David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply congratulate my California colleague on her superb statement, and I would say that the spirit of bipartisanship which we have shown on this Y2K litigation reform bill is, I hope, a model we can use not only for, as she said, research and development tax credit, making that permanent, but also in just a few minutes when we consider the very important rule on H.R. 10, financial services modernization. With that, I urge support of the rule and the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of Route 66, and as a Member privileged to represent a district which exists only because of the growth that Route 66 made possible, I rise in support of this legislation, which recognizes the central role that Route 66 played at a critical point in American history. Mr. Chairman, the foothill communities of the San Gabriel Valley which I represent grew up in the post-World War II era, and are populated by the families of tens of thousands of people who came to Southern California on Route 66. My district is home to Monrovia's famed Aztec Hotel, a well-known symbol of the architectural distinctness of many landmarks along Route 66. I have had the pleasure of participating in the City of Duarte's annual parade in salute to Route 66, which travels down a stretch of this famous road. This unique heritage is a major reason that Route 66 has been immortalized in writing and in song. Although we all recognize the importance of interstate highways today, the significance of a highway link to California was initially shown by the First Transcontinental Motor Convoy of 1919, which included then-Lieutenant Colonel Dwight David Eisenhower. As President, of course, Eisenhower oversaw the creation of the modern interstate highway system. The Convoy which took two months to travel from Washington to San Francisco and encountered numerous problems along the way, demonstrated the inadequacy of existing surface roads to California. It made clear that it would be essentially impossible to supply the West Coast overland from the East in wartime. Even more important at that time and in the decades to follow, it highlighted the difficulty in moving soldiers and materiel from the West to the East in times of war. Considering the central role that California's defense industry would come to play in our national defense in World War II, it was critical to address this weakness. Besides enhanced national security, the creation of Route 66 is a watershed in American history for a number of reasons. For Salinas, California's John Steinbeck for example, Route 66 was the ``Mother Road''--it enabled more than 200,000 Americans to escape the despair of the Dust Bowl and seek better fortunes in California. The migration to California that began during the Great Depression along Route 66 was to continue for decades. Route 66 was key to the expansion of international commerce as well. By linking the port cities of Los Angeles and Chicago with points throughout Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, Route 66 linked the heartland to America's major ports, helping to make the breadbasket of America the breadbasket of the world as well. Route 66 permitted the greatest wartime manpower mobilization in United States history. Between 1941 and 1945 the government invested about $70 billion in capital projects in California, a large portion of this in the defense sector in and around Los Angeles and San Diego. This enormous capital outlay created new industries and thousands of new jobs. With the end of the Cold War, as employment in defense has declined in California, the advanced technologies and skilled workforce that were developed in California along with the defense sector have been an essential contributor to the development of California as the world's leader in high-technology products. Perhaps most importantly, by making the onset of the automobile era, the designation of Route 66 in 1926 symbolizes the mobility revolution that enables Americans to go where they want, when they want. Route 66, and other highways such as the Lincoln and the Dixie created at the same time, mark the beginning of a national effort to enable people to move quickly and efficiently around this vast country. This unparalleled ease with which we move people and goods across this country is central to our flexible and vibrant economy. I believe it has been absolutely essential to empowering Americans to pursue their dreams. Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate both of my friends from Ohio for their superb management of this very important rule. To me, this bipartisan rule represents perfectly the bipartisan nature of this legislation. I think in the testimony yesterday delivered before the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said it best when he said, would a parent, upon seeing their child turn 18, all of a sudden take that child and throw them out and provide them no direction and no assistance whatsoever. And the answer is a resounding ``no.'' This legislation is designed to provide the States with flexibility within a framework that will ensure that many of the problems that those young people, once they reach the age of 18, have been facing, will, in fact, be addressed. It increases, in fact doubles, the level of funding for the program, and at the same time realizes that we cannot micromanage it from here in Washington, D.C. Every year, the figures that we have seen show that there are about 20,000 adolescents who leave the foster care program simply because they have reached the age of 18, and they are then expected to provide full support for themselves. We know that there are many people who are between the ages of 18 and 21 who end up facing serious problems. In fact, they are inclined to quit school once they have come out of this program, to be unemployed, to be on welfare, to have mental health problems, to be parents outside of marriage, to be arrested, to be homeless, to be victims of violence and other crimes. As a Nation, we obviously want to do everything that we can to mitigate those sorts of challenges that are there. So I simply would like to congratulate again the managers of the rule for helping us put together what is a structured, bipartisan rule for very important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I am proud to stand next to this trophy for the 17-to-1 victory last night. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the Committee on Rules' plans in regard to H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. Today I inform the House of the Committee on Rules' plans regarding this bill in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which I have just sent out. The Committee on Rules will be meeting the week of June 28 to grant a rule which may restrict the offering of amendments to the Financial Services Act of 1999. The bill was reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on March 23 of 1999 and by the Committee on Commerce on June 15, 1999. Any Member contemplating an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and a brief explanation to the Committee on Rules up in H-312 of the Capitol no later than Tuesday, June 29, at 3 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the amendment in the nature of the substitute printed in the GPO Committee on Rules print which will be available to Members later today in the Committee on Rules' office. A version of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is now available on our Committee on Rules Web site. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to assure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for his fine efforts on this, and my friends on the other side of the aisle who have worked on this, and, of course, our lead sponsor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who has been working long and hard on it. Let us look at what it is we are trying to address. Y2K litigation reform is about one thing and one thing only, and it is about keeping our economy strong. We have to take a close look at where we have been on this Y2K litigation reform issue. I began working on it over a year ago. So what is it that has now happened? The House passed a very solid, bipartisan, comprehensive bill. And again, I underscore the fact that it was reported out of this House with bipartisan support. The Senate passed a bill that is unquestionably weaker than the House bill. It is the Dodd-Wyden-McCain bill. It is not a Republican bill. And, in fact, it is really a bare bones bill when we get right down to it. Finally, we have we have what is known as the Kerry proposal, which industry groups unanimously agree is so weak that it would not help to alleviate the Y2K litigation concerns out there. In fact, it failed miserably in both the House and the Senate. And the main reason for that is that those individuals, those companies, those engineers, those technicians who are trying their doggonedest to find a solution to the Y2K problem are, in fact, not helped at all with any kind of relief if we were to go ahead with the Kerry proposal. So I want very much to see the President sign an effective bipartisan Y2K litigation reform bill, even if it is not exactly what we did here in the House, which is the measure that I support most strongly. We are, in fact, on this side, looking forward with what I believe is really a spirit of compromise. I sincerely want to see us do that. In fact, I am not one of those who is a proponent of gross politicization of this issue. Why? Because we have a very serious potential problem out there, and uncertainty is very great. So as we have actually said since day one, we want to address the Y2K concerns just as quickly as possible. And that gets to the point that was just discussed between my friends on this side of the aisle and the other. We have that letter that was just referred to by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) where the Coalition talked about a July 4 date. We want to move quickly. In fact, one of the jokes was that we might come up with some kind of Y2K litigation reform by 2001. Obviously, that would be way too late. We have been working for 6 months on this measure. And with uncertainty out there, I think everyone can agree that it is our desire to move just as quickly as we possibly can. This legislation has, in fact, been working its way through what has been a very open legislative process in both Houses over the last several months. The compromise that was reached in the Senate was the product of very, very long and hard bipartisan efforts that were launched. Again, it is not a Republican bill that passed over there. It is a bill that has people like our former colleagues, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Dodd, working with Mr. McCain. So it is itself is a bipartisan measure. In many ways, and this is the argument that we are making, the bill that did pass the Senate is what could really be considered a conference compromise. But what we have said is that there are some concerns that do need to be addressed, and so what we are doing here today is we are moving to go ahead with the conference. We want very much to do that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for his contribution, and let me just say that I think a veto would be a veto of what really is a bipartisan compromise. And we have to recognize that what has emerged from the other body is not a Republican bill. And again, what emerged from this body was not a Republican bill, it was a bipartisan measure. Trying to find that balance between something that is strong enough to ensure that those who are looking for a solution are in a position to address it and, at the same time, addresses the concerns of others is the wisest thing we could do. We need to move ahead with a streamlined, bipartisan compromise, and I think we have got it in the Senate with a couple of minor modifications. So I wholeheartedly support this effort to go to conference.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is expected to meet on Tuesday June 22, 1999, to grant a rule for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments to be preprinted would need to be signed by the Member and submitted to the Speaker's table no later than the close of business Tuesday, June 22. Amendments should be drafted to the version of the bill ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, a copy of which may be obtained from the committee. 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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the inquiry of my colleague, let me say this is the exact same amendment, and I want to congratulate my friend for his vision and his encouragement. I think it is important that we do what we can to accommodate some of those concerns.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, at this juncture we plan to move ahead with what is a very fair, balanced and focused rule, and we will be, as I said, making in order the Conyers amendment.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my very good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 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, this rule makes in order two separate bills, each under a structured amendment process. They are H. R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999, and H. R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check of 1999. Let me state at the outset, the rule does not specify the order of consideration of the two bills. That is left to the discretion of the Speaker. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate for each bill divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Judiciary. The rule provides for consideration of 44 amendments to H.R. 1501 printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report and 11 amendments printed in part B of the report. Except as otherwise specified, the amendments to each bill will be considered only in the order specified in each part of the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question. Except for certain amendments to H.R. 1501 specified in part A of the report, the amendments printed in the report shall not be subject to amendment, and all points of order against the amendments are waived. The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to recognize for consideration of any amendment to H.R. 1501, which are printed in part A of the report, out of the order in which it is printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary or a designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. This authority applies only to amendments offered to H.R. 1501, not to amendments offered to H.R. 2122. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes on questions during the consideration of both bills and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. With respect to each bill, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 1501, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2122, as passed by the House, as a new matter at the end of H.R. 1501, and then lay H.R. 2122 on the table. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if both bills are passed by the House, the Clerk of the House is simply instructed to combine or engross the two bills into one bill before being transmitted to the Senate. This is not, I say again, this is not an unprecedented rule. There are a number of instances in recent years where the House has adopted single rules making in order multiple bills, which were then combined into one bill upon their passage. Examples include H. Res. 159 in the 10th Congress, and H. Res. 440 in the 104th Congress. Again this is done so we can have a full airing of a wide range of issues. Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of the national community that is preparing to enter the 21st century, the issue of youth crime is both troubling and confounding. The statisticians tell us that juvenile crime and violence are at 30-year lows. Let me say that again. We get the reports that juvenile crime and violence are at 30-year lows. At the same time, several tragedies have struck a chord that resonates across the United States. The fact is, when kids kill classmates and teachers over problems that have always confronted teenagers, people recognize that something is wrong. I believe that while we will debate and vote on dozens of different ideas of good faith and sound intentions to address this national concern, we all agree on one essential truth: Each and every one of us is fully committed to keeping children safe. In fact, all Americans need to look inside themselves for answers to the troubling societal questions raised by these violent incidents. While in most cases those questions must be answered outside the halls of government, today we begin to do our part to tackle this problem. While we are united in our goals, make no mistake about the variety of the opinions and proposals to reach those ends. Over 175 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules can attest to that. This rule attempts to provide the House with a full, fair, and focused debate that allows votes in a large number of these varied proposals. Of course, the amendments come from both sides of the political divide, Democrats and Republicans. Although the issue of youth violence has led people to search for answers in many places, one issue, legal restrictions on the possession of firearms, has taken a particularly prominent place in the rhetorical debate. The rule will ensure the opportunity to vote up or down on a number of firearms restrictions and safety measures, including mandatory trigger locks, banning youth possession of so-called assault weapons, and background checks at gun shows. When the House works its will on guns, whatever that might be, the outcome will be included in the final version of the juvenile justice legislation. That is both fair and clear. Of course, serious people agree that this problem goes beyond guns, and this rule will permit the House to deal with a range of measures dealing with prevention, law enforcement, and popular culture. While we must search for answers in the wake of Columbine and Conyers and other tragedies, we cannot lose faith in America's families. Our children are not reflected in the twisted rage of Columbine's killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but rather in the diverse, energetic, and religious lives of victims such as Cassie Bernall, whose faith in God was stronger than the fear of death. Again, the statisticians give us good news. Young people are more religious and do more volunteer work than earlier generations. Just a few weeks ago, I was honored to present local Youth Volunteer Awards to high school students in southern California who spend time volunteering in hospitals, police departments, at homeless shelters, and a wide range of other community projects. They are the types of kids we find if we walk through any school library or flip through the pages of any high school yearbook. As we move forward on these bills, let us not forget that young people, their parents, and all Americans expect to find appropriate, firm, and targeted measures that address youth violence and child safety. The most troubling questions we face, Mr. Speaker, arise from the reality that our society was able to give rise to such different kids, and that we do not really know why. However, I am confident that this rule will give us a fair and orderly process to begin to answer those questions and to help make our children safer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. We are dealing with what is obviously a very, very troubling and complex issue. It is clear to me that there are problems that exist in our society. They are at the edges. Basically, our society is good. We have young people who are out there who are volunteering, who work hard, who study hard, and I think are going to lead this country into the 21st century. I am very proud of what it is that they have done. But, we also do have some problems, as I said, at the edges. It is not easy for us to tackle those questions, but I believe that the rule that we are about to vote on is going to provide us with the opportunity to address virtually every concern that is there. There were 178 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, and we have made in order 55 of those amendments. My good friend from south Boston just talked about the issue of guns. And when we look at the gun bill that we will be considering, one-half of the amendments that we made in order have Democrats as sponsors of those amendments. So the Democrats are clearly going to have their opportunity to be heard. I listened to what quite frankly was at a very, very high volume, a lot of stuff come from the other side of the aisle over the past hour, and it came from people who have amendments made in order, and yet they talked about how outrageous this rule is. We are going to have a clear and focused debate to try and help the greatest deliberative body known to man do our part in dealing with this societal challenge that we face as a Nation. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is very fair; it is very balanced, and then let us move ahead with what will be 2 full days, not a closed-down debate, 2 full days of debate. Hours and hours and hours we will be considering these questions, and I hope my colleagues will allow us to move ahead with it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to respond to my very good friend from Martinez, California. There were 178 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration of this bill. We have made in order 55 amendments. We have considered basically every conceivable option that was out there, and we have broken this bill up. Why? So that we can have a full and fair debate. So we have not closed this rule down. This is a structured rule. It is put into place so that virtually every Member who had an idea will have a chance to have that heard, and I believe that it is a rule that is very worthy of our support.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), who is an author of one of the 55 amendments that have been made in order as we proceed with what will be clearly a very fair and open debate. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) the very distinguished chairman of Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Yorkville, Illinois (Mr. Hastert) the very distinguished and hard-working Speaker of the House. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to correct my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and say that we have not lost a single rule in the 106th Congress.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. So basically what we are doing is providing another opportunity, a greater degree of flexibility, so we can deal with this very pressing problem. Again, this came to our attention from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department. In my State, Pasadena, California, has been very involved in this. We have, I think, what is a creative, flexible solution, or at least a help for a very serious problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), with whom I am pleased to be joined as a cosponsor of this amendment.