David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker I rise in strong support of this rule, and I would like to begin by complimenting the newest member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), who I think in a tough situation has done an extraordinarily good job in dealing with this in, as he pointed out when he recognized the gentleman from New Jersey, in a very bipartisan way. I am very encouraged by that. I also want to say that as we look at this issue, it is obvious to me that we have a number of experts; Mr. Weldon has done a wonderful job on this, I think about the U.S. Constitution. There are no more important words in the U.S. Constitution than the five words in the middle of the preamble: ``Provide for the common defense.'' In light of that, it seems to me that a 15-word bill, which is exactly what this is, is the right thing for us to do. One is either for it, or one is against it. That is really what it comes down to. So I think that we have had full consideration in committee. Both the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the ranking minority member talked about the debate that took place in the Committee on Armed Services, and my friend from Massachusetts is right. There should be the opportunity on this floor for the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to offer his amendment. And guess what? Back in 1994 when we won this majority, we very proudly made an important change in the Rules of the House. Now, he and I came together in 1980, and on numerous occasions, at least a couple of times a year, the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit was in fact denied to us when we were in the minority. When we made this rules change in 1994, we decided that it would be, in fact, a rule of the House that the minority would have an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. And guess what? The Allen amendment can be made in order under the motion to recommit that we have. Now, we have this hour of debate on the rule; we are going to have, in fact, 3 hours of debate.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the Committee on Rules' plans in regard to H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act. H.R. 472 was favorably reported by the Committee on Government Reform on Wednesday, March 17. The Committee on Rules may meet next Tuesday to grant a rule which may require that the 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 by the close of legislative business next Tuesday, March 23. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Government Reform, a copy of which may be obtained from the Subcommittee on the Census. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules to the House. It is not necessary to submit amendments to the Rules Committee or to testify as long as the amendments comply with House rules. A ``Dear Colleague'' letter announcing this potential amendment process was mailed to all Member offices today.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mapleton, Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from St. Clairsville, OH (Mr. Ney).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 114 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from South Boston, MA (Mr. Moakley) who obviously is on a roll here and is wearing a much greener tie than any of us, showing his great, great celebration of St. Patrick's Day. Pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 114 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 975, a bill to reduce the volume of steel imports and establishing a steel import notification and monitoring program. This rule was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule further provides 90 minutes of debate in the House equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. It is the understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the Committee on Rules that both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means intend to yield this debate time in a fair manner. This will ensure that Members on both sides of the aisle who are on different sides of this very important issue are provided the opportunity to have their voices heard. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has the strongest, most prosperous economy on the face of the earth. There are many reasons for that. We have the world's most skilled workers. We have entrepreneurial investors and inventors in unmatched numbers. We have the largest single market anywhere. And, we are riding on that great wave of the information revolution. Mr. Speaker, these are all keys to our prosperity and growth, but they are not enough. Right at the heart of our prosperity is the openness and dynamism of our economy. We accept the reality of change and adapt to it better than anyone else. Western Europe and Japan are big and rich with millions of skilled workers, but they suffer from slow growth and massive unemployment. Why? They are not as open and dynamic as we are. They fear inevitable change. And what happens? Their people lose because of that fear of change. Now, there is no question that an open, dynamic economy offers as many challenges as it does opportunities. International commerce is increasingly a fact of life in our economy. It means new markets and it means very stiff, tough competition. But no question, no question about it at all, Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation are succeeding. U.S. jobs have increased by 6 million in the years since the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade were passed. Trade now accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product and 25 percent of jobs in this country. We would not enjoy our job and wealth boom if we did not have open trade and competition. Given our leading role in the global economy, turmoil such as the financial crisis that swept through many developing countries in the past 18 months has a major impact right here at home. Today, we are going to consider legislation that specially selects the U.S. steel industry for special protection to assist them in dealing with the challenges posed by that foreign financial situation. It is clear to me that a majority of Members of this House want to have this debate. It is my hope that as we delve into this issue, the House rejects this special interest legislation. Mr. Speaker, let us take my State of California. Our State, I am very proud to say, is on the cutting edge of our Nation's 21st century economy. Almost half of every dollar in the largest State of the union of economic activity is connected to trade, a 50 percent greater share than the Nation as a whole. The neighboring ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles combine to be the second largest seaport in the world, second only to Singapore. More than 15 percent of southern California's small businesses export products and services to other countries, many to Asia. This is five times the national rate. Given our State's stake in exports to Asia and Latin America, California has been challenged more than most by this global economic turmoil. Shipments to Asia account for half of the State's merchandise exports. Asian problems represent a real threat to our State's economy. In California, millions of working families depend on producing computers, electronic components, industrial machinery, communications equipment, aircraft, semiconductors, textiles, apparel, automobiles, glassware, engineering and management services, and a whole range of agriculture interests that have been challenged by the impact of currency devaluations and financial turmoil. They are fighting to meet the challenge by becoming more efficient and diversifying their markets. The steel industry should do the same. The fact is 40 times more American workers are employed in U.S. industries that use steel than in the industries that actually make steel. When we use protectionism to shield one industry, 40 times more Americans are injured. Remarkably, today, U.S. steel production and demand are at record levels. Let me underscore that again. U.S. steel production and demand are at record levels. Revenue per ton of steel was stable in 1998, not declining. Yes, there were fewer steel jobs at the end of 1998 than at the beginning, but that is a reality of the industry as it modernizes. Since 1993, jobs have fallen by 9,000 per year while production of steel has actually increased. Mr. Speaker, protectionism is not the answer to the pain caused by economic turmoil overseas. Special interest protectionism will kill the goose that laid the golden egg that is our growing economy. The sponsors of H.R. 975 are asking us to start down a well-worn path to economic despair. Protectionism is fool's gold. Mr. Speaker, I advocate passage of this rule. We need to engage in a very serious debate to talk about this issue, and then I hope that this House will reject this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the debate has begun, and we have had Members on both sides of the aisle who wanted us to proceed with consideration of this legislation, and so we have done that. We start during this rule, and I am happy to say that in the rule we extended, as I said, by 50 percent the amount of time that would normally be called for, an hour of general debate, we have extended that to an hour and a half, and I think that this discussion will continue. So I am going to urge strong support of the rule. As those who have been following this debate know, Mr. Speaker, most of the discussion has been over the measure itself, and I have to say that seeing the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, come on to the House floor, it is nice to have him here, because it buoys me up in my very strong opposition to this ill-conceived measure. In fact, today the U.S. steel industry benefits from very vigorous U.S. enforcement of our trade remedies. One-third of the 300 antidumping and countervailing duty orders administered by the Commerce Department address steel products. In addition, we have seen a great reduction in the last 4 months of imports from those countries in question: Japan, Russia, and Brazil. We also have to recognize that overall we have seen this reduction in steel imports, and that decline is one which seems to be continuing, and the numbers are phenomenal. If we go from November of 1998 to January of 1999, they have dropped by 93 percent from Russia, 49 percent from Japan, 30 percent from Brazil, and 8 percent from Korea. Mr. Speaker, we also have to recognize that 1998 was a banner year for the U.S. steel industry. In fact, 102 million tons of U.S. steel were shipped. Guess what the demand was? It was for 141 million tons. There is a demand out there that is greater than what is actually being produced, and yet, in 1998, this country produced the second highest amount of steel that we have ever produced in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this country today is economically strong because of our openness and our dynamism. We should not let fear create the kinds of problems that it has throughout the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, we look at the fact that there are many skilled workers in Western Europe, and yet their economies are faced with very, very great difficulties. Why? Because of the fear, because of the protectionism that they have imposed, and they do not have the kind of openness and dynamism that we have as a Nation. Mr. Speaker, let us look at all of those downstream workers, 40 times as many as there are in the actual steel manufacturing industry in this country. The auto manufacturers, they also are in large part, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial yesterday, responsible for this. The 54-day strike that took place with General Motors obviously decreased that opportunity for production during last fall's strike. So it seems to me that we need to recognize that consumers would be devastated by going down this slippery slope. We have other industries, the oil and gas industry. As I said, in our State of California, our economy, because of the cuts in defense and aerospace over the past several years, hinges on our involvement in the international economy. Our State is the gateway to the Pacific Rim and Latin America. If we were to pass, move ahead with this legislation, it could be potentially devastating to the largest State in the Union, and I believe to this entire country. So let us stand with our Nation's openness, diversity and dynamism, which has, in fact, given us the strongest economic growth that we have seen in many, many years. With that, I urge support of the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Madison Village, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just adopted.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Robert Ozuna, a businessman, philanthropist, and friend, who truly lived the American dream. The son of Mexican-American parents, Mr. Ozuna was a self-made success story. He worked his way through school, and started New Bedford Panoramex, a firm that has become an important regional employer and leading supplier of advanced electronics equipment to the FAA and other agencies. Through his career Mr. Ozuna came to be respected by many as a leading entrepreneur, and a supporter of charitable causes through Southern California. Mr. Ozuna's passing on Saturday is a major loss to the community, and he will be missed. Robert Ozuna was born in Miami, Arizona, the oldest of four children, and he lost his father when he was only about ten years old. After his father's death, Mr. Ozuna's family moved to East Los Angeles, where he began working to help support his mother, brother, and two sisters. Through his years on the job he acquired important business experience, and he both supported himself and paid for his education in electrical engineering. In 1966 Mr. Ozuna founded New Bedford Panoramex. Under his leadership as CEO for the last 33 years, NBP has grown into a thriving electronics-manufacturing business, a leader in the development and manufacture of electronic communications systems and remote monitoring systems. For his work Mr. Ozuna earned the Air Traffic Control Association Chairman's Citation of Merit Award, and was twice honored with the Department of Transportation's Minority Business Enterprise Award. Over the years Mr. Ozuna ensured that his community benefitted from his success. He sponsored many philanthropic activities, and was a founding director in the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Youth Athletic Association. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ozuna will be missed. I want to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt condolences to his mother Amelia Ozuna, his sons Steve Ozuna and Jeff Dominelli, his daughters Nancy DeSilva and Lisa Jarrett, his sisters Lillian Gomez and Vera Venegas, his brother Tony Ozuna, and his eight grandchildren. Upland Entrepreneur Ozuna Dies at 69 (By Joan Kite) Upland.--Robert L. Ozuna, a Mexican-American entrepreneur who turned a garage-based electronics manufacturing business into one of the largest companies in Upland, selling instrument landing systems to the American government, died Saturday. He was 69. Mr. Ozuna, president and CEO of New Bedford Panoramex Corp., died of cancer at Queen of the Valley Hospital in West Covina, months after his wife died of leukemia, said Mr. Ozuna's daughter-in-law, Gina Ozuna. ``He was a real fighter. He was only given two months to live, but he lasted six months,'' Gina Ozuna said. ``He worked up until the day before he went into the hospital.'' That was two weeks ago. Mr. Ozuna was born to Mexican-American parents in Miami, Ariz. In 1940, his father died of cancer, and Mr. Ozuna assumed much of the responsibility for his brother and two sisters while his mother worked. Taking out a second mortgage on his Whittier home, Mr. Ozuna used that money to start his business in 1966. He built that business up and attended community college to learn about electronics engineering. The business took off. Mr. Ozuna's most important customer was the American government. He flew back and forth from Washington, D.C., hobnobbing with politicians. At the peak of the company's growth, Mr. Ozuna had about 500 employees working for him at 1037 W. Ninth St. Mr. Ozuna was married twice. His first wife, Yolanda, died of cancer when Mr. Ozuna's son, Steve, was 8. Gina Ozuna's husband, Steve, will now take over New Bedford Panoramex Corp. A humanitarian as well, Mr. Ozuna founded the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Youth Athletic Association, which promotes healthy living and smart choices for about 60,000 young people. Mr. Ozuna is survived by his mother, Amelia Ozuna; sons Steven Ozuna and Jeff Dominelli; daughters Nancy DeSilva and Lisa Jarrett; sisters Lillian Gomez and Vera Venegas; brother Tony Ozuna; and eight grandchildren. A memorial service will be noon Friday at St. Gregory's Church, 13935 E. Telegraph Road, Whittier. Interment will follow at Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Rowland heights. The family requests donations to Make a Wish Foundation, Rancho de Los Ninos Orphanage and City of Hope.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) who made a very eloquent statement earlier about this issue. This is a bipartisan goal that we have. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said, all 50 Governors want to have this kind of flexibility. We have Democrats and Republicans alike supporting this. We have the President saying that he wants to sign this measure. Yet, based on what we have witnessed over the last several days, our distinguished colleagues in the other body on the other side of the aisle have decided to totally politicize this and claim that we are not in fact doing the things that the American people want us to do. Unfortunately, we are seeing this same sort of issue come to the forefront here. This is a modified open rule. No matter what my colleagues try to call it, it is a modified open rule. It is modified so that we do not get to the point where we see complete politicization of a bipartisan issue. Now, every germane amendment is in order, and we have, in fact, had over 20 amendments that have been filed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is very ably going to deal with those amendments, and I think that this is clearly the right thing for us to do. As we look at the kinds of constraints that Washington has heretofore imposed on States, it is amazing that there are 14,000 Federal administrators in State agencies that are creating 50 million hours of work. The bipartisan goal here, again, is to try to provide at least a modicum of relief. All of us like the idea of increasing the number of teachers in schools. No one is opposed to that. And the funding for that has already been provided in the omnibus appropriations bill that was put into place and passed last year. But the authorization of that will be handled during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act consideration. And, again, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will deal with that. This is not the place to do it, and that is why we did not provide waivers to make a nongermane amendment in order. Now, some have also raised questions, I know, about the 5-hour cap on the time. The request of the committee was that we have a 3-hour outside time limit, and we expanded that to 5 hours. It seems to me that that is the right thing to do. My very good friend from South Boston, in conversations we have had, raised concerns about the snowstorm. I realize that that has created a challenge for more than a few Members on both sides of the aisle. But as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said in her opening statement, I announced last Thursday that we would quite possibly have a preprinting requirement in this measure. And we do have amazing technology today. It is known as the web. We communicate through e- mail. And a ``Dear Colleague'' letter went out informing Members of the fact that we were most likely going to be doing this. And so we had a litany of amendments that were filed, and every single germane amendment is, in fact, in order. So this does continue our pattern of very fair rules, and I believe it does give every Member the opportunity to participate in debate. I am proud of the rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the plan of the Committee on Rules with respect to House Concurrent Resolution 42 regarding peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, which was introduced in the House today. I have also informed the House today of the plans of the Committee on Rules by a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. The Committee on Rules is expected to meet on Wednesday, March 10, to grant a rule for House Concurrent Resolution 42 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. Amendments should be drafted to the resolution as introduced in the House. 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 that their amendments comply with the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit amendments to the Committee on Rules or to testify as long as the amendments comply with House rules.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet on Tuesday, March 9, to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. The rule may, at the request of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, include a provision requiring amendments to be preprinted in the amendments 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 to the text of the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Copies of the text of the bill as reported can be obtained from the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to make sure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement. I want to inform the House of the Committee on Rules' plans in regard to H.R. 416, the Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act. The bill was favorably reported by both the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Ways and Means. The Committee on Rules will meet on Wednesday to grant a rule which may require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record and which may limit amendments to the bill. In this case, amendments to be preprinted would need to be signed by the Member and submitted to the Speaker's table by the close of legislative business on Wednesday. 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. It is not necessary to submit amendments to the Committee on Rules or to testify as long as the amendments comply with House rules. Mr. Speaker, a Dear Colleague letter announcing this potential amendment process was mailed to all Member offices yesterday.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am not a cardinal. I am not a Louisianan. I am not even from Mobile, Louisiana. But I am a huge admirer of Bob Livingston, and I have to join my colleagues in saying how sad we are to see him leave, but very happy for the great opportunity that lies ahead for both Bonnie and Bob. I am a southerner, though I come from southern California like that great cardinal we have heard from. It is interesting to listen to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) talk about the disparity between the Louisianans and Alabamans. From southern California, they all look the same to us. But I want to say I remember very vividly the first time that I met Bob Livingston. I am glad to see that we are joined by our former colleague, Mr. Vander Jagt, here on the House floor, who obviously had a very distinguished career here as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I remember that it was at the time that Guy Vander Jagt was the chairman of our Congressional Campaign Committee that I first met Bob Livingston. Bob probably does not remember when that was. It was at the Shoreham Hotel, and it was just a few weeks after he had won his special election to serve here. I was there at some Republican gathering at the Shoreham and was at that juncture considering running for Congress myself. While Guy Vander Jagt provided us with great inspiration, the enthusiasm that Bob Livingston showed just weeks after he had been elected was key to my deciding to move ahead and to run for the Congress. Because he said we have got to win a majority in this place. We have to do everything that we possibly can to implement our very positive Republican agenda. Well, two long decades later, nearly two decades later, we got to the point where we were able to do just that. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) mentioned the issue of spending cuts. One of the things that I think is very important to note of Bob Livingston's reign as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was the fact that, when we looked at emergency spending, when we looked at even spending for defense, urgent defense items, what was it that Bob Livingston did? He said, there must be offsets. That, to me, was a very positive signal. He stood his ground to make sure that we would have those. I hope very much that, as we look at a wide range of spending programs for the future, that we in fact follow that great Livingston model which is a very important thing for us, I believe, to do. I was looking forward to being Bob Livingston's Committee on Rules' chairman, as I have taken on this new responsibility, and I am very sorry that I have not been able to do that. But I want to say that Bob Livingston played a key role during that transition in late November and December. The role that he played is still being felt and I believe will be felt throughout the 106th Congress and beyond. Not only did he make many very important appointments of members to committees and other spots around here, which, to his great compliment, Speaker Hastert has continued to follow through with, but it was a leadership meeting that Bob Livingston shared where we implemented the four-point agenda that we as Republicans are pursuing: to reform public education; to make sure that we provide tax relief for working families; to deal with saving Social Security so that those that are at or near retirement are not in any way jeopardized, but also look at the very important plans for baby boomers and those younger looking at retirement for the future; and, the fourth point, recognizing that since 1985 we have witnessed a diminution in our defense capability. We are standing firmly for rebuilding our defenses as we look at the very serious challenges that we face throughout the world. Those four points, education, tax relief, Social Security, and national security, all emanated from the leadership team that Bob Livingston put together. And so while he is retiring and going on to an opportunity that will allow him to maybe be able to buy actually an antique automobile and replace that with his old automobile, it is air conditioned, he should know that the things that he has done throughout his entire two decades here, and most recently those efforts that he was able to pursue in bringing about the transition in our leadership, will be felt throughout this Congress and for many years to come. So I wish him well, and his entire family well, and I want to say that he will clearly be sorely missed around here, and I thank my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I certainly will not in any way argue with the description the gentleman has provided and I thank him for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule. But I am here primarily to extend very hearty compliments to the newest member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), who is at this point managing his first rule on the floor, and I know it is the first of what will be many outstanding measures that will be reported out of the committee. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has a stellar background of service as minority leader in the State legislature in New York, and he is bringing that expertise not only to the Committee on Rules but down here on the House floor. I also want to say that he is joined in this effort, I see, by my predecessor's successor in his congressional seat, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) the former labor commissioner in New York, who has a very interesting background in dealing with paperwork reduction for small businesses and he is going to be describing that. And I suspect we will even hear from the veteran member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) who does a great job, too. As has been said very well by both my friend from New York and my other friend from New York, this is an open rule which allows for the consideration of the Kucinich amendment and any other amendment that is germane, and I strongly supported our attempt to make that in order. The bill itself is actually what we really describe as a one-two punch, if we take what was considered yesterday. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has done a superb job on this measure, following up on passage of the Mandates Information Act, which we were in a very strong bipartisan way able to report out of this institution yesterday. We know that the burden that is imposed on small businesses is extraordinary. In fact, in a memo that came from the subcommittee of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), when we look at what this bill actually provides, it would put on the Internet a comprehensive list of all the Federal paperwork requirements for small businesses organized by industry, and it offers small businesses compliance assistance instead of fines on first-time paperwork violations that do not present a threat to public health and safety. It would establish a paperwork czar in each agency who is the point of contact for small businesses on paperwork requirements. And it would establish a task force, including representatives from the major regulatory agencies, to study how to streamline reporting requirements for small businesses. Madam Speaker, I happen to believe that this measure is a very, very important environmental initiative. For a number of reasons. First and foremost, because it makes it very clear that nothing that is proposed here would in any way jeopardize environment or safety standards at all. What it will do is, it will in fact decrease the amount of paper. Now, I come from California. The timber industry is a very, very important industry in our State. But frankly, there are more than a few people who are concerned about the constant pumping out of paper. This is the Paperwork Reduction Act. So I consider it to be a very strong pro-environmental measure. So I think that this is a great win, as I said, a one-two punch, going for mandates information to the measure that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) will be handling. I would like to congratulate my colleague again, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), for the great job that he is doing and will be continuing to do on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to my friend from Dallas for the very, very hard work he has put into the product that we are seeing here. I say that not because of his work on the Committee on Rules, but because he formerly served as a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and has been very, very involved in many of these key issues which were designed to increase accountability and ensure that we streamline operations so that we can deal with the taxpayer dollar in the most effective way. The prospect of establishing a chief financial officer to look at the litany of questions that are there is the right thing to do. When I think of the beginning that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has launched here as a member of the Committee on Rules in managing his first rule on the floor, I know it is an indication of the fine work to come, because it has been evidenced in the work he has done on so many other committees in the past. So I appreciate his fine leadership here, and I strongly support the rule, and I urge my colleagues to join in a bipartisan way in supporting both the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing the very thoughtful and eloquent gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for his contribution. I would like to begin by expressing my special commendation to my very dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and to thank the gentleman for the fact that over the last several weeks he has worked with us to try and address his needs to this bipartisan measure that is before us. But it saddens me that despite the gentleman's efforts, I am compelled to oppose the amendment as we have discussed. I do so for two reasons: One, because it attempts to fix a problem that really does not exist; and, two, because, quite frankly, if it is adopted, it would kill a very carefully balanced and, as I said, bipartisan measure. It has been put together really over the last several years through efforts of our colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit). H.R. 350 is nearly identical to the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 279 to 132. At the core of H.R. 350 are two mutually dependent objectives. The first requires committees and the Congressional Budget Office to provide more complete information about the cost of proposed mandates on the private sector. The second ensures accountability by permitting a separate debate and vote on the consideration of legislation containing private sector mandates exceeding $100 million annually. Any amendments that weaken one of these objectives effectively undermines the other. I would say to my friend that one of the important things that needs to be pointed out here is that the amendment does not in any way expand debate time. That is something that we in the Committee on Rules will be doing, and I am sure that when debate needs to be made in order, we in the Committee on Rules want to do everything we can to ensure that Members have a chance to do that. For example, without permitting a separate debate and vote on a costly mandate, little incentive exists for committees to avoid the point of order by working with the affected groups to develop cost effective alternatives. This point was made by the Acting Director of the Congressional Budget Office in testimony before our Committee on Rules last week. He said, ``Before proposed legislation is marked up, committee staff and individual Members are increasingly requesting our analysis about whether the legislation would create any new Federal mandates, and, if so, whether their costs would exceed the threshold set by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In many instances, CBO is able to inform the sponsor about the existence of a mandate and provide informal guidance on how the proposal might be restructured to eliminate the mandate or reduce its cost. That use of UMRA early in the legislative process appears to have had an effect on the number and burden of intergovernmental mandates in enacted legislation.'' I think that states it very clearly, Mr. Chairman. The procedures of the House provide sufficient protection against dilatory efforts to thwart debate on legislation that the majority of Members have agreed to debate by virtue of adopting a special rule. Moreover, the Committee on Rules spent two years developing, as I said, a bipartisan plan which was adopted as the opening day rules package to streamline and simplify the rules of the House, to make them easier to understand and more user friendly. The Boehlert amendment will simply recomplicate the rules of the House in a well-meaning attempt to fix, as I said in my opening, a problem that does not exist.