David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina and congratulate him on the special order he is leading now, and to wish all my colleagues a great weekend as they proceed with their return to their districts.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this 5-minute special order this evening to talk about an event which has been likened to the crumbling of the Berlin Wall that took place a week ago this past Sunday. I had the privilege of serving with a team from the International Republican Institute, co-leading, along with former Secretary of State James Baker and the mayor of San Diego, California, Susan Golding, a delegation of 44 people, very qualified, former ambassadors and other leaders in this country, observing the election that took place in Mexico on Sunday, July 2. It was an extraordinary experience. I will say that because there were many people who assumed that after 71 years of one-party control by the Institutional Revolutionary Party that the election would once again see the PRI Party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, prevail and win. It is no secret that there have been problems with past elections in Mexico. In fact, corruption has been reported very, very widely in past elections. But I am happy to say, having observed what are known as Casias, election voting spots in urban areas in Mexico City, as well as moving into the rural areas, that this was an extraordinarily fair election. In fact, an organization that was established earlier in the last decade known as the Federal Electoral Institute, the IFE, was a structure which did play a big role in ensuring the fairness of the election. This also is a great testimonial to a couple of things. One of the individuals is the present president of Mexico, President Ernesto Zedillo, with whom Secretary Baker and Mayor Golding and I met on Saturday morning, the day before the election. In that meeting I conveyed to him what I will share with our colleagues here, and that is the fact that when he was elected president in 1995, having observed the tremendous economic reforms which had taken place in Mexico, he said that his goal was to ensure self-determination and free and fair elections for the people of Mexico. That is exactly what happened on July 2. I want to extend my very hearty congratulations, as I already have, to president-elect Vicente Fox, who is a representative of the National Action Party, the PAN party, which for years has argued for economic policies which we hold near and dear, and which I am happy to say were embraced in large part by the Institutional Revolutionary Party. The embrace of those economic policies by the National Action Party played a big role in bringing about free and fair elections. Let me explain that, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1988 when President Carlos Salinas was elected, he made a decision that he was going to pursue broad economic liberalization in Mexico. What did that consist of? It consisted of privatization, decentralization, closing down State-run enterprises. He took the very bold step in Mexico City of closing down the largest oil refinery because of environmental concerns that existed there. We saw the economic reforms put into place in the latter part of the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s, and one of the greatest examples of those economic reforms came when we here in this Congress and the Bush and Clinton administrations put together the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, we know that the North American Free Trade Agreement is a much maligned entity, a structure which people criticize often. But I happen to believe that the NAFTA has been a resounding success, and the most recent example of its success was what took place on July 2. Why? Because as I and many of my colleagues have argued time and time again, whether it is in Mexico or the People's Republic of China, or South Korea or Taiwan or Argentina or Chile, the interdependence of economic and political freedom is key. We saw in the early part of the 1990s major economic reforms take place in Mexico, and we saw on July 2, a week ago this past Sunday, the ultimate in political reform. I have to say that during those years of economic reform we also saw political reform take place in that for the first time we saw the election of opposition party candidates in local elections, mayors. Fifteen of the 16 largest cities in Mexico have opposition party mayors. We have also seen it in gubernatorial elections. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a tremendous, tremendous opportunity to encourage this transition. We have to be very vigilant. We need to strengthen the already strong relationship that exists with Mexico. I would like to congratulate all of the nearly 800 people who were on the International Observer team, the International Republican Institute, which again put together a very, very strong operation, and the people of Mexico. They were so enthused about the prospect of being able to vote and have their votes count. I will never forget the 18-year-old girl whom I saw in a little tiny town called Metapec, above Atlisco. She said her family for years had worked on behalf of the PAN party, and finally, as we stood over the counting at this little casia and saw 210 votes cast for Mr. Fox and 106 votes for the PRI candidate, Mr. Labastida, we saw by a two to one margin the election of a new party and a new president. So I wish the people of Mexico extraordinarily well, and I wish the leadership that we have here in the United States God speed in our attempt to do everything that we can to help in this very important transition as we face the many serious challenges that exist on the border and in the relationship between our two important countries.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Columbus for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me say that my friend from south Boston, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, and we are going to do our darnedest to see that he stays right in that spot, just as my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), will remain in his very important key spot as ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means as we move into the 107th Congress.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we have given this identical rule. It is not out of character at all. We gave you this rule in February, so you know we are just continuing a long pattern of providing you with a great opportunity. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. To object? I am happy to yield, if the gentleman wants to debate the issue. But the fact is my friend from south Boston has talked about the Democratic bill, and I am proud to talk about the bipartisan bill, because what we have done here on this marriage penalty issue is we have put together a very strong bipartisan package, and there is recognition on both sides of the aisle that this issue needs to be addressed. Republicans and Democrats alike voted strongly for this bill when we brought it up in February, and I suspect that later today when we cast the vote on this, we once again will see strong bipartisanship. So I am happy to have the leadership on the other side talk about their Democratic bills, and we on the Republican side are proud to embrace bipartisanship, because we know that that in fact is the best way to get things done for the American people. Even in an election year, even in a election year there are some very basic principles that the American people share, and fairness happens to be one of them. That is what this is all about, is trying to bring about a modicum of equity; and we are doing it specifically to address the concern of those who are most impacted. If you look at the cost for women, minorities, they are penalized greatly because of this marriage tax; and if you look at the cost, it is about $1,400 on average for those who are in that middle- and lower- income area. So it seems to me that we have got a strong effort that has been put together here by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and others on the Committee on Ways and Means who have been championing this issue for a long period of time. It is all about equity and fairness. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? That is exactly what this rule is about too. The rule is a very fair one. It is a very equitable one. It allows my very good friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) to offer his substitute motion. As was the case in the beginning when we took the majority in 1994, we are going to guarantee the motion to recommit. So my Democratic colleagues will have two bites at the apple, and we will have one bite for the bipartisan package that we are moving forward here. It seems to me it is extraordinarily fair. We have turned ourselves inside out to accommodate the minority, and I know some of my Republican colleagues may not be too ecstatic about that, but we have done that; and I believe that in this instance, it is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans alike will join in support of the measure, so I hope the Democrats and Republicans alike will overwhelmingly support this rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the fact that he said that all members of the Committee on Rules are doing a reasonably decent job. I hope it will include me along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) in that group. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. There are 220 Members, Mr. Speaker, who are cosponsors of the legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), and a commitment was made that we would move ahead with this bill. I know that there are some people who are not ecstatic with the way that this rule has been structured. But the fact of the matter is we have done what we could to move this legislation forward. So it sounds like we are going to have a vote on the previous question that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will be pursuing. I hope very much that we will defeat the previous question and move ahead and pass this rule. We have a responsibility to move legislation. The Speaker has said that he hopes very much that Members will vote in support of this rule so that we can move the package forward. Arguments have been made on both sides of the aisle by a number of our colleagues that if one is a supporter of this rule, do not stand behind the procedure and cast a no vote on the rule, because this is the opportunity that we have to move ahead with this legislation. So I would also say to Members on both sides regardless of one's position on the issue, even if one is not a supporter of the legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). Let us have a debate on the measure and then allow the House to work its will. So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the previous question, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule so that we can have the opportunity here to have what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) likes to describe as a full, wholesome, and hard- hitting debate.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair and balanced rule which will allow the opportunity for each side to come forward with its proposals. Mr. Speaker, each of us knows how important Medicare is to the American people, and not just to our Nation's senior citizens. Health care is obviously a key quality of life issue for seniors, so we are deeply concerned that parents, grandparents, and our older friends are, in fact, cared for and assured a strong and long and great quality of life. Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. Similarly, the health care system that we have here in the United States is the worst, except for all the rest. And Medicare has clearly got to be included in that. Make no mistake, as I said, we have the best health care system in the world, but it is not perfect. Medicare itself has clearly helped improve the quality of life for seniors for 3 decades now. The biggest mistake we can make is to try to look at a 3-decade-old program, which Medicare is, and freeze it in time. Here we are in a new millennium, and it is obvious that changes need to be made. We need to have a Medicare system which is going to focus on how it is that we can improve access and affordability of quality health care for our Nation's seniors. Clearly, prescription drugs and the availability of those prescription drugs is very high on the priority list. We want to make sure that we get the best quality and the most affordable prescription drugs and that they are available to the American people. We know that those drugs save lives. We know that we, clearly, as a Nation, have an industry which is on the cutting edge at developing so many of these new drugs. The biotechnology industry. We have just in the last few days had this very historic development in genome research. I believe that we have now a wonderful opportunity to ensure that we get those quality drugs through this plan that we have put forward for our seniors. We are committed to ensuring that every American senior has the opportunity to have affordable and effective prescription drug programs to deal with this under the Medicare plan. Frankly, both sides share that priority. I know the Democrats like to believe that they have a corner on this, but they do not. We have stepped forward, and we have been working hard with what is a very, very fair plan. Our plan, I am happy to say, accomplishes this goal as part of a very fiscally responsible program. And we believe, as Republicans, that we can do much better than a one-size-fits-all plan, which is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing. Our plan clearly should enjoy strong bipartisan support. And I predict that, at the end of the day, when we do have this vote, we will have the support of both Democrats and Republicans on this issue. Now, let me take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to talk about the rule itself and how we got to where we are. Many people are talking about the fact that we met in the middle of the night. And yes, it is true that it was 3:31 this morning when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and I were here and filed this rule. The fact of the matter is, it does, as I said, give an opportunity for the Republicans to come forward with a Republican plan and the Democrats to come forward with their plan. Now, that is not something that would have existed when the Democrats were in the majority. And the reason I say that is that time and time again the minority, Republicans at that point, were not offered the chance to propose their alternative. Yet we, when we took the majority in 1994, having served for four long decades in the minority, said that we wanted to guarantee minority rights, and we made that change, Mr. Speaker. And the change is one which allows the Democrats the chance to come forward with their minority proposal. We made that change. We guarantee the minority that right. Now, they will scream that they should have two bites of the apple while we, as Republicans, have one bite of the apple. That seems to me to be unfair to the majority. So we have a proposal which says let us look at their plan, let us look at our plan, and then have a vote. And that is exactly what this will consist of. So it is a fair and balanced rule. It allows everyone the opportunity to look at the two choices and then have a vote. And I hope very much that my colleagues will support the rule and at the end of the day support this very fair bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will say that the gentleman from North Carolina, Greensboro, and my friend, the distinguished chairman of the important subcommittee that we are dealing with today, are two of my best friends in this institution, and I have been faced with a tough challenge, and that is I have to choose between two of my best friends. I know that conventional wisdom would say that I would come down on the side of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, but I am going to have to break with conventional wisdom, Mr. Chairman, and strongly support my friend, the gentleman from Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble). If we look at the fact that 45 percent of the gross domestic product growth in our Nation over the past 5 years has come from the technology sector of our economy, we clearly are in a position where we need to realize that the quality of life, job creation, and economic growth has hinged on our very, very important need to engage in global trade. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on Judiciary, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), has, I believe, stepped forward and offered a very balanced amendment. I am not supportive of the cuts in all the other areas that the chairman of the subcommittee has pointed out, but I do believe that we have a choice to make on our priorities; and I believe that the very important work that is done by the Patent and Trademark Office needs to be recognized and needs to be supported if we, as a Nation, are going to maintain our global competitiveness. So I simply want to say that it was a tough choice; but I have decided to support my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), in this effort, because I clearly do believe that it is the right thing to do, and so I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the time and congratulate her for leading this very important piece of legislation, which, obviously, based on what I have heard from the other side, seems to be controversial. I am happy we are going to be proceeding with a bipartisan manager's amendment. My very good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, (Mr. Pastor) has been working closely with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the Subcommittee of Legislative, and I believe that we will have addressed a number of the concerns that have been raised by Members so far in that manager's amendment, and I think that is a positive thing. I am pleased that this bill, under the leadership of my very good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and others is continuing to pursue that goal which we have effectively implemented over the past several years since we have taken control, and that is making this institution more open and accountable to the American people while at the same time ensuring that we have the resources necessary to keep this very important first branch. Look at the Constitution, the first branch of the Federal Government in operation. Now, when we look at the challenges that we have here in this institution, making sure that we have first-rate Capitol Police, the Architect of the Capitol, and we know that this work has been going on outside on the Dome there and it looks as if they are moving ahead very effectively with that. Now, that symbol to the rest of the world that we are the beacon of hope and freedom is an important one, and coverage for that comes within this legislative branch bill. The Government Printing Office is very important, the General Accounting Office, and under this manager's amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) have worked on, it is going to ensure that we do not have to face layoffs there. I want to specifically raise an issue which I believe is very important for the people whom I am privileged to represent and I know for people all over the country. In the manager's amendment there will be the restoration of $13 million dollars to ensure that our constituents are going to be able to go to the comfort of their local library and have access to very important information. I want to do everything that we possibly can to encourage the accessibility through electronic means of documents that come from the Federal Government, but we cannot forget the fact that there are people who do want to have the hard copy, the printed access to printed material. I believe that the manager's amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) have worked on will restore those funds which are very important. I believe this is a fair rule. It is a very balanced rule. It takes into consideration a wide range of concerns. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for once again keeping us right on schedule, moving ahead with this very important measure. We all anxiously look forward to the completion of all 13 appropriation bills, and I am happy that, when possible, we have been able to work in a bipartisan way, and I am hoping that we will be able to do that in the coming weeks.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by extending congratulations to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their fine work under challenging circumstances. I would also like to extend congratulations to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), chairing this very, very important measure. I rise, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), who shares representing Pasadena, California, to bring to the attention of my friend, the gentleman from Syracuse, New York, some concerns I have about efforts in the other body to transfer away from Pasadena's Jet Propulsion Laboratory some of its important functions. I believe these efforts are unjustified and that they would hinder the ability of NASA to carry out its very important scientific mission. As the gentleman knows, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the lead U.S. center for unmanned exploration of the solar system. JPL has led the world in exploring the solar system with robotics spacecraft by visiting all known planets except Pluto. Over the last several years, JPL has saved taxpayer money by turning to outside vendors, wherever appropriate, and reducing its workforce by almost 30 percent from its 1992 high. In fiscal year 2000, for example, 41 percent of JPL's Telecommunication and Mission Operations Directorate is already contracted out to outside vendors for routine services. So they have demonstrated a very clear and strong commitment at JPL to contract out whenever possible. While JPL contracts out routine services where appropriate, many functions are not routine and cannot be properly performed by outside vendors. Space communications, for example, Mr. Chairman, requires highly specialized capabilities. To accomplish this mission, JPL developed the Deep Space Network, a highly advanced system of powerful antennae designed to communicate with our planetary missions. The DSN is more than just a communications device, however. It is an incredibly powerful scientific instrument used in many radio-astronomy experiments. Last year, Congress asked NASA to study the idea of transferring all of JPL's Telecommunication and Mission Operations Directorate to a private contractor under the Consolidated Space Operations Contract, also known as CSOC. This would include the operations of the entire deep space network as well as the flight operations of current and future missions, including Galileo, Cassini, Ulysses, and Voyager. NASA conducted the study and, in a letter to Congress, recommended against such a transfer because the speculative savings were based on erroneous assumptions and such an action would introduce an extreme amount of risk in the mission operations. Now, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague who chairs the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who is very supportive of this effort, I would like to say that we strongly agree, as I know my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), does, with this report that has come out. It has come to my attention that our friends in the other body may be seeking to direct NASA to transfer these functions to the CSOC contract despite the findings that came out in NASA's report. This action would be devastating to NASA's space exploration program as well as to the men and women who serve this Nation at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and his fellow House conferees strongly oppose any attempt to cripple NASA's planetary exploration program by transferring essential aspects of JPL to an outside contractor.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his very supportive comments and appreciate his commitment to this extremely important program and also his kind words not only about the Jet Propulsion Laboratory but about my friend, the gentleman from Pasadena, California (Mr. Rogan).

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his contribution and his strong commitment to addressing this very, very important national need.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a frightening introduction, and I hope it did not offend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) here. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me the time; and I rise, first of all, to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). The gentleman clearly shares my view that we need to do everything that we possibly can to diminish barriers that allow for the free flow of goods and services throughout the world. In fact, the gentleman and I were discussing this issue yesterday, and we both agreed that we very much want to diminish those barriers. I wish that there were not a single tariff that existed in the world, because we all know that a tariff is a tax; and we, as Republicans, were born to cut taxes. If you go back to 1947 and look at the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it came following the Second World War, and we all know that protectionism played a role in exacerbating both the Great Depression and, I believe and most economists agree, establishing the hand of Adolph Hitler. Following the defeat of Naziism in the mid-1940s, we saw world leaders come together and establish the GATT. They had one simple goal they put forward. What was it? To decrease tariff barriers. So with that as a goal, the GATT worked for years and years and years, decades in an attempt to bring down those barriers through a wide range of agreements; and as my friend from New York pointed out very well in his statement, we today have the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago it was established; and it was established again with the continuation of that goal of trying to decrease tariff barriers. There are not 135 nations that belong to the World Trade Organization, and I am not going to stand here and argue that the World Trade Organization is the panacea to all of the ailments of society. I am not going to say that there are not problems within the WTO. And I know that my friend from Houston will clearly point those out; but I am one who has concluded that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, because clearly the goal of the WTO is to cut taxes, to decrease those tariffs. I think that it is the right thing to do. I am very pleased to have my friend from South Boston, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules (Mr. Moakley) join in support of continuation of the WTO; and in his statement, he correctly pointed out, that when this was established 5 years ago, there was a provision in the implementing legislation that said that we could have a resolution offered that would allow us to have the debate which we are going to have today dealing with the question of whether or not the United States should maintain its membership in the WTO. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that if we look at the past 5 years, since we saw the WTO established, it has been an overwhelming success; and I think that the wisest thing for us to do is to point to the economy of the United States of America and the economy of the world. Today we have the lowest unemployment rate, the strongest economic growth, low inflation. We have very positive economic signs. I believe that that is in large part, not totally, but in large part due to the fact that we have worked to try to diminish those barriers. We very much want to find opportunities for the United States to gain access to new markets around the world. We, time and time again, stand here and point to the fact that 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders; and as such, we want to do what we can to try and find new opportunities for our workers. We know that the United States of America being the world's global leader has understood the benefit of imports. We allow the rest of the world to have access to our consumer market, and that benefits us. That is a win-win for us. It allows us to have the highest standard of living on the face of the earth. So what we need to do now is recognize that the WTO is the structure through which we are able to gain access to other countries around the world. I believe that we have a great opportunity here in a bipartisan way to send a signal that we believe in reducing taxes. We believe in reducing those tariff barriers so that we can allow for that free flow of goods and services, and so I urge support of the rule that would allow us to go ahead and have very vigorous debate. And then as my friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) have said so well, we need to overwhelmingly defeat this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. I congratulate him on the fine work that he has done on this extremely important issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule because it provides for the consideration of a conference report that is critically important to businesses and consumers in the 21st century information economy. Senate Bill 761 will empower consumers of financial products and other goods and services, and establish the framework for competition in the emerging electronic marketplace. For this, I want to applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his strong efforts and the great work he has done in moving this legislation forward. I know I saw my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) someplace. There he is, and I want to congratulate him, too, for all the effort he has put into this. Enactment of this e-sign conference report will transform the way we work, the way we are educated, the way we contract for goods and services, and the way we are governed. The next great transition in the 21st century economy is likely to result in many large corporations moving the bulk of their inventory, production, and supply operations to an online environment. Establishment of a clear, uniform national framework governing both digital signatures and records will allow American businesses to become significantly more efficient and productive through business-to- business use of the Internet. Mr. Speaker, as important as this measure is to our high-tech economy, it is not just about the way business will do business. Our actions today will impact people. We all know how the quality of life of so many hard-working American families is tied directly to the amount of quality time away from the work and chores of daily life. This landmark legislation will make it easier for people using just a computer and a modem to pay their bills, apply for mortgages, trade securities, and purchase goods and services wherever and whenever they choose. That will be a win-win clearly for millions of American working families. As important as this bill is to today's global electronic marketplace, we need to be prepared to deal with the reality that the pace of innovation and change in the new Internet economy has a direct impact on the pace of legislative innovation required here in the Congress. It is not a criticism of this very strong legislation to recognize that when the U.S. computer industry operates with a 3-month innovation cycle, the new economy may render some of its provisions obsolete unless we move quickly on follow-up legislation. There is a need, for example, to clarify the legality and reliability of electronic authentication applications. There is also concern that S. 761 will impose unnecessary burdens on businesses and consumers, and the ambiguities in the conference report may actually create new avenues for class action litigation. For example, under the conference report, consumers who initially consent in paper and ink to receive electronic records will need to either reconsent or reconfirm or confirm their consent by electronic means. Then each time there are changes in any of the hardware or software requirements for accessing a record that consumers have consented to receive electronically, the provider must obtain new consents from all of the affected consumers. In addition, it must be possible to ``reasonably demonstrate'' that a consumer will be able to access the various forms of electronic records that the consumer has consented to receive. This is a requirement that has no parallel in the paper world. To ensure that consumers can get the full benefits of these electronic records provisions, consumers should only need to consent once either on paper or electronically, with the ability to withdraw their consent if changes create a problem for them. There is concern that S. 761 may actually create a new basis for denying legal effect to electronic records if they are not in a form that could be retained and accurately reproduced for later reference by any parties who are entitled to retain them. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that Congress will be able to respond effectively to these and other challenges that would be brought on by the rapidly changing nature of the Internet economy. In the meantime, as I have said, this is a bill that deserves overwhelmingly strong bipartisan support. I join again in congratulating my colleagues, who have worked long and hard on this. I am proud to have been a strong supporter of this effort for the past several years, and I urge adoption of the rule and the conference report.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this year California has lost one of its finest attorneys and the Congress has lost a good friend and adviser. In mid March, Russell A. Freeman passed away at his home near Los Angeles. As the General Counsel of Security Pacific Corporation, Russ Freeman, in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, undertook many of the early steps at broadening the range of bank product and service offerings in order to strengthen the banking charter and meet customer demands. Much of his legal work set the intellectual and practical foundation for the landmark financial legislation that passed the Congress just this past year. Security Pacific, based in Los Angeles, was the nation's fifth largest banking firm and produced many new business and consumer innovations. Moving from his native New York, Russ Freeman joined the bank in 1959 and rose from staff attorney to General Counsel. By his work there for some 33 years, he demonstrated those somewhat rare values today of loyalty and commitment. Russ Freeman received many accolades and awards over the years, including Outstanding Corporate Counsel from the L.A. County Bar. More significant, however, Russ Freeman served as mentor to numerous attorneys who are now working in various financial and non-financial firms across the country. He instilled in these attorneys--and in his corporate and legal colleagues--a strong work ethic, a demand for excellence in legal analysis and the need to conduct one's work in a professional manner. And he communicated these values in a fashion that earned him the highest respect and regard. This represents an important legacy for the banking and legal communities. Russ represented his company with tenacity, honesty and creativity and he was a strong advocate for the banking industry. Russ Freeman frequently provided input to me and to other members of the House and Senate on banking and financial issues. He brought the straight story, good or bad, and we relied on him for accurate information and new ideas. His vision reinforced the impetus in Congress to improve financial services regulation to the benefit of consumers and to keep our banking system the strongest in the world. We have lost a good friend with the death of Russ Freeman. Our thoughts and condolences go out to his many friends and colleagues and, particularly, to his son, James, daughter, Elizabeth, and granddaughter, Katelynn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, thanks to this full, wholesome, and hard- hitting debate, one might conclude that this is a partisan issue when, in fact, it is very bipartisan. There are 46 Democrats who have joined with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) as cosponsors of this very important legislation. As has been pointed out several times, death should, in fact, not trigger a tax; and it is very, very unfortunate that there are many people who, upon facing death, family members have to, along with visiting the undertaker, visit the IRS agent, visit the tax lawyer, visit their accountant, and that is wrong. We want to end that. There are many people here who have been arguing that this is somehow going to create a drain on the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. That is clearly wrong. Empirical evidence has shown that if we would have repealed the death tax back in 1971, by 1991, the gross domestic product growth would have been 1 percentage point higher, obviously generating an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. As we look at a study that recently came out, it showed that 75 percent of successful businesses failed after the death of the owner, and lack of capital has been the reason that 70 percent of those businesses reported that they failed and obviously, the death tax, which has created real uncertainty and great problems and a drain, have played a role in jeopardizing economic growth. So it seems to me that we have a very important obligation to realize that this is the responsible thing to do; the American people want us to do this. Double taxation is wrong, and this is a first step towards repealing that. This is a fair rule. We have turned ourselves inside out to make sure that we provided for a substitute that is going to be offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we also suspect that there may be a motion to recommit. It is a tax bill. We do not open up the Tax Code. The Democrats never did it, we are not doing that, and yet we have provided 2 bites at the apple for Members of the minority; so it is a very fair measure, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill itself.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. I thank my friend from Columbus, Ohio, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are proud to have a hard- working Committee on Rules. I am glad that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) was able to join us last night. One of the challenges of dealing with a very recalcitrant minority that wants to obstruct any kind of progress here in this House is that we have to try to fashion rules that will get the majority to provide full support; and, unfortunately, we have a difficult time working in a bipartisan way. We try our best to do it. We try to reach out to the other side. But when we hear rhetoric like that that my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, just provided, it makes it really tough for us. Because, in fact, in the area of child care development, we have a 33 percent increase over last year. Now, one of the things that I was proud to have worked on earlier this year, that unfortunately I fell short by eight votes of getting the support on, was something called biennial budgeting. I know that while one member of the Committee on Rules in the minority joined us in support of this, my friend from Massachusetts opposed it. We are talking here about all kinds of scenarios that are down the road and that, frankly, future Congresses will be addressing. As we look at this question of advance appropriations and forward funding, it seems to me that if we were able to have a biennial budget process, which it seems my friend is advocating here, it sounds like he is an advocate of the biennial budgeting process, he should have joined with us and voted in favor of that so we could have addressed this question in what I believe would be a really more responsible way than going through the annual process. But we have to deal with it as it is right now. I want to say that I believe that this is a very, very responsible measure. My friend from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is going to be presiding over the last labor, health and human services appropriations bill before his retirement, is to be commended for his hard work. I think that his words just a few moments ago put it right on target when he said that all kinds of rhetoric is going to be out there trying to claim that cuts are being made when, in fact, we are bringing about responsible increases to address these issues. I commend him for his very fine work. There are a number of very important issues that are being addressed in this measure. I want to particularly compliment him for the $900 million that is for technology, for education programs which will help today's students have the potential to be competitive when it comes to dealing with our global economy. We have a responsibility to ensure that we pursue that. I think we have been right on target in doing that. There are a wide range of very good measures in this bill. What we need to do is recognize that we are complying with the budget resolution that passed, not, as the gentleman from Illinois said, the very irresponsible budget package that was put forward by the President of the United States. That is not what is providing us with direction here. We are following the budget resolution that passed. We are increasing responsibly in areas where need is taking place. Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the other side of the aisle talk about Draconian cuts. We went through this in the middle part of the last decade right after we won the majority and they tried to claim that we were cutting the school lunch program when we were increasing it, they tried to claim that we were cutting programs for seniors. They were trying to describe us as being somehow inhumane. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are, in fact, responsibly dealing with societal needs while at the same time dealing with the fiscal constraints that are imposed with the budget process that we have. I strongly support this rule. I urge my colleagues to support it and the very important appropriations bill that we will be moving ahead with.