David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Yes, I know discussions are underway right now in dealing with some of these questions.

Mr. DREIER. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to extend congratulations, a happy new year, and my appreciation to the majority leader for his fine leadership. Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive changes we are proposing in H. Res. 5 seek to build on the successful institutional reform accomplishments of the past 6 years, which have helped to make the House more accountable and have strengthened our ability to govern effectively and responsibly. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, we streamlined the committee system, made Congress compliant with anti-discrimination and workplace safety laws, established term limits for committee chairmen, completely abolished proxy voting, opened committee meetings to the public and press, modernized the rules of the House to make them more understandable, and consolidated the number of standing rules from 51 to 28, soon to be 27 if H. Res. 5 is adopted. Also, thanks to the leadership of our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), our investments in technology are transforming the culture, operations, and responsibilities of Congress in a very positive way. With that having been said, I want to describe some of the more significant positive rules changes we are proposing to the standing rules of the House, and those are contained in section 1 of the resolution. In an effort to reduce printing costs and provide for the more timely distribution of them, section 2(a) of the resolution amends clause 2 of rule II to encourage the electronic publication and distribution of executive branch reports and House Journals and Calendars, while still allowing Members to receive printed copies of these documents. In what is obviously one of our most significant changes, Mr. Speaker, section 2(d) of the resolution establishes a new Committee on Financial Services, which will have jurisdiction over the following matters: (1) banks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal monetary policy; (2) economic stabilization, defense production, renegotiation, and control of the price of commodities, rents, and services; (3) financial aid to commerce and industry (other than transportation); (4) insurance generally; (5) international finance; (6) international financial and monetary organizations; (7) money and credit, including currency and the issuance of notes and redemption thereof; gold and silver, including the coinage thereof; valuation and revaluation of the dollar; (8) public and private housing; (9) securities and exchanges; and (10) urban development. Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges is transferred in its entirety from the Committee on Commerce, which will be redesignated under this rules change to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it will be transferred from the new Committee on Energy and Commerce to this new Committee on Financial Services. This transfer is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction currently in the Committee on Agriculture regarding commodity exchanges. Furthermore, this change is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC oversight of multi-state public utility holding companies and their subsidiaries, which remain essentially matters of energy policy. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the transfer of jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges, redundant jurisdiction over matters relating to bank capital markets activities generally and depository institutions securities activities, which were formerly matters in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, have been removed from clause 1 of rule X. Matters relating to insurance generally, formerly within the jurisdiction of the redesignated Committee on Energy and Commerce, are transferred to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. The transfer of any jurisdiction to the Committee on Financial Services is not intended to limit the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdiction over consumer affairs and consumer protection matters. Likewise, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as a result of this change. Furthermore, the existing jurisdictions of other committees with respect to matters relating to crop insurance, Workers' Compensation, insurance anti-trust matters, disaster insurance, veterans' life and health insurance, and national social security are not affected by this change. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the changes and legislative history involving the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Energy and Commerce do not preclude a future memorandum of understanding between the chairmen of these respective committees. The reasons for establishing a new Committee on Financial Services are compelling. It reflects the coordinated and comprehensive approach to financial services that is emerging in the wake of the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act. It demonstrates and communicates a level of understanding that will increase market confidence in our ability to comprehend the increasingly integrated nature of the financial services market. It will strengthen congressional oversight of financial regulators and enterprises and will put the House of Representatives in a better position to address the marketplace inequities caused by the Federal Government's slow response to change. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other significant positive changes included in H.Res. 5. To enhance oversight planning, section 2(e) of the resolution amends clause 2(d)(1) of rule X to require committees to consider bills that will make candidates for the Corrections Calendar procedure in their initial legislative and oversight planning process. Section 2(g) amends clause 4(d)(1) of rule X and clause 4(a) of rule II to clarify that the Committee on House Administration provides policy direction only for the Inspector General and not other officers of the House. We have professional officers, and we want to give them more authority over their operations. In a further attempt to improve policy and programmatic oversight, section 2(1) amends clause 3(c) of rule XIII clause 4(c) of rule X to repeal the requirement that committee reports include a summary of oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform, if timely submitted. That requirement is replaced with a new requirement that committee reports include a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding. The purpose of this change is to strengthen the existing procedures and rules governing committee reports to ensure the development of more clearly defined performance goals and objectives, including outcome- related goals and objectives for the programs, and to the extent possible, projects or activities authorized under the act. Consistent with this intent, the statements should be similar to the performance goals model established in the Government Performance and Results Act. More specifically, when applicable, all performance goal statements should: (1) describe goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form; (2) describe the resources required to meet the goals; (3) establish performance indicators to measure outputs or outcomes; and (4) provide a basis for comparing actual program results with performance goals. As a result of the expanded reporting requirements in section 2(m) of the resolution, the amount and usefulness of information available to Members regarding unauthorized appropriations will be expanded. The amendment to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII would apply to all unauthorized appropriations with the exception of programs, projects, or activities that are classified for the purpose of protecting national security. Section 2(r) amends clause 7 of rule XXII to prohibit the use of argument in the form of a motion to instruct conferees or a motion to recommit a conference report. These motions are instructive motions, not debating motions. Motions to instruct are debatable once they are pending before the House, but not while they are being offered. Motions to recommit with instructions are debatable during the hour allotted on the conference report. House Rule XXIII regarding the statutory limit on the public debt will be replaced by section 2(s) of the resolution, and the total number of House rules will drop from 28 to 27. This will restore accountability to the budget process by having an up or down vote on any statutory increase in the public debt. Section 2(u) of the resolution requires the Clerk of the House to release information concerning Members' executions of the oath regarding classified information. Right now there is no way to find out who has or has not signed the secrecy oath. For the most part, the remaining provisions of the section are technical, conforming, or clarifying in nature. Section 3 of the resolution consists of ``Separate Orders'' which do not change any of the standing rules of the House. These are more or less housekeeping provisions which deem certain actions or waive the application of certain rules of the House. For example, on September 18, 1997, the House adopted the recommendations of a 12-member bipartisan task force on ethics reform with certain amendments, which included not only changes to the standing rules of the House but also freestanding directives to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Those freestanding directives address committee agenda, committee staff, meetings and hearings, public disclosure, requirements to constitute a complaint, duties of the chairman and ranking member, investigative and adjudicatory subcommittees, standard of proof for adoption of statement of alleged violation, subcommittee powers, due process rights of respondents, and committee reporting requirements. In order to have force and effect in the 107th Congress, the freestanding provisions of H. Res. 168 are being carried forward by section 3(a) of the resolution. However, notwithstanding section 13 of H. Res. 168, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their own initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee, shall have access to information before a subcommittee with which they so consult, and shall not thereby be precluded from serving as full voting members of any adjudicatory subcommittee. Section 3(c) of the resolution provides a limited number of exemptions to clause 5(d) of rule X regarding the limitation on the number of subcommittees a committee may establish. On November 13, 1997, the House approved H. Res. 326, which provided an exception for the Committee on Government Reform to temporarily establish an eighth subcommittee for the remainder of the 105th Congress. H. Res. 5 in the 106th Congress allowed the Committee to again establish an eighth subcommittee to accommodate the need for extensive oversight over the census. Section 2(c) of this resolution grants the Committee on Government Reform another waiver of clause 5(d) of rule X to permit an eighth subcommittee for the duration of the 107th Congress. In addition, section 2(c) allows the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on International Relations to establish six subcommittees notwithstanding the requirement of clause 5(d)(2) of rule X that a committee may have a sixth subcommittee if it maintains a subcommittee on oversight. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a more detailed section-by-section summary, although I doubt that that is possible, of H. Res. 5 as well as other relevant material. Section-by-Section Summary of H. Res. 5--Adopting House Rules for the 107th Congress section 1. resolved clause The rules of the House of Representatives for the 106th Congress are adopted as the rules of the House of the 107th Congress with amendments as provided in section 2, and with other orders provided in section 3. section 2. changes in standing rules (a) Publication of Documents. The rules regarding the responsibilities of the Clerk of the House with respect to the printing or methods of distributing executive branch reports, the House Journal and calendars of the House are modified generically to encompass alternative forms of publication and distribution. [Rule II, clause 2] (b) Preparation of Enrolled Bills. The responsibility for examining all bills, amendments and joint resolutions after passage by the House, and for examining all bills and joint resolutions that have passed both Houses of Congress to see that they are correctly enrolled and presented to the President will be transferred from the Committee on House Administration to the Clerk of the House. [Rule II, clause 2(d); Rule X, clause 4(d)(1)] (c) Responding to Subpoenas. The rules addressing responses to the legal process are clarified to reflect the current interpretation that such rules apply to both judicial orders and administrative subpoenas. [Rule VIII] (d-1) Establishment of Committee on Financial Services. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services is abolished and a new Committee on Financial Services is established consisting of the jurisdiction of the old Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and jurisdiction over securities and exchanges and insurance generally (which is transferred from the Committee on Commerce). [Rule X, clause 1] (d-2) Renaming of Committee on Commerce. The Committee on Commerce is redesignated as the Committee on Energy and Commerce. [Rule X, clause 1] (e) Enhanced Oversight Planning. Committees are required to include in the oversight plans they adopt at the beginning of each Congress a review of specific problems with federal rules, regulations, statutes, and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary, or nonsensical, or impose a severe financial burden on individuals. This review would be the basis for the consideration of bills that may be candidates for the Corrections Calendar procedure. [Rule X, clause 2(d)(1)] (f) Intelligence Oversight. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is to have exclusive oversight responsibility over the sources and methods of the core intelligence agencies. [Rule X, clause 3] (g) Oversight of Officers. The Committee on House Administration will provide policy direction only for the Inspector General and not for other officers of the House. The Committee will retain all oversight responsibilities over the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer. [Rule X, clause 4(d)(1)(b); rule II, clause 4(a)] (h) Size of Intelligence Committee. The size of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will be increased from not more than 16 Members to not more than 18 Members, of which no more than 10 may be from the same party. [Rule X, clause 11] (i) Preserving Majority Quorum Requirements. The requirement for a majority quorum for ordering a measure reported, the release of executive session material, the issuance of subpoenas, and determining if evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person is clarified with conforming language. [Rule XI, clause 2(h)(3)] (j) Clarification of Hearing Procedures. The procedures for committee hearings are modified to: resolve an unintended implication about hearings labeled as something other than investigative; clarify that a copy of the committee rules and hearing procedures shall be made available to each witness ``upon request;'' and clarify that an assertion that evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person must be made either by a Member of the committee or by a witness at a hearing. [Rule XI, clause 2(k)] (k) Certain Supplemental Reports Without Additional Layover. A committee may file a supplemental report without additional layover to correct errors in the depiction of record votes in committee. [Rule XIII, clause 3(a)(2)] (l) Performance Goals and Objectives. The requirement that committee reports include a summary of oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform, if timely submitted, is repealed and replaced with a new requirement that committee reports include a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome- related goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding. [Rule XIII, clause 3(c); rule X, clause 4(c)(2)] (m) Report Detail on Unauthorized Appropriations. The reporting requirements for unauthorized appropriations are expanded to include a statement of the last year for which the expenditures were authorized, the level of expenditures authorized for that year, the actual level of expenditures for that year, and the level of appropriations in the bill for such expenditures. [Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(1)] (n) Corrections Calendar. On the second and fourth Tuesdays of a month, a bill that is printed in the Corrections Calendar section of the daily calendar may be considered without further layover. [Rule XIII, clause 4(a)(2); rule XV, clause 6(a)] (o) Objections to Exhibits. When the use of an exhibit in debate is objected to, the requirement that the question of its use be decided without debate by a vote of the House is modified to provide discretion to the Chair to submit the question of its use to the House without debate. [Rule XVII, clause 6] (p) Postponing Requests for Recorded Votes on Amendments in Committee of the Whole. The current practice of providing authority, through special rules, to the Chair to postpone votes on amendments in the Committee of the Whole, and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote, is made permanent. [Rule XVIII, clause 6] (q) Naming of Public Works. It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that provides for the designation or redesignation of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator. [Rule

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. The House should know that this change is not meant to circumscribe in any way, shape, or form the oversight or legislative jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary. As an ardent supporter of programmatic oversight, it is my intention that the Committee on the Judiciary continue to vigorously and fully pursue those matters within its oversight jurisdiction. The proposed rules change will not hamper your oversight efforts in this regard.

Mr. DREIER. That is correct.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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

Mr. DREIER. Let me say, and I thank the gentleman for his question, matters relating to insurance generally are intended to include matters, for example, that have an impact on the policy holder, the solvency of insurers or financial institutions that are underwriting or selling insurance, activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity; the national treatment of insurance companies, auto insurance, life insurance and property and casualty insurance. However, as I mentioned previously in my statement, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as a result of this change. Furthermore, the existing jurisdiction of other committees with respect to matters relating to crop insurance, worker's compensation, insurance antitrust matters, veterans' life and health insurance and national social security are not affected by this change.

Mr. DREIER. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. DREIER. Once again, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. DREIER. As I mentioned previously in my statement, this change is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC oversight of multistate public utility holding companies and their subsidiaries which remain essentially matters of energy policy.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Thibodaux, Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the Internet has grown in importance to our economy and our culture, Congress has considered a succession of bills addressing unsavory conduct on the Internet. While many of these proposals have been well-intentioned, they have proposed widely differing, sometimes technologically unrealistic, or unconstitutional approaches to this important issue. The Internet offers Americans an unprecedented avenue for communication and commerce, changing the way we work, play, shop, and communicate. This phenomenon, referred to by the United States Supreme Court as the ``vast democratic fora of the Internet'' can be attributed chiefly to the policy embraced by the House in an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 offered by my distinguished colleagues Chris Cox and Ron Wyden, and that I was pleased to support. The Cox-Wyden amendment ensures that Internet service providers, website hosts, portals, search engines, directories and others are not burdened by the threat of civil tort liability for content created or developed by others. This measure has provided welcome certainty and uniformity with regard to civil tort liability on the Internet, while in no way limiting remedies against the provider of illegal content. However, criminal bills continue to take widely varying and often quite different approaches to this issue. In addition, foreign nations and courts in Europe and Asia are stepping up efforts to hold U.S. companies liable for website content located in the United States that is criminal under their laws, but entirely lawful under our First Amendment. There is even a Cyber-crime Treaty that the Clinton Administration has been negotiating with countries that are part of the Council of Europe that could restrict Congress' ability to legislate in this area if we do not act soon. For these reasons, I believe that the 107th Congress must act to preserve strong criminal penalties against criminals on the Internet, while creating a uniform and sensible structure limiting service providers' liability for content that third parties have stored or placed on their systems, but that may violate some criminal law. Given the importance of U.S. global leadership in the Internet industry, and of keeping the Internet open so that individuals can communicate and do business with one another, we cannot afford to cede the initiative or authority in this important area.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following resolutions be laid on the table, H. Res. 674, H. Res. 675 and H. Res. 676.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the Members how shocked and saddened I am to hear of the news of Julian Dixon's passing. One of the main reasons is that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I were just talking about a few minutes ago, Julian Dixon seemed to be one of those indestructible human beings. He was such a bulwark of strength for his friends, for this institution. Sitting behind me is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), who served with Julian Dixon on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I remember so well the tremendous, nonpartisan approach that he took to that very important task here in the House. I had the privilege of working with him as a fellow Angelino on a wide range of issues that affected Southern California. We were always able to come together in a bipartisan way. I will say that when I think about the trips that we have taken together, the time that we have spent, he always did offer that very, very level-headed approach when it came to providing advice to all of us. He was a model Member of the United States Congress, and I will miss him greatly. My thoughts and prayers are with Bettye and with his family.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the world's attention is focused on the presidential election here in the United States, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a very historic occurrence that took place at the end of last week. I had the honor, along with several of our colleagues, a delegation led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Secretary of State here, and several others, including the Governor of California, Gray Davis, to represent the United States at the inauguration of Vicente Fox in Mexico. This inaugural took place last Friday morning. It was very thrilling because it was clearly one of the most historic developments in modern history for the western hemisphere. After over 7 decades of one-party control where the Institutional Revolutionary Party, established in 1928, had controlled Mexico, we saw an election take place on July 2 at which the opposition party, the National Action Party, and its nominee, Vicente Fox, was successful. When we look at what it is that actually brought these free and fair elections about, it is very important to realize that it has been the expansion of our Western values that has been responsible for it and was really a coalition that consisted, I believe, of primarily the statement that was first made by Ronald Reagan in November of 1979 when he announced his candidacy for President in which he said he envisioned an accord of the Americas where we would have the free flow of goods and services. As we all know, that ended up with legislation that passed in 1993 known as the North American Free Trade Agreement. While I know that NAFTA is often maligned, we have to realize that there has been tremendous success in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We have seen a dramatic increase in the standard of living in all three countries, in large part due to the expanded trade that we have enjoyed. Now, what happened was that 6 years ago, following the beginning of major economic reforms in Mexico, we saw the call by President Ernesto Zedillo for free and fair elections. He established an organization known as the IFE, the Federal Electoral Institute in Mexico, that would in fact be independent of the government and oversee the electoral process. It worked out extremely well, and we finally saw the completion of that tie between economic and political freedom last Friday. We were very privileged, as I said, to be able to represent the United States. Our governor, Gray Davis, was the first governor of California since Earl Warren to attend an inauguration of a Mexican president. I believe the significance of that and the representation that we had from the United States is very, very important. President Fox has a very interesting challenge ahead of him, but he had some moving remarks in his inaugural address. He talked about the challenge of improving the economy and making sure that no one in Mexico is left behind. He said, ``We can't have islands of prosperity amidst seas of poverty.'' His commitment to ensuring that the children of Mexico are addressed, their needs are addressed and taken care of, his commitment to making sure that we see further deregulation so that the small business sector of Mexico can thrive is very, very important. I will say that there is another issue that is very important, especially for my State of California, dealing with the challenge of illegal immigration which has been very great. President Fox is the first Mexican president to come forward and state unequivocally that Mexico needs every Mexican, meaning that he wants to create an economy so that people in Mexico will not have an incentive to flee across the border into the United States. I am very, very encouraged about this wonderful relationship that we are going to have with Mr. Fox. I am convinced that the encouragement which we have provided through that election process has been very, very key to the success that we are seeing. I look forward to working with him and with my colleagues to strengthen this very, very important relationship.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all say that as I was stepping out of the Committee on Rules upstairs, I could hear without the electronic means my friend from Georgia talk about the fact that the Vice President is pursuing policies that will help to keep poor people poor, which I think is right on target. That is the one thing I heard, so I compliment the gentleman on offering the truth. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and to congratulate my colleagues for the time that they are taking this evening to enlighten the American people on these very important issues.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time and congratulate him on the hard work that he has put into this measure. Let me say that as I listened to my fellow Californian talk about this measure, it sounded as if he was disturbed over the fact that we are not moving in the direction of establishing a national health care plan. That really seems to be the goal that a number of people have, moving towards single payer. What this bill does specifically is it provides incentives for people to plan and create more choices when it comes to the area of health care. It provides a substantial deduction for expenses related to long- term care; it provides deductibility for the purchase of long-term care insurance policies; it provides an immediate 100 percent deductibility for health insurance for the self-employed; and it provides health care deductibility for those who purchase health care outside of their employer. The idea here is to provide a wider range of choices rather than getting the government more and more involved in the issue of health care. Let me talk about a couple of other very important provisions in this measure, Mr. Speaker. Sitting over here is my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). He has worked long and hard, as the gentleman from Georgia said in his opening statement, to put together a bipartisan package which I am happy to say was introduced with our now Republican colleague, another fellow colleague, the gentleman from Californian (Mr. Martinez), to deal with the issue of the minimum wage. It is clear I have not been a supporter of the Federal Government imposing a minimum wage, but I do want to say that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) deserves a great deal of credit for the bipartisan effort that he has put into this, and I want to congratulate him for that. I also want to say that as we look at these measures that have been mischaracterized by our friends on the other side of the aisle, I think we have to really sort of open up and look at what exactly we have here. There is nothing in here that is designed to benefit the rich. Quite frankly, I am one who is proud of doing what we can to create more incentives for those who have been successful. I make no bones about that. I am a proponent of encouraging even more people to join the investor class. The fact is, if we look at the provisions which allow for the increase to $5,000 for contributions to individual retirement accounts, up to $15,000 for 401(k)'s, those are designed to try to help middle- income Americans who are working and want to have an opportunity to plan and save for their retirement. That is something that has enjoyed, again, very much bipartisan support here. As I listened to my friend from Oregon a few minutes ago talking about these issues which had not passed the House, staff has just informed me as we go through this litany of items here, everything has passed through the House, most of it with strong bipartisan support. I will tell my colleagues that when we look at the extraordinarily important measure in here, I do not know how the President could possibly consider vetoing legislation that includes this very important community renewal and the provisions that are there which are designed to go in to areas that have been devastated economically and zero out capital gains. The capital gains incentive, by zeroing it out, would encourage investment and say to those who are less fortunate that there is going to be an opportunity for them to in fact get on to that first rung of the economic ladder and pull themselves up. That is exactly what has been put together here, again in a bipartisan way. The President has been supportive of that measure, and that is one of the bulwarks of this bill. So here we are in the waning hours of the 106th Congress. We are hoping to complete our work today. The President can help us do that by signing this very balanced piece of legislation, which is encouraging economic growth, and is designed to help people plan and save for both retirement and their health care, it targets the inner city blighted areas so that we can encourage investment there to improve the quality of life for those who are less fortunate in this country, and it provides very important relief for the signal business sector of our economy. It is a balanced measure. It deserves our support, as does this rule, and I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to vote for this measure and then to encourage the President to do the right thing and sign this bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to be very kind to Ron, because as I have been listening to some of my other colleagues who are going to follow me, I think that this will end up as something other than a love fest. I have just heard a story that has not been shared with me that in fact our colleagues will get to hear from my dear friend and classmate, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in a few minutes about Ron's earlier life. So let me take a couple of minutes and be very kind. I know that many people focus on the divisiveness that exists here in the Congress and the partisan antipathy that regularly goes on, but there is, in fact, a camaraderie. Then, when we look at the California congressional delegation, the California delegation is known for being extraordinarily divisive: Californians all hate each other; the Democrats and Republicans do not get along; the Republicans are all divided; the Democrats are all divided. If the truth were to be known, we rally, and Ron Packard was key to putting together the kind of solidarity which we frankly do enjoy today. I will always remember many late-night meetings which members of the California congressional delegation held, and Ron Packard was always there. He had as a top priority bringing our delegation together, and he was key to that effort. Mr. Speaker, I have heard about his wife, Jean, and this huge family, and he is the only guy I know who will actually look you in the eye and say that he does not know the names of some of his relatives. Somebody talked about the fact that he has a number of grandchildren and 7 children, and that when they have family reunions, the Packards have hundreds, I think it may be even thousands, who gather together for family reunions. It is a very, very impressive family that he has. I hope one day he gets to meet all of them. I will say that when we look at the work that he has done on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, most recently, I have to say that this very soft-spoken dentist, the former mayor of Carlsbad, has stood up in meetings, and now that he is getting ready to leave, I think I can share this, that he has made it very clear that if Members of Congress have been fortunate enough to have their issues that are priorities for them included in legislation, they had better vote for the legislation. Ron very calmly, very firmly makes that statement, and he does it with a kind of confidence that only a powerful cardinal can exercise around here. So we are going to miss Ron. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I were just talking about the fact that Ron is our junior colleague. We had the privilege of coming here with Ronald Reagan back in 1980 and then, as many have said, Ron shocked the world of being the person, I guess the fourth, to win that famous write-in election, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has all kinds of stories about that write-in election that he will probably share with us. So let me just say to Ron and Jean, his wonderful wife who has stood by him, and I have had the privilege of traveling with them and spending time with other members of their family, they will be sorely missed. The California delegation has come together in large part due to the commitment that Ron Packard made to that goal, and I shall always be grateful to him for that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and want to congratulate my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her very, very able management of it. This rule addresses the legitimate concern of Members who very much want an opportunity to review in advance any legislation that will be considered under the suspension of the rules procedure. The rule provides suspension authority only to those measures that are listed in the rule, so there will be no surprises whatsoever. One of the measures listed in the rule, Mr. Speaker, is a bill authored by the manager of this rule, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), which would establish a national center to collect and disseminate information on missing adult cases. I want to commend my friend from Charlotte for her work on behalf of the millions of Americans who are searching for their loved ones, and I strongly support her legislation. Mr. Speaker, the rule also allows under suspension of the rules the consideration of H.R. 4541, critically important legislation to modernize the financial futures market. It is a collaborative effort between the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce, and I want to commend the chairmen of those committees, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley); as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for their hard work and dedication in bringing this legislation to the floor. Similar to the Graham-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, H.R. 4541 will remove actually the impediments to financial innovation and will be competitive by bringing the antiquated regulatory framework for financial futures and derivatives into the 21st century. While I strongly support the bill, it is not perfect. As my friend from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), so clearly noted, the bill does not remove all of the necessary regulatory impediments to electronic systems that are used in trading financial futures and derivatives. It is important that this legislation not only promote competition and innovation within traditional markets but that it promote competition and innovation for emerging technologies. Otherwise, these innovative companies, which are the key to the continued growth of our economy, will simply take their operations overseas where the regulatory climate today is much more favorable toward competition from electronic trading systems. Mr. Speaker, passing H.R. 4541 will allow the process to move forward. It is my hope that this bill can be further improved when it is considered by the other body. But before we can consider it, we need to pass this rule, and we need to debate and pass that legislation. So I want to urge my colleagues to move just as expeditiously as possible to pass this measure again so that all can have an opportunity to look at the different pieces of legislation that we will be considering.