David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), my very good friend and a very able and hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just advise my colleagues that I am going to close on this myself, and I will do so informing the House that I intend to offer an amendment to the rule which will strike section 6 in the rule itself.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), a very able member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Surfside Beach, Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say to my friend that it does not prevent a Member from having an opportunity to offer a resolution. It simply moves under standard procedures without going through the expedited process.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Newport News, Virginia (Mr. Bateman), one of the great champions of our Nation's national security.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 151 provides for the consideration of four separate measures relating to the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in the Republic of Yugoslavia, each under a closed amendment process with 1 hour of debate. The first measure made in order by the rule is H.R. 1569 which prohibits the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the deployment of ground elements of the U.S. Armed Forces in Yugoslavia unless that deployment is authorized by law. Debate time on H.R. 1569 will be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The next two resolutions made in order by the rule were introduced by my friend from Campbell, California (Mr. Campbell) and reported unfavorably yesterday by the Committee on International Relations. Both resolutions, H. Con. Res. 82 and H.J. Res. 44, have a unique procedural status under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Without this rule, both Campbell resolutions will become the pending business of the House today as a result of having been reported by the Committee on International Relations. Motions to proceed to consideration of the resolutions would be privileged, and the resolutions would not be subject to general debate but would be subject to an open but clearly unfocused amendment process. As a result, this rule structures the consideration of these measures in accordance with the War Powers Resolution while providing for a full, fair and focused debate on the broader issues surrounding the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces in Yugoslavia. Debate time on both of these resolutions will be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The fourth resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we make in order with this rule is S.Con.Res. 21, authorizing the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. This resolution may only be called up by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) or his designee. Debate time on S.Con.Res. 21 will be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. Prior to consideration of these four measures, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate on measures relating to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, equally divided and controlled among the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Armed Services. Finally, the rule provides that provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the War Powers Resolution shall not apply during the remainder of the 106th Congress to a measure introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War Powers Resolution with respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Now, Mr. Speaker, when Americans are engaged in armed conflict, the House of Representatives is invariably faced with important and very difficult questions. That is the responsibility handed to us by our Nation's forefathers when they crafted democracy's most enduring and enlightened document, our Constitution. Today is such a day. President Clinton has directed our Armed Forces to join our NATO allies in a battle against the forces of Yugoslavian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. It is a fight to preserve civilized society in a corner of Europe that has been wracked by atrocities, violence and Civil War on a scale unseen in Europe since the Second World War. The United States is not the world's policeman. The American people know too well that we cannot intervene in every civil war. We cannot stop every act of brutality. We cannot keep the peace and protect democracy all on our own. But that is not what is going on today in the Balkans. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of the world's civilized and democratic nations, is engaged in military action in Yugoslavia. When the President, the Commander in Chief, made the decision a month ago that it was in our national interest to lead NATO in this effort, America became a full participant in that undertaking. Our pilots are risking their lives every single day. Whether or not in hindsight that was the right decision is a question for presidential historians. This really is not about whether we agreed with the President at the time either. Today the overriding question is: What policy best protects and advances our national interests? Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly and unequivocally establishes that the President is the Commander in Chief. The deployment and direction of the armed forces is his job. In fact, since my first day of service in this legislative body, it has been my view that the direction of our foreign policy and national security is the President's first and foremost responsibility. Everything else comes after that. Although I have had some doubts about the President's original policy in Kosovo, I believe that the facts on the ground have overtaken those concerns. Now we must win. We must achieve the goals that the President set out to achieve when he committed our forces to battle. The price of failure is simply too great. American prestige and power, two of the most positive forces of good in the world today, must not be abandoned on the field of battle. Mr. Speaker, vacillation and hesitancy in the face of this challenge to the leadership of the United States and NATO, a challenge undertaken by a gang of thugs in Belgrade and their brutal underlings in Kosovo will severely undermine our Nation's ability to stand up and defend clear American interests across the globe. If that happens, we lose. The American people lose. Freedom loses. Mr. Speaker, as the House undertakes this important debate, I will focus on doing what is best for our national interests and for the American service men and women doing their jobs with bravery and commitment. First and foremost I believe that means opposing micromanagement of our foreign and military policy. We know we cannot engage in combat by committee. One of the most serious objections to the conduct of the Kosovo campaign thus far has been the fact that too many people, in particular too many political leaders, have been involved in this effort. I do not support adding to that problem. The President is constitutionally charged with leading and winning this campaign. He must do it, and we must stand behind him so that he can. I urge support of this rule which provides for, as I said, a full, fair and very focused debate on the broader issues surrounding the introduction of U.S. armed forces in Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded will be 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 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that we will begin at 10 a.m. tomorrow with what should be a full day of debate on these resolutions and look forward to seeing the House work its will in a very fair and balanced way.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is to notify Members of the House that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of April 26 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, to the Committee on Rules room, which is H-312 right here in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, 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 move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. I would like to congratulate first the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), my friend who has worked long and hard on this; his fellow surfer, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who I know is going to be here to back him up; and the very important chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who has worked long and hard on this issue, too. It is very important that we move ahead in a bipartisan way. I would also like to congratulate the brilliant statement from my good friend from south Boston who has not quite as many beaches as California or Florida, but they are beautiful beaches in Massachusetts, I will agree. Today is Earth Day and it is a very important time to mark what is obviously an important environmental accomplishment for us here. We all know how enjoyable it is for people to spend time with their families at the beaches, and as we head into the summer months obviously we are going to see an increase in that. Every year, in fact, over 180 million Americans spend time on our coastal waters and that is the case, as I have said, in both California and in many other States. However, it is important to note that clean coastal waters are not just about fun. They really are about business, because there are 30 million jobs and roughly $50 billion in investments that take place and are supported by recreation along our Nation's shores. This bill itself is a very strong, prohealth, proenvironment measure. It shows that environmental issues are best handled using common sense and consensus building; and the bill's sponsors and, of course, as I said, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, deserve a great deal of credit for moving us in the direction of a common-sense approach to a very, very important environmental issue. So I would simply like to congratulate my friend from New York who is doing a superb job of managing this rule, and the authors of this legislation, as I said, and the Surfers Caucus, which is a very important, very, very important group in this body, and again the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work. I look forward to seeing strong bipartisan support for this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 142 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 142 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999. The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the Federal government's earthquake research and hazard mitigation programs. The rule provides for the customary 1 hour general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report against consideration of the bill because the report could not be filed in the House until 2 days ago. The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which will be open to amendment by section. The rule further encourages priority recognition of Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and allows the Chair to postpone votes. Mr. Speaker, in my State of California and in too many other regions of the United States, earthquakes are a fact of life. They are something we accept and work through. Thankfully, most are not devastating occurrences. We clean up, rather than rebuild. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the average annual cost from earthquakes in the United States is about $4.4 billion. Of course, the toll imposed by a major earthquake can be much greater. In California, we have suffered two major quakes in the past decade. In 1999, the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area cost $6 billion, and then in 1994 in Los Angeles what was known as the Northridge earthquake, which I felt and was horrible, cost $40 billion. Of course, major earthquakes cost a lot more than dollars and cents. In both cases, both of those earthquakes in California in the last decade, the Loma Prieta and the Northridge quakes, people were killed and lives were very, very disrupted. An earthquake can wreak havoc on a community. During the 1987 earthquake in Whittier, an area that I used to represent, I saw firsthand how unreinforced buildings can fail. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the attention of my California colleagues who are in the back, and I know this is of great importance to them. During that 1987 earthquake in Whittier, I saw how unreinforced buildings can fail. I saw how faults can act in a random manner and cause complete devastation to one block while leaving untouched another block that is right nearby. Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scout motto is ``Be Prepared.'' This legislation is crafted in that spirit. H.R. 1184 authorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System, and the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. These programs will modernize the existing seismic network, which is both outdated and disjointed, and interconnect earthquake engineering research facilities. We all know that we cannot stop earthquakes from happening. However, we can plan for them and improve our readiness. We can improve our detection and warning systems and build roads and buildings to better serve so that we can survive them. In short, we can be better prepared. This bipartisan legislation clearly moves us in that direction. I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on Science, the members of his committee for their efforts. The payoff will be in lives saved, homes and businesses protected, and communities preserved. We cannot afford to do anything less for the people of California or the 39 other States that are inclined towards earthquakes. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I urge support for both the rule and the bill itself. 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 do not have any requests for time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I mentioned the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, and I am very pleased that this will be very ably handled on the minority side by my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), who has been intimately involved in these issues and has probably suffered through a number of earthquakes himself. I look forward to seeing bipartisan movement on this very important measure, and I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) who has done a great deal of work on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep admiration for Ms. Rosa Parks that I support H.R. 573, authorizing the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to her. As most Americans know, on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give-up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. It is hard to imagine that up until the 1960s, Americans in the south lived in legal segregation. It took the strength and courage of one seamstress who had a particularly rough day to bring the injuries and injustices that a whole race had felt for decades to the forefront of our national discourse. Her whole-hearted contribution to the civil rights movement and to the doctrine of nonviolent protest was an inspiration to those who had lost hope during such a dark and tense time in American history. By not yielding her seat on that bus, Ms. Parks ignited a fever for change that was not quenched until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That fever started with the Montgomery Improvement Association beginning a bus boycott that grew larger and spread to cities across the country. The nation soon became aware of the social injustices that were being placed on its own citizens. Great civil rights leaders took up Rosa Parks' torch and began fighting for legislation that would repel laws calling for discrimination and unequal treatment. Rosa Parks' dedication to equality and individual rights strikes at the heart of America's founding principles. It was through her steadfast will and enduring faith in the human spirit that a nation torn by racism and hate was able to see the folly of its misguided actions. Her quiet courage taught us all how to follow our hearts and stand-up for the freedom all Americans deserve. To this day, Ms. Parks embodies freedom and is a living example of individual power. Her actions ultimately culminated in the greatest civil rights movement of the century. After years of social strife and protest, America recognized the need to ensure all citizens equal treatment under the law. At the end of the long, loud struggle that Ms. Parks quietly began, all Americans could legally enjoy the rights that our great Constitution entitles all of us to. For those reasons alone she is a monumental figure and worthy of our deepest praise and thanks.