David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me at the outset say that I am very pleased to be joined in offering this amendment with my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). This issue really centers around the question of local control. As we confront the issue of violent juvenile crime, it seems to me that it is very important for us to do everything we possibly can to empower local community-based agencies, particularly sheriffs and police, to fight gang crime. We all know how these horrible gangs that have been out there have been involving themselves in illegal commerce, primarily in the area of drug trafficking, and it goes across both State lines and national borders. This proposal first came to me from Lee Baca, who is the Chairman of Los Angeles County. They have spent a great deal of time looking for creative, locally-based solutions to what obviously is a very serious problem. I hope very much my colleagues will join in strong support of this effort. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to express my appreciation, not only to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for accepting the amendment, but to my chief colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). We were very pleased to make the gentleman's amendment in order as we proceeded with this rule. I appreciate the gentleman's kindness in accepting this very, very balanced amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and I are offering.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), Vice Chairman on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 209 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond and say that we believe that we are going to have a very clear and focused debate on a wide range of issues, and inclusion of this Conyers amendment will allow us to do that further, and that is the reason I propounded the unanimous consent request, in the hope that my friends would not object to our offering the Conyers amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her message.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), an able member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any other provisions of the pending resolution, the Conyers amendment that I have placed at the desk shall be deemed to have been included as the last amendment printed in part B of House Report 106-186, may be offered only by Representative Conyers of Michigan or his designee, and shall be debatable for 30 minutes.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to express my appreciation on behalf of the Committee on Rules to all the staff here, and to express my appreciation to the staff of the Committee on Rules for the long hours that they have put in. I would also like to say that in 9 hours we will be beginning a very interesting and rigorous debate on the issues that the reading clerk has just provided for us.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for what clearly is a very good bill. The substantial increases in funding will create new terminals, gates and other airport infrastructure. This, in turn, allows additional air carriers to serve more fliers and more airports which increases competition and efficiency at our nation's airports. What we have before us at this moment, Mr. Chairman, is a measure to make this a great bill, and it is, as it is currently written, H.R. 1000 does two things that I believe are fiscally unsound. First, the bill takes the Aviation Trust Fund off budget which reduces accountability; second, the mandate that $3.3 billion from the general fund be spent on aviation programs every year means less tax relief for American families. This amendment will keep the Aviation Trust Fund on budget and allow Congress to make responsible annual decisions about FAA spending. This debate is about the allocation and control of federal spending and about whether it makes sense to let the FAA run on automatic pilot. The bill spends $39 billion over the next 5 years, which is 14 billion above the baseline. By taking the Aviation Trust Fund off budget, Congress has no incentive to monitor how all that money will be spent. I want to make sure the FAA is brought into the 21st century so that Americans continue to have the safest aviation system in the world. This amendment will allow this to happen while boosting economic growth through responsible tax relief. In our budget resolution we promised the American people tax relief that would not undermine the Social Security Trust Fund. We voted to save Social Security, provide tax relief, restore our defense capabilities and expand educational opportunities. Without adoption of this amendment, it would put aviation programs above all those priorities. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, if it passes, the authorized funding levels in H.R. 1000 will not change. On an annual basis we will be able to provide the level of funds necessary to ensure airline safety while staying within the parameters of our budget resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my friends, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the distinguished chairman of the full committee for their fine work here, and I would like to say that the agreed-to settlement yesterday is, I believe, good news for Kosovo, good news for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and good news for the American people and for our forces who have fought with tremendous professionalism and valor in dealing with what is obviously a very, very tough situation. We all know that NATO's campaign had a specific goal. It was about bringing a political settlement that could be supported by both the Kosovar Albanians as well as the Serbs. At the same time, America's ultimate goal I believe must be a future which ensures that our troops will not be needed in Kosovo or, for that matter, anyplace else in the region. That is a very important goal that we need to pursue. I frankly am troubled if we look at the historic pattern that we have seen in Yugoslavia, in the entire region, which has required that presence, but I think that we need to do everything that we can to continue to pursue that ultimate goal. Now, having said those things, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important for us to realize that we need to proceed with an important and rigorous debate on exactly what U.S. national interests are around the world; and as we look at the challenge of having deployed troops in many parts of the world beyond the Balkans, we need to decide what it is that we want to pursue, what our priorities as a Nation are, and I hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to proceed with that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who, as I said at the close of last night's Committee on Rules hearing, that she did a superb job of managing this rule when it came up 2 weeks ago tomorrow, and she is doing an even better job today, as I am sure. So I thank her for her fine work. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I believe that we have been able to successfully work in a bipartisan way to address many of the concerns that are there. Contrary to the remarks that were just made by the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost), we did make 47 amendments in order; and that is an awful lot of amendments. There are a lot of Democratic amendments that have been made in order. We have got lots of amendments that are done in a bipartisan way here. We will have, I suspect, 20 hours of debate that will take place on this very important piece of legislation. So it is true that we were not able to satisfy every single concern out there, either on the Democratic side or on the Republican side. But I think that what we have got is a very, very reasonable balanced approach. It is an important piece of legislation, one of the most important issues that we can possibly address. We as Republicans have made a strong commitment that we are going to focus on the issues of improving public education, providing tax relief for working Americans, preserving Social Security and Medicare, and the very important issue of our national security. Frankly, this administration, as we all know, has deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries, obviously interested in security around the world, I guess; but when it has come to a strong commitment to make sure that our forces are equipped and ready to go, we have not seen the kind of support that is necessary. This measure which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will be managing will help us address that challenge. We also are dealing with a very important report that has come out on China and the transfer of technology. Again that is done in a bipartisan way. So I think that we have got a very good measure here, and I encourage both Democrats and Republicans alike to support what is a balanced rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of June 14 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1501, a bill addressing youth violence and children's safety. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in Room H-312 in the Capitol by noon this Friday, June 11. Amendments should be drafted to H.R. 1501 as introduced. Members should know that the Committee on Rules may consider amendments relating to the causes of and solutions to youth violence and certain firearms proposals. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is also planning to meet the week of June 14 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st century, the so-called Air 21 bill. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit, again, 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon this coming Monday, June 14, to the Committee on Rules, once again, upstairs in Room 312 here in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 27. The committee filed this report on H.R. 1000 on May 28. 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 their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1259.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise first to once again state what you just did so well, and that is that it is our intention to have the 40 minutes of debate that the Committee on Rules will be handling on this go ahead right now, and then we will have 40 minutes of debate that will be handled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) representing the Committee on the Budget, and then 40 minutes of debate handled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) representing the Committee on Ways and Means and then the ranking minority members on the opposite side, for our colleagues who would be requesting time on this. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sanibel, Florida, (Mr. Goss) is chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules and is going to be managing the time for the Committee on Rules here, but I would like to begin by stating that I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation that we are considering. There has consistently been a high level of frustration over the fact that the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have been raided for years for a wide range of well-intended programs, but unfortunately it has jeopardized the solvency of those programs, the Social Security and Medicare programs. So we today are making an attempt to put into place a procedure that will help us keep from moving into those funds at all; and I think it is the right thing to do. I believe it is the right thing to do because, as I said during the debate on the rule, the American people have been not voluntarily, they have been told that they have to pay into the trust funds through payroll tax withdrawal. The employee puts in one-half, the employer the other half, and yet we, since 1969, have seen these funds raided and used for other programs. That is wrong. The American people know that it is wrong, and we are trying to do our doggonedest to make sure that it does not happen. Our very good friend from California (Mr. Herger) has spent a great deal of time working among the three committees of jurisdiction, talking with us, getting cosponsors on his legislation, urging Members of the other body, other side of the aisle, at the White House to support this provision, and I think that he has come forward with what is a very balanced approach. As my colleagues know, there are people who are saying, oh, we are going to be delving into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. The fact of the matter is a point of order under this Herger bill can be raised, and when it is raised, what happens, Mr. Speaker? What basically happens is that we have to get 218 Members to cast votes to override that, waive that point of order, and so we are going to work very hard to ensure that we do not, in fact, see a raid on those very important trust funds; and it has been Republican leadership that has stepped up to the plate and acknowledged the responsibility of that under the able direction of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) here. So, Mr. Speaker, while I am going to be turning this over, as I said, to my good friend from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), at this point I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from the big ``D'' in Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), who has worked long and hard on this question, and I believe is on the right track in pursuing this. Let me state what is our intention as far as management. Based on the proposal that we had from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, I have, per usual, acquiesced to his request; and we will, in fact, have the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process join with me in managing the 40 minutes of debate for the Committee on Rules. Then we will shift, and under the very able management of the author of the legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), we will see the 40 minutes of the Committee on the Budget consumed. Then the Committee on Ways and Means, under the leadership of the Subcommittee on Social Security chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), will manage it from our side. I can only assume that the ranking members on the minority side will proceed with management in that way. So I just wanted my colleagues to know that, per usual, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) got his way. Let me say that that measure is, I believe, a very, very important one. If we were to go back to 1937, at the very beginning of Social Security, one has got to look at what its intent was. It was to provide survivors benefits and to supplement retirement. It was never intended to be a sole source of survival for retirement, but it was to provide a supplement. We have seen the Social Security system grow to some two programs at its high point; and we have, fortunately, made some modifications of it. But the tragedy was that in 1969, and even earlier, we saw this step made towards getting into the Social Security fund for a wide range of other very well-intentioned programs. That was wrong. It was wrong because American workers are not given any kind of option as to whether or not they pay into Social Security. They are told, very simply, that they have to pay half of that FICA tax and their employer has to pay the other half. Again, it is not an option. I remember my first job when I was a teenager, and I looked at the amount of money that was being taken out in that FICA tax and I was appalled. And today I continue to be appalled at the high rate of taxation that we have. But then when one looks at the fact that those dollars that were intended to be put aside to provide assistance to supplement retirement, that they all of a sudden were expended for a wide range of other things, it was wrong. It was wrong. That is why many of us, being led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) on this issue stepped up and said, when people are forced to pay into the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare, they should in fact be able to count on those dollars going there. That is exactly what we are trying to do here. We are trying to say to the American people, the Federal Government tells them that they are going to put their dollars there, and so the Federal Government is going to meet its responsibility to ensure that they have those resources when they are counting on them at their retirement. And so what we are doing is, we are saying that a point of order can be raised if an attempt to raid that fund is taking place. Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my friend and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, earlier started talking about some back room deal that he said we are going to be getting into. That is not going to happen. Why? Because under the Herger proposal that we have, a point of order must be raised and it takes 218 votes. Every Member of this House will have the opportunity to make a determination as to whether or not we proceed or not. Now, without getting terribly partisan, and I know we have had finger-pointing, the last speaker talked about the fact that big defense contractors who support the Republican Party were responsible for that $15 billion bill. Well, the fact of the matter is, the President has only deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world. It seems to me that maybe we should try to pay for that and prepare for challenges that we have got. So that was not what motivated us on this thing. It was an absolute emergency that needed to be addressed. But to blur that with the issue of trying to preserve Social Security and Medicare is wrong. So we are taking what is a very measured, balanced step to do our doggonedest to make sure that the American people who put dollars aside for retirement will in fact be able to count on them. So I congratulate again my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the manager of this measure for yielding me this time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I will tell my friend that I am a huge dairy consumer. Ice cream is my favorite.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my very good friends for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friends for their very, very hard work and wish them well in their proceedings here.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and I think it is important for us to get back to the reason that we are here right now. We are going to be, once we pass this measure, discussing a $15 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which is absolutely necessary to offset the very significant costs of the Kosovo campaign, as well as to provide emergency aid to America's farmers, disaster victims here in the United States and Central America and to Balkan refugees. Now I would like to compliment the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and specifically our great Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who did a superb job facing much adversity, and I can say I was in on a number of these meetings over the past several weeks on this issue and it has been a challenging time but both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) have done an absolutely superb job. As my friend, the gentlewoman from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) just said, it is true our colleagues in the other body have clearly added many things to this measure which should not be there, but this conference report takes a very important first step towards reversing that very dangerous 10-year path that we have had of diminishing the capability of our Nation's defenses. With the ongoing missions that are taking place, both in Kosovo, Korea and Iraq, our forces are being asked to do much more with much less. The bill puts $2.65 billion directly into the pipeline for spare parts, readiness, depot maintenance and recruitment. Along with many others, many others in this House and around this country, I have had serious doubts as to the effectiveness of our air-only campaign. Whatever the arguments for U.S. involvement in Kosovo were, it is now a very clear national interest that both the United States of America and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance prevail in this conflict. The price of NATO and American failure is simply too great at this point. Therefore, I urge support of both this rule, which is the standard rule waiving points of order against the conference report, and we will have a full hour of debate led by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I think at the end of the day we should have a very strong bipartisan vote for this.