David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 170) amending House Resolution 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, as amended, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of May 17 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. The rule may, at the request of the Committee on Resources, include a provision requiring amendments to be preprinted in the amendment section of the Congressional Record. Amendments to be preprinted should be signed by the Member and submitted to the Speaker's table. Amendments should be drafted in the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources. 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 make sure their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Reynolds), my friend and very able member of the Committee on Rules who is going to tout the arguments of the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 166 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. We have gone through, over the past several years, securities litigation reform which was very, very critical, but I happen to believe that dealing with this Y2K issue is something that not a lot of people are focused on but quite frankly needs to be addressed, because the ramifications are overwhelming. We have our colleagues here in the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who are working on the governmental involvement with Y2K. This is a measure that we are going to be addressing here today that impacts the private sector primarily, but obviously it has an impact that will be very, very far-reaching. Now, as we have listened to this debate, some are trying to argue that this is special interest legislation, special interest legislation which is designed to simply help those who created some sort of problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have to recognize that this legislation is being supported by those who will be both plaintiff, potentially plaintiff, and defendant. If we look at the organizations that have come out in support of this measure, they are not organizations that are simply in the business of trying to find a solution. They are the organizations which are potentially impacted by it, groups like the National Federation of Independent Business; the Chamber of Commerce; the National Association of Manufacturers; one of the largest organizations, which we all want to address, the League of Cities, they potentially could be imposing lawsuits on this thing. We have the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, and actually we have over here the list. My eyes glazed over when I started to look at it, because we have energy companies all over this Nation, we have organizations that are supportive of this measure. So if there is, in fact, a special interest it is the interest that is opposed to this measure. My brother-in-law is a trial lawyer in Chicago, Illinois. I will say that we often have interesting family discussions because while I have been supportive, and I want to make sure that everyone has a right to their day in court and there is nothing in this legislation that denies their day in court, but the colleagues of my brother-in-law from around the country are unfortunately in the process of developing what is really a cottage industry, a cottage industry getting ready to strike. Our goal here is very simple. We want to mitigate rather than litigate. We want to take care of this problem before it takes place. There is so much common sense to that. This is a one-time effort. We are not changing this in perpetuity. It is a one-time effort so that we can deal with this Y2K problem, so that the everyday lives of people can continue; so that they can make telephone calls, they can make sure that the flow of their electricity continues. We want to do it as early as possible, and that is why this is a bipartisan measure. I know some people have tried to describe it as partisan. Upstairs in the press gallery, my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) joined me on the Republican side, and on the Democrat side we have the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my fellow Californian, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), three Republicans and three Democrats moving ahead with this. We have had consistent opposition from the administration until we received the news this morning that they are willing to work with us on it. So it is a very important measure. I am proud of the rule. As I said, we have made in order amendments from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, and he is joined by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and my fellow Californian, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). We have also been able to make in order amendments that were proposed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and by our friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). So of the 7 amendments we made in order of the 17 that were filed, 5 of them have been offered by Democrats. This stresses the fact that we want to have a full debate, allowing for consideration of amendments from both sides of the aisle, but when it gets to the end I hope that we will pass very positive legislation which will ensure that we can keep the lives of the American people going on track just as smoothly as possible. I urge support of the 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas wishes it were an open rule but thanks me for my generosity. I will take that one. Let me say that we have just gotten a news flash, and that is the fact that the Fairfax Journal has now joined the Los Angeles Times in editorializing in strong support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Fairfax, Virginia (Mr. Davis), my friend and the prime sponsor of the measure who has been our leader on this and done a terrific job.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my terrific colleague, the gentleman from South Boston (Mr. Moakley) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded will be for debate purposes only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, under a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the Committee on Rules report. The rule also makes in order only those amendments printed in part 2 of that report. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in 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, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This is a fair rule that provides for full and meaningful debate on all of the key issues relating to this very important legislation. There were 17 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of them, seven were made in order. Five of those seven amendments were authored by Democrats, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which as I recall was the first request made of me by the distinguished ranking member the gentleman from Massachusetts. It is the substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat on the full committee, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), two other very able members of the committee. Then I see my friend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) here. We were very pleased that we were able to make an amendment of hers in order. We have made amendments in order from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is an original cosponsor of the legislation, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) as well. I believe that this rule is worthy of strong bipartisan support just as the bill itself is. Mr. Speaker, uncertainty is the first word in any serious discussion of the year 2000, Y2K computer problem. The reality is no one, no one is certain what will happen in our digitally interconnected world if some computers and electronic machinery fail to deal with the year 2000 issue. Now, I pride myself on not being an alarmist, and I hope very much that we will not suffer any problems at all. But that does not mean that we can sit back and ignore this issue. As we move forward, we need to realize that the Y2K problem is not a partisan issue at all. In fact, I underscore, this is a very, very bipartisan issue. We all share the same priority. I am in fact with the people, I will say. We want to solve potential problems that affect all the people before they occur. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that Americans can deal worry-free with such mundane tasks as making telephone calls or getting a car repaired or having a package delivered on time. I am very confident that we can all agree on that overall goal, to make sure that those things are able to work out. There is absolutely no question that in today's digital economy, many private sector business operations involve multiple companies and numerous hardware and software systems. Therefore, being sure that systems will operate in the year 2000 demands teamwork. Companies need to work together in a positive way. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American private sector, the most energetic, creative and powerful force for positive change in the world, is up to the challenge of tackling these problems. In particular, our computer and software companies are the world's best and brightest. We should get this done, but we cannot have hurdles thrown up along the way. The reality today is that unbridled Y2K litigation is jeopardizing coordination and teamwork. This adversarial mentality hampers private sector efforts to solve Y2K problems. Adding another whole layer of uncertainty, and there is that word again, uncertainty, to Y2K planning is the wrong thing to do. It is discouraging cooperation at the very time that we desperately need as much teamwork as possible. While we need to do everything we can to solve Y2K problems before they happen, we also need to head off the temptation to scapegoat our vibrant high tech industries in the event of some failures. This technology problem was set in place decades ago, many years ago. It is absolutely appropriate to expect high tech companies to marshal their abilities to solve Y2K problems, but we all lose if they are bankrupted by lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act will replace the adversarial blame game with the kind of private sector cooperation needed to get Y2K problems solved. It is critical for everyone to understand just how broad the coalition supporting this legislation is. It goes far beyond high tech companies that produce computers and software. Instead, it includes a myriad of industries, big businesses, small businesses. They are the ones who use those products and see themselves as potential plaintiffs as well as potential defendants. Let me repeat. Most of them see themselves both as potential plaintiffs and potential defendants. That is why this legislation does not eliminate anyone's right to their day in court. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, there is a basic difference of opinion dividing people on this bill. Some people claim that the fear of lawsuits is a good thing, that this threat drives companies to solve their Y2K problems. I totally disagree with that. I believe that line of reasoning represents a fundamental misunderstanding of our great private sector economy. It misses the point behind why our economy is the strongest in the world. Our system works because private sector businesses, entrepreneurs, want to succeed. They want to provide goods and services that consumers want. That same incentive is working to solve the Y2K problem. Remarkably, American businesspeople want to be in business in the year 2000. There is no greater incentive for business to find Y2K solutions than next year's bottom line. Legal uncertainty is a hurdle standing in the way of teamwork and problem solving. This bill lowers that hurdle. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule in a bipartisan way, and I urge them to support the bill. We look forward anxiously to a full and very vigorous debate on some of the changes that my colleagues are offering. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that we have just begun the battle of the Times. The New York Times, which is in a great part of the country, very nice part of the country, it is a State that is well represented by my colleague from upstate, has come out with an editorial which is criticizing this bill. I am very proud that this morning's Los Angeles Times, which is actually the place where most of the work is going to be done that will solve the Y2K problem for the American people, has editorialized strongly in support. So when it comes to picking the New York Times versus the Los Angeles Times it is a no-brainer for me. This L.A. Times editorial says it believes that protections against frivolous lawsuits are vital to dissemination of the honest information about Y2K readiness that the Nation needs. It goes on, in particular, the Congress must set limits on damages, encourage or mandate mediation as an alternative, and set grace periods giving companies time to fix Y2K problems, and there must be penalties in place for those who institute spurious lawsuits. All of these provisions are intact in the Y2K Readiness Act that we are going to be considering today. So, Mr. Speaker, comes between those two newspapers, it is an easy call for me. Mr. Speaker, I insert the LA Times editorial for the Record: [From the Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1999] The Bug's Legal Bite What figures to be the most costly aspect of the so-called year 2000 bug? Well, it could be an onslaught of Y2K-related lawsuits, many of which might use the Y2K hook to seek damages for frivolous or unrelated problems. That, should it come, could well surpass the costs of real Y2K problems. Clearly, temporary liability protections should be in place. The computer glitch involves short-sighted programming in which two digits were used to denote a year. What will happen when the 99 that designates the current year rolls over to 00? If computers think it's 1900, not 2000, serious problems could arise, and many of them would surely find their way into the courts. Congress is awash in bills intended to protect businesses against Y2K-related lawsuits. This is serious stuff. A rash of suits by aggrieved customers and suppliers could damage the economy. The bills in Congress set forth a number of protections, from caps on punitive damage awards and required mediation to grace periods to allow defendants the time to fix the problem--anything from disrupted supply to computer crashes. The California Legislature too is looking for legal solutions. Unfortunately, the strongest congressional bills, which were by no means perfect to begin with, have been greatly watered down or will be. Generally, the legislation is opposed by public-interest groups and trial lawyers and others who fear it as a back-alley path to permanent limitations on the right to sue. They worry that legitimate lawsuits could be crippled. The Times believes that protections against frivolous lawsuits are vital to dissemination of the honest information about Y2K readiness that the nation needs. President Clinton and Congress pushed through legislation designed to encourage large businesses to own up to their Y2K problems, but its success has been mixed at best. As of February, the Securities and Exchange Commission reported, companies had filed only limited information on their Y2K readiness. Every business relies on others. True Y2K readiness extends to a company's suppliers and vendors. Currently, when businesses ask associated companies whether they are prepared for the year 2000 glitch, they are too often greeted with foot-shuffling silence. For obvious reasons, many companies are unwilling to talk. If a supplier is inclined to acknowledge that it is not or might not be ready, it is deterred because its vendors surely will look for another source. If a supplier claims it is Y2K- ready and it turns out that it wasn't, the supplier figures it will be sued. Unless strong protections against frivolous lawsuits are in place, this stalemate will continue and companies will lack the confidence they need to work with those that are not fully prepared. The Congress must set limits on damages, encourage or mandate mediation as an alternative and set grace periods giving companies time to fix Y2K problems. And there must be penalties in place for those who institute spurious lawsuits. The Congress has enough options before it to fashion comprehensive and fair legislation. These bills should not represent a long-term abrogation of legal rights. Y2K liability protection is a necessary short- term fix for a once-in-a-modern-civilization problem, and new laws must have a strict time limit. Proper legislation can and should prevent billions of dollars in unnecessary lawsuits.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the measure and strong support of the bill. But before I speak about it, I would like to especially compliment the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who has been doing a superb job on this measure. I would also like to say that it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who successfully brought the Fairfax Journal editorial endorsement of our position in this morning. Let me say that, this morning, as I closed the debate on the rule, I talked about the fact that both plaintiffs and defendants are very supportive of the overall measure. I think it is important to underscore that there are a wide range of high-tech organizations out there, associations, which are opposed to the Conyers substitute and supportive of our underlying bill. They include the American Electronics Association, the Business Software Alliance, Computing Technology Industry Association, the Information Technology Association of America, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Semiconductor Industry Association, and the Software and Information Industry Association. Also, the coalition supporting our bill is basically well beyond high-tech companies. The single largest small business organization in this country is the National Federation of Independent Business. They have hundreds of thousands of members, I know, all over the country. In fact, I was an NFIB member before coming to this institution. I will say that they are strongly supporting our measure and opposing this substitute. We have also big businesses involved supporting this thing. So it really is a collection of entrepreneurs, small and large, who are supportive of the underlying bill and opposed to this substitute which is being proposed. This legislation does not eliminate anyone's right to sue. It is very important that their day in court is maintained. Instead, the common- sense legislation prevents the threat from litigation from stifling good-faith efforts to address potential Y2K problems before they happen. I reluctantly oppose the substitute. I have enjoyed working with my good friends on the other side of the aisle and will continue in the months and years to come to do that. But I believe that the underlying bill is the best approach for us to take.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of the speeches from my very distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I have yet to hear anyone talk about this issue of tax freedom day. I was stunned when I first saw the chart the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella) used during his speech, which sees this continued increase in the time during which people have to work for the government before they can keep even a nickel for themselves. We in this Congress stand firmly for empowering individuals and making sure that they can make choices for themselves. How better can we do that than by allowing them to keep more of their own hard-earned dollars? I have introduced legislation calling for a reduction in the top rate on capital gains. We are considering a complete overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code, whether we go towards a flat rate tax or a consumption tax. We want to make sure that rather than May 11, that people much, much earlier will be able to begin saving some of their own dollars rather than having to work to keep this Federal Government going. So we stand, on this side, firmly for reducing that tax burden on working families. Unfortunately, my friends want to talk about all kinds of other stuff.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken out this time to make some comments about the horrendous tragedy which shook this entire Nation when we saw two deranged young men go into the Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and rampantly murder classmates, schoolmates of theirs. All of us have done a great deal of thinking about this over the past few weeks. We know that the White House held a conference just yesterday, a youth violence summit, during which many thoughts and recommendations were provided. But I think it is very important that as we look at this situation, the problem of violence in our schools, that we keep this in perspective. First, our thoughts and prayers continue to go to the families and friends of those who were victims and, of course, to the many young people who have heard of this around the country who have gotten very, very rattled and frightened because of the prospect of this happening again. But, again, I believe it is important for us to keep this situation in perspective. In fact, I am one who believes that the victims in this case are more representative of the young people of America today than these two deranged individuals. There are many people who believe that American culture has gone bad. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that American culture has gone bad. It actually has gotten broadened. We have a broadened culture today. A quarter of a century ago, this country had four television networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Public Broadcasting System. We could choose books from our local library or the corner book store, and that was about it. And we all know what it is that we have today: Two hundred channels on television. We have a million websites out there. And we can go to ``Amazon.com'' and choose from 4.7 million CDs or books. And so, as we approach the year 2000, we do not have a violent culture. What we have is a create-your-own culture. And it is mostly a very, very good create-your-own culture. But, obviously, with that broadened culture, at the extreme edges, it can be downright horrible. So before condemning America, first we should consider that, as I mentioned, that the child victims in Columbine are a lot more reflective of American culture, of American youth, than their child killers. They were terrific kids. Based on all the reports that we have gotten, they were creative, energetic, religious, and very involved in their community. Those are the kids we find in high school libraries across the country today. We also know, based on the figures we have seen, that American kids today are more religious, they volunteer more. And I am very proud that, in just a few weeks, I am going to be presenting for about the 15th year Youth Volunteer Awards in Southern California to scores of young people in the San Gabriel Valley in California who have stepped up and volunteered in law enforcement and libraries and hospitals and a wide range of areas where community needs exist. We find that there are today fewer out-of-wedlock births, and students are less violent today than they were a decade ago. So I think that another tragedy of Columbine is that two mentally deranged individuals can cause us to question and look past all of the extraordinarily positive work of American parents and the positive work that has taken place in our communities. It is impossible to explain or in any way justify insanity, and that is exactly what we have witnessed here. More than anything, Mr. Speaker, we need to do a better job of identifying and helping young people who are deeply troubled. With this make-your-own culture to which I referred that is so broad, a hateful, sick person can in fact create an entire world of hate and evil for themselves. It is obvious that the answer is not for us to go back to four television networks, 10,000 books, and PAC Man. But the answer is for us to more successfully intervene in the lives of troubled youth who are spiraling into a world of violence. It seems to me that we need to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are solutions, not necessarily Federal governmental solutions, but we want to do what we can here. But there are solutions. Last week I met with the sheriff of Los Angeles County who is proposing that we move ahead and do everything possible to have boot camps for those kids who are taking guns into schools. And we need to prosecute those young people who take guns into schools. So those are just a couple of the steps. And I hope very much that we can recognize the positive things that are taking place there, as I know many of my colleagues will be presenting Youth Volunteer Awards throughout their districts in the coming weeks.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is an open rule, and I believe it is the right thing for us to do. I congratulate my friend from Charlotte, North Carolina, for the very able job that she has done under somewhat difficult circumstances. Mr. Speaker, military policy by committee does not work. The Constitution gives the President the clear authority to lead in situations like today in the Balkans. It is now his responsibility to ensure that our national interests are protected. Many Americans, including Members of this body, have serious doubts about the President's overall policy in the Balkans, whether vital national interests were on the line at all in Kosovo. Others are deeply concerned with the military strategy to date, namely, whether the current air campaign can prevail. Mr. Speaker, the price of failure in Kosovo is simply too great at this point. American prestige and power, two of the most positive forces for good in the world today, cannot be abandoned on the field of battle. Developing and implementing a strategy that wins is the President's first responsibility to the American people. Congress must ensure that the resources are available to carry out that strategy, as well as to ensure that our national security infrastructure around the globe is able to protect our national interests. This bill will, in fact, make sure that that is the case. Now, as has been said, Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, an open rule. I do not understand how any Member of this body could conceivably vote against an open rule. What we have done is we have provided the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the opportunity to offer his amendment. It has not been changed. It is the amendment that he submitted to us, and we have made that in order. We also are addressing a concern that was raised about offsets, and so we have made in order the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We also are very concerned about immediately addressing the needs of our agriculture interests across this country, and so we have made in order the amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) which will effectively deal with that. Now, there are many people who also want us to deal with questions of policy on the Balkans. This open amendment process ensures that that will, in fact, happen. Under the open amendment process, we will be able to consider the Rohrabacher amendment, the Souder amendment. Other questions will come up as to exactly what our role should be and what level of funding should be there for it. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong vote in support of this rule. It has been carefully crafted. It should enjoy bipartisan support.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock this afternoon a Dear Colleague letter was sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of May 10 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act. The Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 775 reported on Tuesday, May 4, and is expected to file its committee report on Friday, May 7. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules up in H- 312 of the Capitol by 3 p.m. on Monday, May 10; and let me repeat that, by Monday, 3 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the amendment in the nature of a substitute ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Copies of this amendment may be obtained from the Committee on the Judiciary. It is also expected to be posted on their web site. Members should also 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 that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate him on the fine job that he has done in working out this rule, which, as he said and as others have said, is a very fair and balanced rule dealing with the minority's concerns. I look at my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) here, and I was pleased we were able to make one of his amendments in order. It is among the seven Democratic amendments, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and it is basically a 7-to-3 ratio. And then there is a bipartisan amendment that will be offered by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and two additional Democratic amendments submitted were accommodated in the manager's amendment. So that stresses the fairness of it. What we tried to do, and I believe have done successfully in crafting this rule, is we have not made in order amendments that are singling out one or two industries or interest groups simply to score political points. Basically, the bill provides comprehensive bankruptcy reform, and allows individuals and businesses very broad protection to reorganize so that their creditors are protected. Enactment of the bill will greatly reduce abuses of the bankruptcy system. By providing predictable standards to be used in bankruptcy proceedings, it will be reducing frivolous litigation in which debtors gamble on the uncertainty in the current system. This will dramatically reduce the cost of credit for all Americans. It is a very good rule, fair to everyone concerned, and I believe the measure itself is worthy of a very strong bipartisan vote of support. I look forward to consideration of that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 1982, Zachary Baumel, an American citizen serving in the Israeli army, was captured along with four other members of his tank battalion in a battle with Palestinian and Syrian forces near the Lebanese town of Sultan Yaqub. While two of the captured soldiers were later released, Baumel and two other MIAs remain unaccounted for, despite evidence that they were probably captured alive. Like any parents living through the nightmare of a missing child, Zachary's parents, Yona and Miriam Baumel, have been unrelenting in the search for their son. The Baumels have met with officials around the world to follow up on leads provided by various individuals claiming to know of Zachary's whereabouts. Unfortunately, they have yet to reach any sort of closure. While I sincerely hope that their personal search reunites them with Zachary, I believe that the U.S. government should make every effort to determine Zachary's fate and help bring peace to the Baumel family. H.R. 1175, which would require the State Department to step up efforts in locating and securing the return of Zachary Baumel, as well as other Israeli soldiers missing in action, is a step in that direction. I have cosponsored this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on May 15, the California Institute of Technology will host an exhibit on the life and works of Linus Pauling, the only man to have received two unshared Nobel Prizes, one for science and the other for peace. The California Institute of Technology, nestled beneath the beautiful San Gabriel Mountains in Pasadena, California, is one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the world. Its contributions to our understanding of the universe around us, from space exploration to molecular biology, are unmatched among scientific institutions throughout the world. For years, Linus Pauling served on its faculty, earning a reputation that has immortalized his contributions to science as the Father of Modern Chemistry. The exhibit is jointly sponsored by Cal Tech, the Pauling family, Oregon State University, and the Soka Gokkai International. I would note that its President, Daisaku Ikeda, is one of the great Ambassadors for peace in the world today, and was a close personal friend of Professor Pauling. In fact, the exhibit was inspired and launched by Ikeda as a tribute to his friend and colleague in a manner befitting Pualing's life. It was this idea that led Ikeda to propose the exhibit that would inspire and educate young people for leadership in the 21st century. The exhibit is expected to attract young people from all over southern California. It will graphically demonstrate the intimate relationship between the search for knowledge of the universe and the pursuit of peace. It will also provide young people with a role model of a man whose life epitomized courage, wisdom and determination, values that will well serve today's youth as they prepare to become tomorrow's leaders. It is with great joy that I announce the opening of the exhibit and recognize those who are responsible for making it available to the public, especially the young people of my district and of southern California. This exhibit will run from May 16 to June 19 on the campus of Cal Tech in the Winnett Center, and will be open to the public on Wednesdays from 4pm to 9pm, on Saturday's from 10am to 6pm. Special group and school tours can be booked by calling (323) 938-8255. The exhibit is free to the public.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle for their management of it. I would like to especially congratulate my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for the role that he has played in helping to fashion a compromise here. I would like to also congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the others who have worked on this measure, and, of course, the many Californians who have played a role in getting to where we are. These projects are particularly important to western States, the 23 that have been authorized in this package that we are going to be considering. My State of California is very, very key, as I mentioned, because access to safe, usable water is obviously very, very critical to our State's survival. This bill addresses past environmental concerns that water resources projects have had unintended impacts on the environment. For example, the bill establishes a pilot program to explore the feasibility of natural flood control methods, and, in addition to that, the bill makes it easier for nonprofit organizations to participate in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental programs. The rule also ensures that no provisions in the bill will interfere with California State water rights, which are balanced with great care by State laws that we have today. In particular, members of my delegation with communities wrestling with major water issues will be given the time that they need to work on compromise language that will be fair to everyone and address the concerns that are there. So I urge strong support of the rule. I congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle for having fashioned this compromise, and look forward to passage of both the rule and the bill itself.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for accepting the fact that I am going to offer an amendment to strike section 6. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I do not intend to offer an amendment to do that. With this hour we have a total of 6 hours that have been included for the debate. We all know this is a very important, a very serious, a very grave issue, and I think 6 hours of debate is an appropriate amount of time for this. So it is my intention, following the concern that was raised by my friend from Dallas and many others, to offer an amendment to the rule which will strike section 6.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify again that that is not what section 6 said. What would happen, if section 6 were to have been included, it would have meant that it would have gone through the leadership structure and the only change that would have been made is we would not have proceeded with the expedited process. So it would have not have been a one-time-only thing.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I rise in strong support of this rule. I am going to move that we strike section 6, but before I do that, let me make a couple of comments about this rule and the procedure around which it was considered. For starters, we had a request that came from the minority that we extend by an hour the debate. We agreed to that. We are allowing the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), under this rule, to call up or not call up a freestanding bill, which I believe, if it is not unprecedented, it certainly is unusual. We have also agreed to the requests that have been made by Members on both sides of the aisle to address this section 6 question. I should say that the section 6 which was included in the bill was not an idea of Republicans. As has been pointed out by some, in 1993 when the resolution on Somalia was considered, it was a proposal that the majority, the Democratic majority at that time, offered. We were simply following along the line with that. But from discussions that have been held, we are going to move to strike section 6. Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know we are rapidly approaching a vote. I think we have very clearly explained it. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on both the amendment I just offered and the resolution itself. The previous question was ordered.