to me just before we had the unveiling that when he began to paint Joe's portrait, he had what he called sort of a regular-sized canvas. He gave the dimensions, and I do not remember exactly what the dimensions were, but he said then, that just meeting Joe and the presence that he had, he had to do a larger canvas, he said, because Joe was such a commanding individual. And I think that that demonstrates the great presence that he had for us and that so many people had for him. When he announced that he had this terminal illness, he went before the press and said that he had been told by his doctors not to buy any green bananas. And so when he came back from his first meeting following that announcement in the Committee on Rules, I had Vince Randazzo, our staff director, get the greenest bananas I could possibly find because we wanted him to hang around for a long time. And so I presented him with green bananas when the Committee on Rules convened, and in that typical Moakley fashion, he looked to me when I handed him the green bananas and said, ``I'd much rather have the gavel.'' He very much wanted to again be chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I have to say I have somewhat mixed emotions about that. But I was very pleased that I was able to spend so much time with him. He was an inspiration. I said at the close of our meeting last night that his interview on the Today Show saw the question posed to him, ``What is it you would like to most be remembered for?'', and he said, ``I'd like to be remembered for having done a good job and for having not forgotten the people back home.'' I know this has been said over and over again, but that really does come through. I think it should be an example for all of us to not forget the people back home, to focus on those individual concerns that people have. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will miss him greatly. He was a wonderful friend. There is no way we will be able to see anyone meet the great standard that he set for this institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to introduce into the Record, the following statement to the Canadian Senate by the Honorable Jerry S. Grafstein, Q.C. regarding the United States' displacement from the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Senator Grafstein cochaired the 42nd meeting of the U.S.-Canada Interparliamentary Group held last weekend. Senator Grafstein's remarks address the important role the United States has played over the last century in the evolution of international rule of law and leadership in projecting a human rights agenda around the world. I hope that my colleagues will take to heart the encouraging comments of Senator Grafstein. Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable Senators, next week Parliament is co-hosting the forty-second annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group in Western Canada. As Canadian co-chair, I have pondered the role of the United States with respect to Canada. Yet who can fail to consider the United States' paramount role in the evolution of international rule of law and American leadership in projecting a human rights agenda around the globe in the last century? Therefore, it came as no small shock when we discovered two weeks ago that the European bloc, led by France, and the Asian bloc, led by China, were successful in displacing the United States as a sitting member of the UN Commission on Human Rights for the first time since its creation in 1947. Honourable senators may recall that it was due to the efforts of Eleanor Roosevelt that this commission was first established. Now, instead of the United States, we have France, Sweden and Austria representing the North American and European bloc. Other nations, those exemplars of human rights nations, include Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam. It is regrettable that the staunchest promoter of human rights around the globe has been displaced, not because of its failure to promote a human rights agenda but, rather, primarily because it has forced the international community to confront human rights in a way that no other region, block or nation has been prepared to project so singularly and so consistently. Only the United States publishes annually a region-by-region analysis of nations that fall below international human rights norms. Honourable senators, may I recommend that you read a very short book entitled On The Law of Nations by former U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan. It gives an extraordinary account of the role that international law has played in the foreign policy of the United States. It is a primer for all those who are interested in the rule of law in international relations. Returning to the exclusion of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, I can best sum up by quoting these words from another antique senator that express for me the current situation: O tempora! O mores!

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is very important that we move this tax package just as expeditiously as possible. I was saddened to hear the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my friend from Dallas who has now left the Chamber, and I am sure the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) would not do the same, but the gentleman from Texas engaged in that standard, failed class-warfare argument, tax cuts for the rich, the us-versus-them view that they are still spewing out, but it just is wrong. The fact of the matter is if you look at the involvement that virtually half of the American people have in the market today, they are members of the investor class. Using the us-versus-them argument is not one that resonates, especially in light of the fact that this package is one that provides relief for every single American who pays taxes. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this rule is allowing for the reconciliation provision. Why? So that the United States Senate can move ahead and we can get tax relief to the American people as quickly as possible. My State of California and other parts of the Nation are faced with an energy crisis. I know a lot of people pooh-poohed the fact that the President said over the weekend that we can allow people to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, and that can help mitigate the deleterious effects that this energy crisis is having. That is what we need to do with this measure. As quickly as possible, let hard-working Americans keep more of their dollars as we look at an energy package that is just being unveiled by this administration and a number of us in the Congress are working on. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is something that we clearly can do, this measure, to help provide some kind of relief for people who are dealing with increased energy costs. So this is a measure which allows us to move ahead with the President's very positive vision, which calls for a reduction of the tax burden on working families, paying down $2.4 trillion of national debt, saving Social Security and Medicare, and ensuring that those dollars are not used for a wide range of problems, as has been the case in the past. So it seems to me that we have got a wonderful opportunity here to do the right thing for the American people, and I hope that in a bipartisan way we will have support for this rule and support for the reconciliation package so that we will be able to get that relief to the people who so desperately need it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding me time and for the fine work he has done on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. As my friend has just said, this is the standard rule for dealing with a conference report; and it is deserving of the full support, I believe, of both sides of the aisle. I want to start out by congratulating our great new chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for the fine job that he has done in laying the groundwork for us to once again make history. Over the past 6 years, since we Republicans have been in charge, we have been able to make history on this whole issue of the budget. We have been able to pay down the national debt, we have been able to protect Social Security, and we have focused resources on our Nation's priorities. Once again, today, we are going to be making history, because even though over the last 6 years we have succeeded in doing those things that I have just mentioned successfully, we also have every year had a President's budget come to the Congress, and, frankly, every year since I have had the privilege of serving here over the last 2 decades, every President's budget which has arrived here has been designated with that moniker ``dead on arrival.'' The acronym DOA has been placed over every President's budget. Yet today we are going to make history for the first time in at least 2 decades and possibly since passage of the 1974 Budget Impoundment Act, we are going to actually pass the President's budget. It is the right thing to do, and that is the reason that we are going to be doing it. It is the right thing to do, because this budget is fair, it is balanced, and, as with these past budgets we have reported out of here since we have been in the majority, it successfully focuses on our Nation's priorities. It is true that this budget conference report does not have a tax cut which is as large as the one that was reported out of the House, but it still is a very important and historic move that we have made to bring about the kind of reduction in the tax burden on working Americans that we are going to with the $1.35 trillion level. This budget also pays down $2.3 trillion in national debt, it does provide tax relief for every American who pays taxes, and it does something that really was the highest priority in this past Presidential campaign, focuses on this very important issue of education. We all know that if the young people who are being educated today in this country are going to be able to be competitive as we look at this global economy, we must do everything we can to improve the quality of education. We want decision-making to be handled at the local level, and we want teachers to be empowered to make decisions. That is exactly what this measure will do, and we are going to be, in the not too distant future, considering a very important education bill that I think will also do that. Then going from education to an issue that is near and dear to everyone, especially as we look at baby-boomers who are aging, and that is Social Security, I am very, very pleased that this budget, which has been carefully crafted, does protect Social Security. It ensures that we are not going to be going in and spending Social Security dollars for a wide rage of other issues, which, frankly, was done for years up until we won the majority again. We are going to be doing everything that we can, as well as focusing on retirement, to make sure that the number one issue that is focused on in the U.S. Constitution as far as our responsibility here, that being national security, is addressed. Those 15 words in the middle of the preamble of the Constitution that provide for the common defense are the words which really state clearly that all of these other issues that we address can be handled at other levels of government, but our national security is the one issue that must be addressed here at the Federal level; and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in this budget has very effectively focused on the issue of our national security. So I am very, very proud of the work that has been done by the Committee on the Budget. We are very proud of the Committee on Rules to have been able to move this forward. Obviously, we have run into a challenge in the past week, but today we are finally going to pass the President's budget. It is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the budget itself.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. We will continue to work together on financial literacy.

Mr. DREIER. That was not our plan at all. We do not believe that we have done that at all. We have had a lot of input that has come from a wide range of the members of the minority.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I hope not.

Mr. DREIER. I certainly hope not.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply say that there are all kinds of rumors circulating about what may or may not have taken place. We all acknowledge that there were in fact two pages that mistakenly were not included in the conference report. For that reason, we made a decision that because Members had been here very late, we in the Committee on Rules met first at 8:30 yesterday morning, and we have decided that we will file this rule as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has just done, we will in fact reconvene Tuesday afternoon, and we will allow for a full debate and full consideration of these measures.

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

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, we now have until Tuesday.