David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield further, I will tell him that in the committee on which my friend used to sit, we are clearly more than willing to look at a wide range of legislative proposals that come forward; and we are happy to look at that one if a committee were to report it out and they would bring it up to our committee.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Mt. Clemens for yielding. I would say that I do not see a correlation between the existence of the Federal Department of Energy and the need to bring about a diplomatic strategy to work with our friends in the Middle East and members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to bring about some sort of stabilization and a lowering of price and an increase in the supply which obviously is something that we seek. I will tell the gentleman personally, I do not see a correlation between the existence and the perpetuation of the Federal Department of Energy and the need for the administration using, as President Bush did in the early part of the last decade, putting together a 28-nation coalition to liberate the people of Kuwait. I do not think that it is necessary for a Federal Department of Energy to exist to pursue the goal that we all want to address right now, and that is to bring about a lowering of gasoline and fuel prices for the American people.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, what is the bill?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 701.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like to, if I could, have the attention of my very good friend from Toledo to explain and clarify. I understand that she is very concerned about this rule, but I would like to explain it. This is an open rule. We have an open amendment process, which allows any germane amendment to be considered and fully debated, without any time limitation whatsoever. So if my friend would choose to offer a striking amendment, if my friend would choose to offer anything that falls within the rubric of germaneness, she clearly has a right to do that. Now, she talked about 10 minutes that is allowed for her amendment. The ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has the full general debate time, a half an hour, during which that entire time can be expended talking about this issue, if he so wishes. So I think it is important to note that we have time limits imposed on those which we granted waivers to which are beyond the standard Rules of the House; and what we have done is we have allowed full, no time limits whatsoever on any germane amendment. That is why I want to urge my colleagues, since this is an open amendment process, and yes, we have provided waivers for 14 additional amendments which have been made in order so that we can have a full debate on a lot of different issues; but the fact of the matter is, for people to come down here and vote against an open rule, I am really concerned about the prospect of that. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I believe that it is the right thing, and we will have a very full day.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would offer the gentlewoman time right now if she would like to yield to me.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying first, I serve on the Committee on Rules, and it is a great thrill to stand here suspending the rules for consideration of this very important legislation. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my very good friend, whom I supported in his quest for Whip 2 decades ago; and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment; along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Also, I would like to point to several of my colleagues from the San Gabriel Valley, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), who is here and who, in fact, reminded me of an event out in California that they came to him and talked to him about introducing this legislation, and I am very pleased that he has played a key role in helping to make this possible; our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), who joined in cosponsoring; and also a very important driving force behind this legislation has been my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), with whom I share representation of the City of Pasadena, which is in the San Gabriel Valley. We are here for consideration of some legislation that is very, very important not just for Southern California; but, in fact, for the rest of the Nation. I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my colleague from the Committee on Rules, here on the floor. He is very concerned about the discovery of perchlorates in groundwater, and it poses a very serious threat to many parts of the country. So this legislation is not simply geared towards dealing with the problem that has developed in Southern California but for the entire Nation. During the 1950s and 1960s, when we were in the midst of our buildup which allowed us to win the Cold War, there were many companies which legally, and I underscore the word ``legally,'' dumped spent rocket fuel; and, in so doing, it has created problems which have just recently come to the forefront. I will say that we found that the threat of contaminated water in Southern California could affect literally millions of people. Literally millions of people could be affected by this. And so, a very strong consensus plan was put together among those in Southern California who deal with the water issue. I am pleased that, in looking at that consensus plan, that we were able to come up with legislation which is designed to provide $75 million for the cleanup and then a very important $25 million to deal with research into ways in which we can ensure that this problem will not expand in other parts of the country. And so I will say that I know that this very important environmental legislation will enjoy strong bipartisan support, as has been evidenced by those who serve on the committee of jurisdiction and other members from around the country who I know are strongly committed to this. I want to say that I believe we should move this as expeditiously as possible. This is, in fact, a public-private partnership. I believe that those who are responsible for dumping this spent rocket fuel should be responsible. But unfortunately, many of those businesses which are responsible are no longer in operation. And so that is why we have had to step up to the plate and take on part of this responsibility. Now, we could have embarked on a big load of litigation. But would those lawsuits do anything to clean up the groundwater contamination, the threat that those perchlorates have? No. And so that is why the responsible thing for us to do is to say to those businesses which are still in existence, like Arrowjet and other companies, that they need to shoulder part of this responsibility. But at the same time, when we have businesses that are no longer there, to make sure that we have clean drinking water in Southern California and in the rest of the Nation, it is important for us to again step up to the plate and take on the responsibility of cleaning it up and making sure that we do not have a threat that is posed. And so I am pleased with the very, very strong support that we have enjoyed on this legislation. I hope very much that we will be able to move it through both bodies. And while there was early indication that the Army Corps of Engineers and the White House was less than supportive on this, I am convinced that President Clinton will want to join this strong bipartisan coalition and lend his support for this very important measure. I again thank my very good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the leadership of their committee and the subcommittee for the expeditious way in which they have moved this very responsible legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 292, and thank him for his leadership on this important issue and his vigorous pursuit of freedom over the many years he has been serving in the Congress. I also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is all designed to congratulate the people of Taiwan for the very successful election that they realized a week ago last Saturday. What is important to note, Mr. Speaker, is that this ground- breaking election marks the first transition from one political party to another in the 5,000-year history of the Chinese civilization. Let me say that again. This election that we have just observed marks the first transition from one political party to another in the 5,000-year history of Chinese civilization. That is an extraordinary accomplishment. In fact, it is important to note that this largely peaceful transition that we have observed over the last decade and a half from an authoritarian regime, to what we have now witnessed as full democracy and a transition from one political party to another, is one of the greatest victories of the 20th century when it comes to our vigorous pursuit of political pluralism worldwide. One which I think it is important to note goes hand in hand with the very important economic reforms and ties that the United States of America has had with Taiwan. It does go hand-in-hand. And I think that we all know that the very vigorous public debate that was spawned by competitive elections has played a role in strengthening the foundations for a free and democratic way of life. And we are witnessing that right now on Taiwan. The recent election of President-elect Chen sends, I believe, a very strong and positive message that democracy works in China. It works in Asia. It works in a Chinese society. We all hope very much that it will be able to expand on to the mainland. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, there are many very, very tough domestic challenges that President-elect Chen will be facing as he takes over the reins in Taiwan. However, it is key to recognize that one of his very first public statements came in an interview that he did with my hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, I do not call it the Chicago Tribune yet; but it is the Los Angeles Times, where he did a very, very important interview stating that he strongly supports mainland China's accession to the World Trade Organization, which, obviously, as we all know, is the global, rules-based trading system, which would allow for the elimination of tariff barriers so that the rest of the world can gain access to the 1.3 billion consumers in China. We know that following China's accession to the World Trade Organization, we will see Taiwan immediately join the WTO. And the People's Republic of China has supported that. It is important to note that immediately following his election, President-elect Chen said that he strongly supported the idea of China acceding to the WTO. He recognizes that the economic fates of both Taiwan and mainland China are inextricably tied. In fact, not many people are aware of the fact there are nearly 46,000 businesses on mainland China that are owned by Taiwanese. In fact, the single largest supplier of foreign direct investment to mainland China happens to be the island of 22 million people of Taiwan. The commercial relations with its cross-strait neighbor are vital to the continued prosperity of mainland China and of Taiwan. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am certain that this House is united behind the principle that the future of Taiwan be determined in a manner that is both peaceful and mutually agreeable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We as a Nation stand firmly behind the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. Military action, threatened or actual, is clearly the wrong way to proceed. And I believe that this election sends a strong signal that we can and, in fact, see improved relations there. I congratulate President Chen for the strong steps that he has taken to bring the temperature down and to work towards what we hope will be peaceful association there. I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Again, I appreciate his strong leadership on this very important issue.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. We looked closely at it.

Mr. DREIER. I do not know about $5 billion that was added.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me assure my colleague, who was in his office I know last night at 8:29 last evening, the gentleman received 99.9 percent of this budget package that we had. And I know that the gentleman spent the following several hours carefully scrutinizing this legislation. I think that he will find when we have this vote today it is a very responsible, appropriate way to move ahead with this. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Why did the gentleman leave so early?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let us not have a vote on his assessment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that, while the new directed scorekeeping point of order would affect the timely consideration of H.R. 2563 with directed scorekeeping language, there are several other points of order that would currently apply. I would make a commitment to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that we will work together to craft a rule that would remove all obstacles to consideration of this important bill.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say no, there is absolutely no point of order that precludes consideration of H.R. 2563.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I think it is important for us to note that this rule in fact puts into place what has been the case under both Democratic control of this institution and Republican control. What we have done is we have made four Democratic substitutes in order, one Republican substitute in order. We have been able to provide an opportunity for a wide range of proposals, to be very fairly debated. We listened up in the Committee on Rules to authors of those substitutes. They have indicated their willingness to be supportive of what it is we are trying to do here by moving ahead with a very fair and open debate, and I believe that it is in fact that. 99.9999 percent of this package was provided by the Committee on the Budget. We had the package placed in the hands of the minority and other Members of the Committee on Rules by 8:30 last night, and we did in fact make a modification. It deals with increasing spending for science. I happen to think that is a very high priority. For me as a Californian it is very important for us to do that. So let me just say that the rule is fair. The rule provides the minority with four opportunities to offer substitutes; the majority with one opportunity. So I think it should continue to enjoy very strong bipartisan support. Let me move beyond the debate that we have going on right here to talk for just a few moments about the issue of the budget itself. I have found, maybe this is just my perspective as a Californian, that the American people very much want to see an end to the extraordinary partisanship that goes on, the partisan bickering which we have seen back and forth, just listening to some of the speeches that have been made and criticism of this very fair rule. They do not like those sorts of partisan attacks, and I hope very much that we can bring an end to that kind of harsh partisanship, and I think we have evidence of it coming to an end by simply looking at this budget. Frankly, just take the example of education. Republicans and Democrats alike want to improve our public schools. This budget actually increases by almost 10 percent over last year the level of funding for schools. That is a $20 billion increase over 5 years. As we develop policies to go with those resources, we need to make sure that every American child has a chance to learn the skills and knowledge to succeed in our new 21st century economy. Now, let us take another issue on which we have bipartisan agreement, national defense. Most Democrats, I am happy to say, now agree with what we Republicans have been saying for years, that we must bolster our national security spending so that we can get every soldier, sailor, and airman and their families and their children off of food stamps and into quality housing. Let us look at a third issue, Social Security. This budget shows how Republicans and Democrats now stand together to ensure that the Social Security surplus is never again spent on other government programs. I am very happy to say that it is under this Republican leadership, under the strong leadership of Speaker Hastert, we have successfully protected every dollar of the Social Security surplus for the past 2 years, and this plan now does that for an additional 5 years. This is clearly the basis for long-term bipartisan retirement security reform. Republicans and Democrats stand together to increase medical research. This budget dedicates $1 billion more than last year to find cures that will ease the pain of millions of American families. Republicans and Democrats stand together on key science initiatives, as I was saying. When we pass this rule, we will ensure that the science and space programs funded in this budget are supported at a level needed to continue the cutting-edge science and space work that go on in places like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and other fine facilities throughout the region that I am privileged to represent. Now, Republicans and Democrats do agree on a wide range of very important priorities. But of course, there is still quite a bit of politics left. There is a difference between the basic philosophy of the competing budgets with the five substitutes that we will have today. Republicans believe that the Government has an important role in helping to address many problems, but we never lose sight of the fundamental fact that America is great because of the American people, families, entrepreneurs, neighborhoods, businesses and farmers, not the Federal Government. What does this mean in a budget? It means that while we work hard to address education, medical research, national defense, retirement security, and health care, we also set something aside for families. The Republican budget helps families by paying down $1 trillion in public debt by 2005 and retiring the entire debt by 2013. This will provide a tremendous boost to ensuring a strong, stable, vibrant economy for our children and grandchildren. The Republican budget also provides some tax relief for American families, senior citizens, small businesses and farmers. Make no mistake, this budget spends a lot of money. As I said, we increase spending on education, health care, medical research, defense and science. But we believe that families should be in that priority list as well so that they have a little more of their own money to spend on school clothes for the kids, college tuition, or a new home computer. With half of American households participating in financial markets today, our Nation has what we like to call an emerging investor class. More than ever before, the American people recognize that they have a direct stake in policies focused on expanding economic prosperity, including smart tax relief. Mr. Speaker, the investor class supports pro-growth, pro-investment tax reductions because they know that America's strength, our prosperity, is driven more by the emerging Internet economy and the NASDAQ, the wonder of NASDAQ and the companies involved there, than the Federal bureaucracy that exists here in Washington, DC. This is a very, very good budget that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is going to be moving forward here. I think that this rule deserves again strong bipartisan support by providing all these alternatives to our colleagues, and we can move ahead focusing on the areas of agreement and we can have what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) describes as a full, vigorous, tough debate on these areas of disagreement. I urge support of the rule and our budget package.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I would like to congratulate my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his management of this rule, and I would like to say that I believe that we have crafted an extraordinarily fair rule on what clearly will be one the most important environmental votes that we will cast in this Congress. While more than 20 percent of our Nation's electricity comes from nuclear power, there is not one single safe and isolated location to store nuclear fuel. Consequently, this spent fuel currently sits in the communities where the nuclear power was originally generated. So if we are talking about a question of safety, the idea of having this waste go to an isolated, safe, secure spot, versus sitting in the back of hospitals around the country, to me it is an absolute no- brainer. The idea of not taking this action poses a very serious environmental public health and safety threat. By the end of last year, 29 of the Nation's 103 nuclear power plants had exhausted their on-sight storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel with no other long-term storage facilities available at all. Of all energy sources, nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment, including water, land habitat, species, and air resources. Nuclear energy is the most eco-efficient of all energy sources, and it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants such as sulfur and particulates or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation, and prevent acid rain. This bill fulfills the commitments given the American taxpayers in 1982 and in 1987, with the enactment and amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, by removing the bureaucratic and legal roadblocks in the path of building and implementing a permanent nuclear waste repository. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the President to tell the American people where he stands on this very important local environmental issue. Moving the Senate bill under a closed rule is the most expeditious way to get this important legislation to the President's desk. And while I have heard people talk about how he plans to veto this measure, I cannot help but look at the past several years and his plan to veto legislation after legislation that we have put forward: the Education Flexibility Act; the National Ballistic Missile Defense Act; the Welfare Reform Act, which he did twice veto, ultimately signed, and today claims as one of his greatest accomplishments. So I believe that the President can, in fact, take a positive pro- environment move by taking this very well-thought-out measure and having it reported out of both Houses of Congress. I believe that we will be doing the right thing by passing that. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and I urge a strong ``yes'' vote in support of this very, very important pro-environment legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is a modified open rule. The only reason it is modified is that we have a preprinting requirement, meaning that we will allow every Member to have an opportunity to see amendments that are printed in the Record. It is an open amendment, and for that reason I believe this deserves strong bipartisan support. Now, I will tell my colleagues that I am not one who regularly comes down here and enjoys pointing the finger of blame. But as I listen to my friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost), blame the increase in oil prices on the Republican Congress and the lack of action over the last 5 years, I have got to say that it has really happened for a couple of reasons which are unfortunate. We want to deal with them in a bipartisan way. But since the finger of blame has been pointed, I think that we need to responsibly look at exactly who really is responsible here. And that is the Clinton-Gore administration. They have categorically failed the international leadership effort that was needed to convince our OPEC trading partners to stop their destabilizing action. I remember going back to the early part of what we now have to refer to, the 1990s, as the last decade, the early 1990s when we saw President George Bush put together this amazing 28-Nation coalition which allowed us to liberate the people of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. We have obviously seen a failure of leadership when it comes to dealing with countries in that region. This foreign policy is very, very unfortunate and I believe has played a big role in getting us to where we are. I come from Southern California. I suspect that most people have heard of the Los Angeles area. We have a freeway system out there, great distances that we travel and gasoline is very expensive. I do not like seeing the prices increase myself or for the people whom I am honored to represent here. I think we need to do something about that. The blame that my friend from Dallas was trying to place on the shoulders of the Republican majority has actually been shouldered, I think responsibly, shouldered by the Secretary of Energy who said it is obvious that we were not prepared. It seems to me that the fact that Secretary Richardson courageously stood forward and basically indicated that they were asleep at the switch on this is something that I congratulate him for taking the responsibility but they have taken the responsibility. So do not try to point the fingers at those of us here in this Republican Congress. The Vice President, as was said by my friend from Sanibel, is obviously engaged in a very vigorous campaign to succeed Mr. Clinton but if you go back to his book ``Earth in the Balance,'' he made it clear he cannot be too unhappy with what has been taking place here. He said, ``Higher taxes on fossil fuels is one of the first logical steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment.'' I will say this, that I hope very much as our former colleague and very good friend Secretary Richardson prepares to meet with OPEC members, it is important that we here in the Congress send a message to the international community that oil price-fixing and other anti-free market practices that are detrimental to global economic growth and obviously very dangerous to the economic stability of developing nations around the world, that we address that. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has come forward with responsible legislation. It is basically an open rule, a modified open rule. We should have it carry through with again strong bipartisan support. I believe the legislation should get that, too, to strengthen the administration as they move forward to try and address this problem.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on managing what obviously is a somewhat challenging and controversial rule. I happen to be one who believes very much that we have a responsibility to put into place economic policies which will ensure that everyone, regardless of where they are on the economic scale, has an opportunity to improve their plight. I want to see those at the lower end of the economic spectrum get their wages up. I want us to encourage growth and investment and productivity so that those wages can increase. I do have a difficulty, however, with having the Federal Government mandate a wage rate that frankly has the potential to jeopardize economic growth and has the potential again to hurt most those we are trying to assist. Now, having said that, I realize that a majority of this House supports an increase in the minimum wage. I am in the minority here in believing that we should simply encourage economic growth through tax and other investment incentives. But I am in the minority. I am in the minority, so I feel the responsibility to do everything that we possibly can to allow a free flow of ideas and debate on these very important questions that are before us; and that is why we have, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has outlined, an extraordinarily fair and balanced rule which allows all of the alternatives that are out there to be considered. One over two, one over three. We have tax incentives which some of us do support. So we have a wide range of options that are there, put into place. I will say that I happen to think that tax relief is something that is much needed, and the issues that my friend from his summer spot in South Boston mentioned, the tax issue, is something that enjoys bipartisan support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that 48 Democrats joined in support of the marriage tax penalty. President Clinton stood here during his State of the Union message and talked about his support for that. He indicated that he was adamantly opposed to increasing the earnings cap for retirees. Now, he is prepared to sign it and we welcome that. So aspects that were in that tax bill that he vetoed last year, he has clearly indicated that he supports and we welcome that kind of support and recognition of the fact that we as a country need to do everything, and as a Congress, need to do everything that we can to encourage this kind of economic growth. Specifically, the items that are in this tax package that are particularly beneficial, of course, allow us to deal with this health care question by providing for the self-employed workers to deduct their health care insurance expenses. We also, and I see my very dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) here, we want to encourage community redevelopment. We want the community renewal movement to go ahead. Again, President Clinton has joined with Speaker Hastert in supporting that. So I know that my friend from New York will strongly embrace that provision that is in this measure. So there are very, very good aspects of it; and I hope that we will see a strong vote for this rule. But before my colleagues get a chance to vote for the rule, I suspect that there just may be a vote on the previous question. So in light of that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of the previous question so that we can move ahead with a fair, balanced rule that allows all of the different ideas out there to be considered, and then we will do what Speaker Hastert said when he on the opening day of the 106th Congress just a little over a year ago stood here and said we will allow the House to work its will so that the majority will prevail.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his contribution, and I can only infer that he is reaffirming the statement that he made upstairs that, in fact, our bill does make sure that we pay down Social Security and work on debt reduction.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time. I appreciate her leadership on this very, very important measure. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that by a very strong, bipartisan vote, we are going to pass this measure today. As my dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows, there are Democrats who have joined in support of this measure and there are reasons for that, because it is very clear that we are going to end one of the most illogical and unfair aspects of the Tax Code. Even in an election year, we ought to be able to agree on some very basic principles that we all know that the American people share. One of these simple concepts is that married people should not pay more in taxes simply because they are married. That is what this debate comes down to. The Republican marriage penalty tax relief bill helps low- and middle-income working families, particularly women and minorities who bear a disproportionate share of that unfair burden. The American people support tax relief like this bill today. They very much want us to deal with some effort to pay down this huge national debt that we have and, of course, we are all well aware of the fact that they want us to ensure retirement security. Republicans are moving forward, I am happy to say, on all three of those. However, we cannot hold this marriage penalty tax relief bill hostage to a massive, all encompassing budget deal and negotiations that some will try to derail so that they can call this a do-nothing Congress. We have gotten to the point where we have a chance to help middle- income wage earners who are struggling to make ends meet, who on average we see a $1,400 loss for them because of this penalty. We know very well, and my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), up in the Committee on Rules when we were discussing this measure made it clear that this bill does not in any way threaten protecting Social Security or our quest for paying down the debt. We have a very fair rule here. It is a structured rule which allows for the consideration of the Minority substitute, and we will have a motion to recommit. At the same time, it is also a very fair bill; and I hope we will be able to see, as I predict, a strong bipartisan vote.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my very good friend the ranking minority member, and I want him to stay in that position for many years to come.