David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his somewhat thoughtful remarks and assessment of me. I would like to say that there have been a wide range of bills that the President guaranteed that he was going to veto. I remember very well the welfare reform bill. He did in fact twice veto it, but he then signed that measure. I remember the Education Flexibility Act. He said that he was going to veto that measure. He in fact ended up signing it. There were several other measures that he talked about vetoing: the national ballistic missile defense bill; he signed it. He can sign this one, too.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to rise on this day, while many of our colleagues are participating in a service for former Speaker Albert, to take this time to extend my condolences to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and her family members. Obviously, they have gone through a real struggle, with the tragic death of our former colleague, Walter Capps, not long ago, and now the loss of their daughter Lisa, a young woman 35 years of age, a professor in California, who is the mother of two young children. And I would simply like to say that during this very difficult time, I know that our colleagues would join in extending our condolences to the family members. Last night I spoke to a close friend of the family's who said that, obviously, they are dealing with a very difficult situation; and I would simply like to say that personally my thoughts and prayers are with the family members, and I certainly wish them well as they deal with this great challenge.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is generally known that success has 1,000 fathers and defeat is an orphan. I would like to stand here and go one step further and compliment the President, for in his State of the Union he used the plural ``we'' in describing the fact that as we mark this February 1, 2000, it is the anniversary of the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history. I am glad that he used the plural ``we'' in describing the fact that we have encouraged policies which have allowed the American people to bring about this economic expansion. The real challenge is are we going to continue to do everything that we can to pursue those shared goals of maintaining a balanced budget, reducing the tax burden on working Americans, encouraging global trade, which is very, very key, making sure that we continue to reform welfare, and encourage work and productivity. I think we have a chance to do that. HMO reform, I would say to my friend from Texas, is among those priorities. Congress adjourned before Thanksgiving. It is true that in the last couple of months we have not been working on it, but we are committed to moving ahead with that legislation just as quickly as we possibly can. I am glad that we are working together.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I begin by congratulating my very good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for his very thoughtful special order. Representing Los Angeles, the former home of the Rams, I would like to extend hearty congratulations to Kurt Warner and Dick Vermeil and all associated with the Rams organization for their very impressive and exciting victory towards the end yesterday.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of January 31 to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2005, the ``Workplace Goods Jobs Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999.'' The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to their consideration on the Floor. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I look forward to creating a structure whereby the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), can go back to Staten Island. We are hoping that we will be able to do that. I would like to praise the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and join the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), for their very eloquent and thoughtful remarks and their leadership. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank again my friend, the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), for underscoring this party's commitment to free trade.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I suspect that the gentleman's statement was written last week when we thought we might be considering this. We are not asking for every day to be a suspension day, only one day, tomorrow. This expires tomorrow. I will say, from having been in contact with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, I know that they want to contact the Members, as I said, at least an hour before and maybe even many hours before suspensions come to the floor. I guess I should also say that, if we continue to hear a real complaint about this, maybe we will not ever be able to make those kinds of modifications to the rules in the future. But we will always take into consideration the very thoughtful arguments that are propounded by the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). So I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 374 provides for consideration of motions to suspend the rules at any time up to and including the legislative day of Wednesday, November 17. It requires the Speaker to consult with the minority leader on the designation of any matter for consideration under suspension of the rules. Finally, it provides that the subject of any motion to suspend the rules be announced from the floor at least 1 hour prior to its consideration. Under clause 1 of rule XV of the rules of the House, the Speaker may only entertain motions to suspend the rules on Mondays, Tuesdays, and the last 6 days of a session. Since the House has not yet passed an adjournment resolution, the last 6 days of this session, we hope we are in the midst of them, it has not yet been determined. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for us to pass this resolution in order to allow the House to consider suspensions tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we have nearly completed our business for the first session of the 106th Congress. To tie up the remaining loose ends and prepare to return to our districts, it is imperative to allow ourselves the utmost flexibility in scheduling and considering the few noncontroversial, yet very important, items of business that remain before us. The resolution is just an extension of the resolution that we passed here in the House on November 3. It is simple, straightforward, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report to my colleagues of the good news we received just yesterday that American and Chinese trade negotiators have reached what appears to be a very good agreement to bring China into the World Trade Organization. Now, in plain English, this is a win-win-win deal for American values and American interests. First, it is a win for fairness. In the world of global trade, the United States plays by rules. We open our market to everyone, which is a huge benefit to America's consumers and businesses alike. But, unfortunately, as we all know, everyone else does not follow those same rules. They do not all fall in line that way. Up until now, China has been at the top of the list of those who fail to follow those rules. But now they are agreeing to play by the rules. Of course, we know it will take a lot of diligence and effort to actually press the Chinese to live up to their commitments, but this is the only way that we can move forward. Second, this is a win for our world-class American workers and businesses. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Chinese market has largely been closed off from foreign competition. America's world-class businesses, manufacturers, high-tech companies, entertainers, farmers, financial institutions, and on and on and on, have never been able to effectively compete for sales among the 1.3 billion consumers in China. Now, of course, we need a reality check here. Let us not live under some illusion that China is the key to the future of the world economy. But let us also agree that China is an important emerging economy in the key Asian-Pacific region. Business leaders across the globe and in every part of America know that being shut out of China, especially as China opens up to the world, would be a huge mistake. We finally have a deal to get our guys on to the playing field so that we, as Americans, can compete. And guess what? I am very confident, Mr. Speaker, that our guys will win most of the time, because America's businesses and America's workers are the most competitive and the most efficient on the face of the Earth. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a win for American values inside China, values like the rule of law and personal freedom. Again, let us not lose sight of reality. There is a lot wrong with how the Chinese government does business. We all know about that, and we all decry that. Just like it has not followed the rules of international trade and business, it has also failed to follow the rules of fundamental human rights and freedom. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this trade deal, which will bolster the rule of law in Chinese business and trade dealings, will move individual rights forward in China. I was especially pleased that Martin Lee, the leading advocate of democracy for the Chinese people, based in Hong Kong, supports bringing China into the world trade system of rules and laws for this reason. That is certainly a very good and positive sign. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the United States and China is both complex and varied. No agreement, no trade deal, can solve every problem or answer every question. But this trade agreement moves the ball forward on very key issues. It is a win-win-win for fairness, new markets, and our Western values in China. It is a good deal for America.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) will be very happy that I have taken the well to speak, because along with complimenting the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), I want to thank him for his hard work and that of his staff, who worked with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and his staff in putting together what I think is a very important measure. As has been pointed out, this has twice passed the House before through the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and we have had difficulty getting that legislation through. So I believe that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) was absolutely right on target in stepping up to the plate and saying that we needed to move this State flexibility clarification measure. In 1996, the CBO estimate exempted committee-reported bills that limit resources available to State and local governments from budget scoring as defined by the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, legislation which sought to lift that burden of unfunded Federal mandates. As both the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) have pointed out, this is a technical point but it is a very important one, because without such scoring, committees would be unable to consider the ramifications of proposed legislation on State and local governments. This bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has carefully crafted will stipulate that any new changes to entitlement programs that do not provide new flexibility would be construed by the Congressional Budget Office as an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This bill has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, and other major State and local organizations. I would like to simply say that I believe it is a very important measure that we move through. I am glad that it enjoys strong bipartisan support. As we have delved into the annals of history in the Committee on Rules, it appears that this may be if not the first time, the first time in a heck of a long time that the Committee on Rules has moved legislation which is being considered under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, it is with this bipartisan spirit that I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for his hard work on this, and urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall), my very good friend; and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a bill, H.R. 1714, that is critically important to consumers in our 21st century information-age economy. It is also appropriate that we consider this legislation on the heels of last week's passage of S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act. As significant as S. 900 is to bringing our financial services laws up to date with the realities of the current marketplace, H.R. 1714 will actually do more to empower consumers of financial products and other goods and services and establish the framework for competition in the emerging electronic marketplace. For this I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to move this legislation forward. This is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1. That amendment in the nature of a substitute is identical to the bill which on November 1 fell just three votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary for passage of a measure under suspension of the rules. The rule provides for consideration of only the two amendments printed in the rules report, as the Clerk just gave us, which may be offered only in the order printed in the Record, may be offered only by the designated Member, shall be considered as read, shall not be divisible, and shall be debated for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. The first amendment is the bipartisan Inslee-Eshoo-Smith-Dooley- Moran-Roukema amendment, which I urge my colleagues to support. It preserves all Federal and State consumer protection laws and actually creates new consumer rights in the area of electronic commerce. The second is a gutting amendment offered by Representatives Dingell, Conyers, LaFalce and Gephardt which, if adopted, will leave all consumers to ponder the question: Why did I just spend $1,200 on a computer? Now, think about it, Mr. Speaker. The scale of electronic commerce is undergoing dramatic change as a result of the Internet, networking and communications technology, and the expansion of computer memory and storage capabilities. Computer-to-computer communication is increasingly being used to initiate and execute a substantial and growing number of personal business and financial transactions. Enactment of this E-SIGN bill 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. It 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 without ever leaving the confines of their homes or offices. But the consumer revolution that would be unleashed by this bill may never see the light of day if the Dingell-Gephardt amendment is adopted. So I am going to once again urge my colleagues to oppose that clearly anti-consumer amendment. Mr. Speaker, my State of California is home to many of the companies that produce the technologies that are shaping the global electronic marketplace. In talking with business leaders in the fields of technology and finance, I am convinced that the promise of electronic commerce will never be fully realized without the establishment of a clear, uniform national framework governing both, and I emphasize both, digital signatures and records. This is one of the most important economic challenges facing Congress, as our country transitions into our 21st century Information Age economy. With H.R. 1714, businesses and consumers can be confident that the transactions we engage in electronically are both safe and secure. This bill addresses this challenge in a way that ensures that competition and consumer choice remain the hallmarks of the emerging global electronic marketplace. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that is deserving of bipartisan support, as was evidenced in the suspension vote, although, as I said, we were just three votes short of what we needed to pass it. So I assume that the rule will sail right through and the bill, with only the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), will sail through, too. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support of both, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in extending this time of special orders in honor of our great friend, George Brown. I have not had the opportunity to hear any of the statements other than the very eloquent one by the gentleman from Long Beach, California (Mr. Horn). I will say scholarship and decency, which is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) just raised, obviously are two words that come to mind. George Brown was also one of the kindest and warmest human beings I have ever known. He regularly was on this side and stood there and would make interesting observations about the institution because, as we all know, he served longer than any other Californian here in the Congress. We were very pleased that he set that record, even though many of us, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I for a decade and a half tried to cut that short. In many ways, I am glad that we were not able to cut that short because he did so much for our State and the country. I suspect that, during the hour, people talked about his involvement in the space program. I will tell my colleagues that, representing Pasadena, California, the home of the jet propulsion laboratory, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) is a very important thing. George Brown regularly provided the kind of inspiration that was needed by our constituents at the jet propulsion lab. He often was the beneficiary, and I know that his widow Marta is following this so I should not raise it, but she may not have known he occasionally smoked a cigar. He would often take cigars from all of us here. I was pleased whenever I could to pass one to him, even though I know Marta was never pleased with the fact that we did pass our cigars to George. I know it did provide him with a great deal of pleasure. I also want to say, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) did, that, in the California delegation, he spent a great deal of time working to bring our delegation together. He had a very healthy view of his role in public service. I know there are many people who were always wringing their hands about this place at the prospect of maybe losing the next election. One time Karen Tumulty, who is now a very prominent reporter with Time Magazine, in her early days with the Los Angeles Times in the 1980s, I remember her telling me she had gone up to Mr. Brown and talked about the fact that the Republicans were putting together this huge campaign against him. He was sitting behind us in the Speaker's Lobby, and she posed the question to him, why it was that he was not that concerned. He looked up and said, ``Gosh, the absolute worst thing that could happen is I could lose the election.'' Meaning that he had a very healthy perspective on this place, what representative government was all about, and what public service was about. I will tell my colleagues that it is still, to this day, with a great deal of sadness that I think about the fact that we are no longer going to be seeing him in this chamber. So I would like to say that I will miss him greatly, and my condolences go, as I know my colleagues have extended them, to his tremendously huge and wonderful family, the members we got to meet when we went to the service for George out in California and saw a number of them back here.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am really stunned to listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the fact that the 106 Congress has not accomplished much of anything. I guess that is sort of their message today. So it is incumbent upon us to point out, once again, the great accomplishments that we have made in this Congress. At the beginning, Speaker Hastert stood right here on the opening day and talked about the need to improve public education. We have done that by passing the Education Flexibility Act so that local school districts can make decisions as to how to best educate their children. We passed the Teacher Empowerment Act, which also moves further in that direction. Tax relief for working families. We did it; we did it. People are taxed more than they ever have been since the Second World War, and the President unfortunately vetoed that measure and the Democrats on the other side of the aisle voted against it. We said that we wanted to save Social Security and Medicare, and we all know that we have locked up the Social Security Trust Fund for the future, going well beyond the 62 percent that the President advocated when he stood here in his State of the Union message. And rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. We passed the National Missile Defense bill, which is very, very important to our national security, and the Defense appropriations bill. We have accomplished a lot in this 106th Congress, and do not forget it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived, that the conference report be considered as read when called up, and that House Resolution 364 be laid upon the table.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that contrary to arguments that have been made by people on the other side of the aisle, I am a Republican who stands here very proud to be an internationalist. I am an internationalist in what I consider to be the new millennium view of that. I think that we have seen democratic expansion take place, with a small ``d,'' throughout the world, and we have to, as the world's only complete superpower, militarily, economically and geopolitically, we have to step up to the plate and take on our responsibility in doing that. There is a lot of controversy that surrounds the issue of foreign aid. As my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has just pointed out, the American people think that a quarter of the Federal budget goes towards foreign aid when we know that, in fact, it is minuscule and, in fact, in many ways it provides tremendous benefits right here at home in the United States, and we need to understand that. So let me say that this is, I believe, a great example of the clash of ideas, and where there has been disagreement and ultimately we have come to bipartisan agreement, there are issues with which I am not in total agreement, I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) in saying that I hope we will be able to pay our U.N. arrears. I think that is an important priority that we should establish. I also want to say that I am happy we were able to work out the Wye River Accord monies, and I believe that we can address some of the remaining concerns that will come before us on the debt question that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has raised. So I think that we have not a perfect measure but we have one which demonstrates that bipartisanship can work, and I am very proud of the fact that even though we went very late into the night that we are here, and I hope my colleagues will support this rule which calls for a bill that, as has been said, was an improvement over what we had and it allows for 20 minutes of debate on this very important Young amendment that will be offered. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I regret having not been included in a party here in town, but after having finished the financial modernization bill late last night and then about 1 o'clock this morning joining with my colleagues as we filed the rule which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is going to be managing in just a few minutes, I woke up this morning and listened to National Public Radio, and there was a great party that was going on celebrating the 20th anniversary of a program called Morning Edition, which has provided us with a great deal of grist for debate and argument here on the House floor for the last couple of decades. We are marking all kinds of anniversaries. My friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) just talked about the fact that yesterday was the 224th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps. We are about to mark the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. One of the stories on Morning Edition this morning consisted of the death of Nicolae Ceausescu a decade ago, so we are marking a lot of anniversaries. I would just like to throw in the fact that as a Republican who listens to National Public Radio, I congratulate Morning Edition on their 20th.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, it is almost perverse to think one could get excited about the prospect of financial modernization, but I will tell you that this really is an exciting time for a lot of us. I am looking at the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I think back to 1987 and a piece of legislation that was known as the Financial Services Holding Company Act. I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) remembers that, and I think of names of people who no longer serve here, people from the other side of the aisle like, Doug Bernard, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) remembers him, and Steve Neal; and people who spent time with us on this side of the aisle who are no longer here, like Jack Hiler from Indiana, and Steve Bartlett from Texas, and Governor Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania. In the latter part of the last decade we spent a great deal of time downstairs having dinners, talking about the need for us to move towards financial modernization; and we finally have gotten to the point where we are doing that. In fact, one of my staff members quipped to me when I said, ``Well, we are finally doing it,'' and he said, ``Well, you know, this is a really good bill for 1987,'' which is when we first introduced it. That is why I described this bill, I think, very appropriately as a first step, because it is a first step that is a very bold one. It takes us beyond the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. In fact, we describe this as moving us from what I really believe was the curse of Glass- Steagall, and I think that it also moves us slightly beyond by amending the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act. But it is designed with really one very simple basic thing in mind: it is to provide consumers with a wider range of choices, while maintaining safety and soundness at the lowest possible price. That is clearly the wave of the future. I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), whom I have mentioned, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and, of course, from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who was just here, who worked with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) on this very important privacy issue. We know that in this legislation we have the toughest privacy component that we have ever seen in any legislation considered here. I think it is important to underscore that once again, because there are a lot of people who have been critical of it, and I believe this clearly is the toughest privacy language that we have ever had. We are, by way of doing this, providing the consumer with a wider range of choices. This is a measure which could not have gotten here were it not for an awful lot of people. I look back at the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), with whom I worked closely on this issue for years, and I think that this is time for a great, great celebration. Now, where is it that we go from here? Last night in the Committee on Rules we were talking about this, and I believe that we need to look at the Internet. We need to look at the fact that the wave of the future there is in electronic banking. I think that, frankly, on the Internet, we are going to see a strengthening of privacy, because that is a priority that is regularly before us for people who spend time on the Internet. So I am anxious and I was pleased when the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) told us in the Committee on Rules that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services is moving ahead with hearings that will take us even further. So I consider this a first step. It is a first step which is a very, very important step towards getting us to where many of us have been trying to move for virtually a decade and a half. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the rule, and I believe that the conference report should get an overwhelming number of votes. We had 343 votes on the bill itself, and it is my hope that we will even exceed that on this conference report. I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in carrying this on behalf of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 353 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 353 will provide for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules at any time up to and including the legislative day of Wednesday, November 10. In addition, this resolution requires that the Speaker or his designee consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration under suspension of the rules. Finally, this resolution provides that the object of any motion to suspend the rules be announced, based on a brilliantly crafted amendment from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for at least 2 hours prior to its consideration. Under clause 1 of rule XV of the rules of the House, the Speaker may only entertain motions to suspend the rules on Mondays, Tuesday, and the last 6 days of the session. Since the House has not yet passed an adjournment resolution, the last 6 days of this session have not been determined, although we still hope they will be the last 6 days that begin before too terribly long. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for us to pass this resolution in order to allow the House to consider suspensions on days other than those designated as suspension days under the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of the first session of this Congress, it is imperative we allow ourselves the utmost flexibility in scheduling and considering the remaining matters before us. While we have produced such success in this session, most notably reforming education, providing for our national defense and protecting Social Security, there still are a number of items that do need to be considered. This resolution will allow us to expeditiously consider the noncontroversial and narrowly tailored, yet important matters, that remain unresolved. Every year around this time we consider a resolution such as this in order to officially dispose of the remaining bipartisan matters before us. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in pursuit of that, I urge adoption of this resolution and thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for helping us in this quest. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good and hard-working late-at-night friend, the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)