David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman further yield?

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker. I would simply say that I very much appreciate his willingness to have greater openness on this debate. And unfortunately, when the Rules Committee met late yesterday afternoon, I offered an amendment to have this considered under an open amendment process, and that was defeated. And I then made an attempt to offer this under a modified open amendment process.

Mr. DREIER. Well, I look forward to yielding to you if you would ever like to ask.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to restore accountability and enforceability to House earmark rules. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as virtually everyone is talking about the need for us to have an economic stimulus package, I am very proud today to be introducing what I think is the closest thing to a panacea to the economic growth challenge that we are facing. This plan that I have introduced is the brainchild of my friends Bill Simon, Jennifer Pollom and Mike Boskin. It is a plan that is designed to allow people at the lower end of the spectrum on their first $40,000 in income to pay 10 percent, on income between $40,000 and $150,000, 15 percent, and on income above $150,000, 30 percent. It also, Madam Speaker, goes to the notion of encouraging economic growth by cutting the capital gains rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and cutting the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Remember, we have the second highest rate in the entire world when it comes to corporate tax. We need to focus on the issue of economic growth. It will actually apply the death penalty to the death tax, and it will take the alternative minimum tax and index it and ultimately eliminate it. Madam Speaker, this is what we need to do to stimulate our economy. This is what we need to do to empower the people who will move and propel our economy forward. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join as cosponsors of this very important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, today my very good friend Mr. Crowley of New York, in a bipartisan way, and I joined together, and we now have, I'm happy to say, our good friend from north Dallas, a great Member of the Rules Committee, Pete Sessions as a cosponsor of legislation, a resolution actually calling for free trade negotiations to begin between the United States and India. We introduced this resolution to highlight the tremendous benefits of deeper economic engagement between the world's two largest democracies. While bilateral trade has spurred growth in both of our countries, we have not yet come close to realizing the full benefits of complete access to each other's markets and full liberalization of the Indian economy. Madam Speaker, the American people are very focused on the economy right now, understandably. While growth remains strong and unemployment remains low, and we just this morning got the report of the drop in unemployment claims, the prevailing economic stories, however, in the news stir up a great deal of fear and concern among working families. The subprime mortgage crisis has dominated the headlines for months. The housing slump in many communities makes homeowners feel like their financial security is threatened. And as always, Madam Speaker, there is the natural anxiety that comes from the highly dynamic and fast- paced environment of the global economy. At a time of economic anxiety, the most important thing is to ensure that growth remains strong, so that opportunities can be creative. If we look at what has been our biggest source of strength in recent months, it has been export-led growth. Over the last year, there have been dire predictions for GDP growth, and every single quarter the numbers have come out much stronger than has been anticipated because exports have made up for softer areas within our own economy. At the same time, Madam Speaker, imports have ensured that working families have access to the goods they need at prices that they can afford. We are weathering these economic challenges because we are engaging in the worldwide marketplace. India has been a very important component of that engagement. Our exports to India have doubled in the last 5 years. We are India's largest trading partner and largest investment partner. Trading with India has opened up new doors for American producers, service providers, workers and consumers as well. But India still has miles to go in its reform process. Tariffs in many sectors are prohibitively high. The regulatory environment is absolutely Byzantine. American investors looking for opportunity in an otherwise ripe environment still confront significant roadblocks to successful investment. If we are to maximize the benefits of trade with the world's second- largest consumer market, there must be broad, comprehensive reform. Free trade negotiations would provide maximum leverage for encouraging this kind of reform. Whether it's slashing exorbitant tariffs, which average 20 percent and range as high as 210 percent, Madam Speaker, that's a 210 percent tariff, protecting intellectual property, and another thing they have done is ensuring transparency in governance, a free trade agreement would provide the necessary impetus for comprehensive liberalization of their economy. Many of our FTAs are negotiated with foreign policy concerns chiefly in mind. Our pending FTA with Colombia, for example, will solidify strong democratic institutions for a key ally in a key region, in addition to the economic benefits to both countries. There are certainly foreign policy concerns associated with a U.S.- India free trade agreement as well. It would provide an opportunity to deepen and broaden our ties with a strong, stable Asian democracy that shares our fundamental values in a challenging region. But Madam Speaker, the commercial benefits to such an FTA would be considerable. It would open up a tremendous opportunity to build upon our export-led growth and ensure that Americans can take full advantage of the more than 1 billion consumers in the world's second-largest emerging market. With all eyes on the economy, now is the time for the U.S. and India to begin to pursue comprehensive economic engagement with a free trade agreement.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it is a great honor, we all know, to represent the American people here in the people's House. We all work long hours. We spend a great deal of time here. And I would like to, at this moment, mark the extraordinary service of a woman who has chosen to retire after nearly 50 years of working here in the Capitol. I am referring, of course, to the very famous Janie Galmon. My colleagues may not know her last name, but they are very familiar with Janie's fried chicken, which has been prepared for us on Wednesdays on a regular basis. She is someone who was working in this Capitol when President Kennedy was assassinated, and she regularly has shared with us stories about that. She always showed up to work at 5 a.m. regardless of how late we were in the night before. We could be here, and she can be working downstairs midnight, 1 o'clock, but she was always back here coming in with our friend, Sally, at 5 o'clock in the morning. She has provided extraordinary service and sustenance to so many of us. Janie, after a half century, has chosen to retire. I want to wish her congratulations, a very happy retirement, and a very, very merry Christmas.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are all saddened by the passing of our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). He will be sorely missed not only by his fellow Members, but by the countless people who came in contact with him on a daily basis. One such person is Mr. Bert Caswell, a guide with the Capitol Guide Service. I am including for the Record a poem written by Bert about the late Mr. Hyde, as well as a recent article from The Hill discussing his poetry. I hope all Members will take the time to read this poem and remember Henry Hyde. Something's, You Can Not Hyde? Something's! You can not Hyde! That lives with us, so very deep down inside. . .throughout our lives! All in what we say and do! All in who we so touch. . .that make us a real who's who! As in our times, that which so comes into view! For it's all about how you so carry yourself, as when you rise! For it's all in what you so do, in others eyes, as your time upon this earth goes by! For these, are the things that which one can not Hyde! Fast breaking in our lives! To court our hearts, all in our part called life that which so defines! All in The Game of Life, you were so great Henry Hyde! Henry Hyde, was such The Man. . . Who upon the hardwood and on the floor of The House, did so boldy stand! All because of his great heart, and stance. . .and his gentle hand! From That Land of Lincoln. . . From one court of greatness to another, always thinking! As across the aisle he reached out his hand! Quiet in his calm and caring grace. For his service to God and Country he now so holds his place. . . And for all of those magnificent children, he did stand! Oh, Henry Hyde, You were, But The Man! For in you we can so understand! What it is to be a leader, a patriot, a family man. . .and God fearing man! Yes, In Life. . .Something's, You Just Can Not Hyde! For the Record (By Arie Dekker) Congress's day-to-day proceedings and debates can be found immortalized in the official Congressional Record. The record's nearly 2,000 books, comprising more than 150 volumes, line the brick walls of the Senate Library and preserve the words of presidents, ambassadors, legislators and Bert Caswell, a 54-year-old Capitol tour guide from Baltimore. Caswell may seem like an odd addition to the Record of floor speeches, inaugural addresses, scholarly essays and research studies. But his unflinching patriotism as captured in his accessible and unpretentious poetry is consistently submitted to honor America's diverse heroes. ``I never thought I was a writer,'' Caswell said. ``I thought writing was punctuation and spelling, and I can't do either.'' But when former Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) resigned from the Senate to run for president in 1996, Caswell was so moved that he wrote the poem ``The Measure of a Man'' in Dole's honor. After the poem was casually distributed around Capitol Hill, then-Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) officially inserted it into The Congressional Record. ``And from that moment, my life was changed,'' Caswell said. Caswell had written only two poems before and has since composed more than 500 in tribute to lawmakers, presidents, veterans, entertainers, athletes and others. About 20 of his poems have wound up in The Congressional Record, after having been submitted by members from both sides of the aisle. In memory of Sean Taylor, the football star who was recently killed by intruders in his Miami home, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) submitted a new Caswell poem to the Record on Dec. 4 entitled ``Taylor Made.'' Meek's spokesman Adam Sharon said Caswell and Meek talk as friends practically every day about their comings and goings. He said Meek is impressed with Caswell's ``big heart'' and willingness to go above and beyond his regular duties--not only writing poetry, but giving Capitol tours to special visitors like wounded veterans and children from the Make-A-Wish Foundation. ``The congressman finds that extremely commendable,'' Sharon said. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) submitted a Caswell poem last month to honor Gunnery Sgt. Angel Barcenas, a Marine whose legs were amputated last year after sustaining injuries in Iraq. Barcenas had previously served Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush on Marine One, and he recently led a group of Marines, police officers, and firefighters in a formation run to ground zero in New York City. ``Poetry has been a medium for not only documenting history but also upholding the principles that have made our nation great--principles such as courage, honor and perseverance,'' Sessions said in an e-mailed statement. ``I applaud Bert for using his gift of poetry to honor America's bravest.'' Listening to Caswell talk about his poetry is like taking a crash course in American history and culture. He has written about sports legends, political leaders, war veterans, firefighters, entertainers, civil rights leaders and Holocaust survivors. ``I write about heroes, people that inspire me,'' he said. ``I really am impressed with the people who have power and fame, and yet they wield it and they make the world better. And that's what it's really all about.'' Caswell's subjects include sports stars Steve Young, Cal Ripken Jr. and Mario Andretti; civil rights leaders Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.; reporter David Bloom; entertainers Bob Hope, Jason Alexander and Tom Hanks; Congressional Gold Medal recipient Dorothy Height and former astronaut and Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio). Caswell wears his patriotism on his sleeve. He makes an ideal tour guide, welcoming Capitol visitors with instant anecdotes about their home states' or cities' contributions to the greater national identity. He will seriously discuss their college sports teams' strengths and vulnerabilities, impersonate California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), or crack jokes about the highest court in the land not being the Supreme Court, but rather a basketball court up the street. Caswell has worked for the Capitol Guide Service for 21 years, although he did not plan it that way. As an all- American lacrosse star, he played on the national champion University of Maryland team in 1975. Before becoming a regular contributor to The Congressional Record, he was listed in NCAA record books as a top scorer at the 1975 Division 1 lacrosse tournament. He later coached the Maryland team for five years. He earned two graduate degrees from Bowie State College, one in education and the other in administrative management. He then taught high school physical education and science for about 10 years. In addition to being included in The Congressional Record, Caswell's poetry has been presented at official ceremonies and posted in government buildings. Several of his poems are posted in the amputee ward at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. One of his poems is on display in a memorial to the police officers who were killed when a gunman entered the Capitol in 1998 and opened fire. ``I see more in three months than most people see in a lifetime,'' Caswell said, drawing a connection between his job as a tour guide and his passion for writing about American heroism. He said working at the Capitol exposes him to people from around the world and also gives him a unique first-hand view of lawmakers, who he says are underappreciated for their service. He is currently compiling his poetry for a book that will include anecdotes about the many famous people he has encountered in Washington. ``I have had the privilege of getting to know Bert during my time in Congress,'' said Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who has inserted three of Caswell's poems into the Record this year. ``As a Capitol Hill tour guide, [Caswell] is instrumental in sharing the rich history of our beautiful Capitol Building.'' Caswell writes his poetry on a small laptop so he can write wherever and whenever inspiration strikes. His writing process is simple: He records what's on his mind, lets it sit for a while, and returns typically only once to double-check his work. He said the average poem takes no more than 30 minutes to complete. ``Mostly everything the first time comes out great,'' he said. ``And then I go back and tweak it. Normally the first draft's pretty good.'' He does not have a favorite poet or style of poetry. He actually avoids reading other poetry to keep his own work pure. ``I don't read other people's work, hardly, because I don't want it to change my words,'' Caswell said.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I simply would like to congratulate my friend from Miami for having the ability to, as he has just shown, on three occasions lift up all 3,000 pages of this bill which we are expected to vote on which obviously virtually no one has reviewed.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. And I want to begin by complimenting my friend from Miami for very cogently pointing to the December 6, 2006, words of our friend from Worcester who has, once again, stood before us and tried to make an argument for completely rebuffing all of the promises that were made in 2006 and the years before that. Now, my friend has just referred to the fact that we had a continuing resolution a year ago right now when we were considering this. The fact is, in the last Congress, while it wasn't a model by any means, there were more appropriations bills passed through both Houses of Congress than has been the case in this year, the first year of the Democratic majority's control of this place. Now, when we think back to those promises that were outlined so well when my friend from Miami was carrying forth the arguments propounded by Mr. McGovern, I think about what we've gotten this year compared to last year. In fact, this year, there have been more bills rewritten in the Rules Committee than in any other Congress we've had before. Eleven of the appropriations bills last year were passed, and only one this year, the Defense appropriations bill. And so as I listen to my friend malign the record of the last Congress, we have to remember the fact that 11 of the bills were passed last year. But let me further add that in this calendar year there have been more bills rewritten by the Rules Committee than ever before in any Congress. Madam Speaker, in this Congress there have been more closed rules preventing any Member, Democratic or Republican, from having the opportunity to offer an amendment than in any Congress in our history. And one of the other things that I remember, as we consider this bill, Madam Speaker, is the fact that we were promised a 24-hour period to look at measures. In fact, I remember the Speaker, in ``A New Direction for America,'' said that we would do this. And my friend, in his December 6, 2006, statement, talked about a new sense of fairness and openness. He said that twice in his statement, Madam Speaker. And yet it was 12:55 this morning when the Rules Committee received this 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill. And here we are, at now 5 minutes past 6 in the evening, having gone through the Rules Committee and brought it to the floor. It is, again, 180 degrees from what was promised by this new majority. Now, Madam Speaker, I will say that my friend and I are the two Members of the minority who are here on the floor, we have consistently stood, as have all of our colleagues, prepared to work in a bipartisan way to deal with these issues. And I was really somewhat surprised when I heard my friend mention the issue of veterans benefits, making sure that we have the resources needed for our Nation's veterans. Well, Madam Speaker, last summer, we could have gotten a bill to the President's desk with bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans, again, coming together, which is what we want to do, we want to work together. And that's what the American people regularly say is, yes, you've got different visions, but can't you deal with areas of agreement and, in fact, pass Public Law on that. Well, Madam Speaker, I will tell you that I believe the Democrats and Republicans in this House, at least from everything I've heard, want to provide much-needed assistance to our Nation's veterans. Democrats and Republicans want to provide assistance to our Nation's veterans. And, Madam Speaker, last summer we had an opportunity to do that. Our colleagues in the Senate, the other body, they appointed the conferees so that we could report, it was a bipartisan agreement, to report out and get the much-needed veterans relief to the President's desk for a signature. We could have done that last summer. And yet, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, there was never, by the Speaker of the House, an appointment of those conferees. So we've gone for half a year at a cost of, it's been as high as 13 or $18 million a day, if I remember the numbers, that it has cost with this constant delay. And so I was really shocked that my friend from Worcester would raise the issue of veterans benefits when we could have, again, with Democrats and Republicans alike agreeing, we could have gotten that bill to the President's desk and signed last summer; 6 months ago it could have been done. So I've got to say again, Madam Speaker, that we were promised this great new sense of openness. I was encouraged by that. And I will admit, in the position that I held in the last Congress as chairman of the Rules Committee, I didn't do it perfectly. I made mistakes. I know my friend from Miami would acknowledge the same thing. We never held ourselves up as a perfect model, but we were constantly criticized. And I know that regularly our friends on the other side of the aisle will say, well, you did this, so that means we should do this. No, Madam Speaker, it wasn't about what we did. It was about what this new majority promised they were going to do. Twenty-four hours to look at legislation, and yet this 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill was made available at 12:55 this morning. A new sense of openness and fairness. More closed rules in the first session of the 110th Congress than in any Congress in our Nation's history, and more bills rewritten in the Committee on Rules than we've ever seen happen before. Madam Speaker, I believe that those of us in the minority have a responsibility to hold this new majority accountable to those promises that were made, not to us, I mean, I'm not complaining about us, it's the American people. It's our constituents, Democrats and Republicans, who have been denied this opportunity. And so it is sad that we are beginning to wind down the first session of the 110th Congress in the way that we are when, again, we would very much like to work in a bipartisan way. We're going through this measure now, Madam Speaker, that the President has said he would veto in its current form. We know that the Senate is going to end up doing the right thing, ensuring that we have the necessary funds to support our troops as they seek to prosecute this war against radical extremism, and yet we deny it in this measure. So I, of course, will be voting against this bill as it now is. And I guess it gives some Members cover. They get an opportunity to say that they're voting against the war in Iraq, which some people want to do. I mean, we all want this war to come to an end. As I just said upstairs in the Rules Committee a few minutes ago, the President of the United States stood here last January, nearly a year ago, and he said, I wish this war were over and that we had won. This is not an endless war. We've been getting positive reports from a wide range of sources, even some of the harshest critics, including one particularly prominent Member of this institution, who was a very harsh critic, has acknowledged that the surge has worked and that we are seeing signs of improvement. Now, I don't know if that's going to bring the war to an end. No one knows. I don't know if it's just a lull. It may be. But I do know this, these are positive signs that need to be recognized. And it would be a horrible mistake for us to pass this omnibus appropriations bill which would deny the needed resources. Whether you supported our going into Iraq or not, we are where we are, and I think Members of this body need to recognize that. Unfortunately, this omnibus appropriations bill fails to do that. And I know I've offered this quote on numerous occasions here on the House floor, Madam Speaker, but my constituent, Ed Blecksmith, a very proud former marine, lost his son, his son that was in the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004. And his father said to me, Ed Blecksmith said to me, ``If you don't complete our mission in Iraq, my son, J.P., will have died in vain.'' And that's why I believe that it is critically important, as unpopular as this is, for us to make sure that we complete our mission, which means ensuring that the Iraqi security forces can defend the country and that the government can govern. It took us 13 years, from July 4, 1776 until April of 1789, nearly 13 years for us to put our government into place. We have challenging and difficult days ahead in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but this measure would be an absolutely horrible, horrible signal to send to our troops and to those who are so courageously, Iraqis, people of Afghanistan, who are fighting on behalf of this cause for freedom. And so, Madam Speaker, I will say again, it's a process that is not what was promised to the American people, and it is a product which is clearly flawed. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the underlying resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I just don't get it. I just can't figure this thing out. Under the Democrats' logic, they're saying that we have to increase taxes to avoid a tax increase. We have to increase taxes to avoid a tax increase. That's what the fiscally responsible thing is for us to do. Madam Speaker, last Saturday morning I had the privilege of riding in the Glendora Christmas parade. Glendora, California, beautiful, ``pride of the foothills'' they call this city. As I arrived, I happened to run into a guy called Marshall Mouw, who is a former city council member in that great city. He worked for the U.S. Postal Service for many years. The first thing he said when he looked at me is, what are you going to do to make sure that we're not victimized by the alternative minimum tax? And I told him, we have tried time and time again to do at least what's called a 1-year patch, a 1-year patch, which would ensure that 23 million Americans aren't going to be saddled with this unfair tax. And personally, I would like to flat out repeal completely the alternative minimum tax. Now, let's remember what the alternative minimum tax is. Back in 1969, the Democratic Congress found that there were 155 Americans who were millionaires, and they weren't paying their fair share of taxes. They, of course, were doing things legally. They had all kinds of investments. They were creating jobs. But they weren't paying their fair share of taxes, so-called. And so the alternative minimum tax was put into place to go after those 155 Americans who many believed were cheating somehow and not paying their fair share. What has happened? Well, due to bracket creep, we now see 23 million Americans. I would like to describe this, Madam Speaker, as unintended consequences. It's one of the things that we often don't think about in this institution when we try to pass sweeping legislation, well- intentioned but sweeping legislation. And that's one of the reasons that the framers of our Constitution, James Madison especially, wanted the process of law-making to be very, very hard; very, very difficult. I see my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations here, Mr. Obey, and I will say that it's very clear that Madison's vision, I guess, is working now, when you look at how hard it is for us to get our work done, how hard it is for us to get through this appropriations process. I'm very, very relieved that many of the things that this new majority would like to put through, which I believe in many ways undermine what the American people want, like putting into place a massive tax increase to avoid a tax increase, can't happen, and they're not going to happen. As the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McCrery, said yesterday, all we need to do is take the last debate that we had on AMT, paste that thing in, and then we'll see exactly what happens. We know that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol are not going to accept this. And so what we need to do if we in fact are going to ensure that the American people are going to get that much needed relief from the alternative minimum tax, it's very important for us to do everything that we can to try and come to an agreement as quickly as possible. We know what that agreement is. We know what we're going to agree to. We're going to agree to what we've done in the past, a 1-year patch to ensure that these 23 million Americans don't get this massive tax increase. Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague, I was just told by one of our staff members that they've been talking about how horrible the last 6 years have been, how awful the last 6 years have been. I would like to remind our colleagues of the fact that we got a report 2 weeks ago of the third quarter gross domestic product growth rate that we've had in this country. It's 4.9 percent. I would like to remind our colleagues who continue to wring their hands over the deficit, yes, I'd like to see the deficit lower, but as a percentage of our gross domestic product, the deficit today is $81 billion lower than had been projected in February of this year, putting it at $164 billion. Now, people don't often think about the fact that the United States of America has a $13.3 trillion economy, clearly the strongest, most dynamic economy that the world has ever known. Do we have problems? Of course we do. I mentioned at the outset one of the communities I represent in Southern California, the subprime issue is something with which we're trying to contend and to work through. If you look at the value of the currency, if you look at lots of other issues out there, we do have problems. But this notion of claiming that the last 6 years have been a living hell for all Americans is preposterous. What we need to do is we need to make sure that we do everything that we possibly can to rein in wasteful Federal spending, make sure that we pursue opportunities to open up markets around the world for U.S. workers to be able to export into those markets, and we need to make sure that we continue cutting taxes so that we can see the kind of economic growth that we've been enjoying in the past. That's why it's silly for us to be sitting around wasting our time, wasting our time doing exactly what we did last week on this so-called alternative minimum tax when we know exactly what is going to happen here. At the end of the day, we're going to have, Madam Speaker, a 1-year patch to ensure that 23 million Americans don't face a massive tax increase. Let's reject this crazy notion that we've got before us and move ahead with what we know can be agreed to in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by rising to compliment my distinguished California colleague, the Chair of the subcommittee, for her amazing and festive outfit which includes shoes and earrings which I hope very much our colleagues will seize the opportunity to see during this holiday season. The importance of stating that is matched by my praise for her work and the work of her staff on this important legislation. It has been nearly a decade, actually back in 1999, that we were able to first pass legislation designed to deal with a horrendous tragedy that came in the aftermath of the Cold War. It was during the Cold War that we had a wide range of defense contractors, some of which are in business today, and some of which no longer are in business; but during that period of time, they legally disposed of spent rocket fuel. They did it legally. No one knew what the ramifications of that would be at the time. And so, Mr. Speaker, what happened? Well, in the mid-1990s there was this discovery of perchlorate which was a byproduct of the disposal of that spent rocket fuel. Unfortunately, it created the potential to contaminate the water for as many as 7 million Californians. That is why I want to join in praising Mrs. Napolitano for her work in expanding this cleanup effort, and I want to thank all the members of her staff. I also want to express appreciation to our colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who also has worked very hard on this. And I know that the discovery of perchlorate is something that has hit other parts of the country. Well, we in the San Gabriel Valley have put together what clearly is the best model for not only our area, Mr. Speaker, but for other parts of the country, Dallas, Texas, other parts of California, where this has been found. What does that partnership consist of? It is the Federal Government, and there was a lot of litigation that was initiated in the 1990s over this problem. I decided back then in the 1990s, why should we wait for litigation to go through the courts when perchlorate was seeping into the groundwater when it was very clear that the Federal Government had contracted with these people and we won the Cold War. And so it was obvious that this was a Federal responsibility for us to step up to the plate. But there, obviously, were a lot of others who did want to take on some of the responsibility, so companies like Aerojet and other companies did agree to participate in the cleanup effort. And the State of California and local governments as well have been part of this process. Again, our bipartisan staffs have worked so closely together on this issue that to me, Mr. Speaker, it is a great demonstration of the willingness of Chairwoman Napolitano to reach out and work on an issue where we could find areas of agreement. Again, I can't thank her enough for that. And I will say that as we look at this challenge down the road, we hope very much that it is taken care of. But I am well aware of the fact that we will see further environmental difficulties in the future, and I believe that this legislation, H.R. 123, will be a model that can be utilized for many of the other environmental challenges that we face beyond the issue of water in the future. So again I thank all of my colleagues who have been involved, Mr. Speaker, and I thank those in our local area, the Water Quality Authority and other entities that have stepped up and are working with us, because they really were key in putting together this model; and I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's resolution here.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill's passage. H.R. 123 is an important continuation of the successful federal-state-local partnership that already exists in providing one of the most basic necessities of life--clean drinking water. The bill extends the current authorization of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund by a total of $61.2 million--$50 million for the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA), and $11.2 million for the Central Basin Municipal Water District (Central Basin). The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund was created because of the critical need to quickly implement a plan that would address the contaminated groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley. Before important environmental laws were put into place, the Federal Government had contracted with defense companies that were, at that time, legally permitted to dispose of spent-rocket fuel without proper safeguards for groundwater. There had already been clean-up efforts in the region for other contaminants but in 1997, perchlorate contamination was discovered in the groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley. Unfortunately, at the time of discovery, many of those contractors and other responsible parties had either moved their businesses to other locations, or had simply gone out of business. The region's groundwater remained threatened while mounting litigation between the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties potentially responsible for the contamination delayed any hope for a solution. In 1999, the Federal Government rightfully stepped in with the creation of the Restoration Fund to provide a mechanism for those responsible for the contamination to partner with local, state and federal agencies to solve the crisis and immediately implement the clean-up. The willingness of the Federal Government to partner with local and state agencies proved to be the impetus for private investment and participation in the ongoing cleanup efforts. I am proud to say that this partnership is an example of good stewardship of taxpayer money. Initially in 1999, when we first began the process for creating the Restoration Fund, the total cost of cleaning up the basin was estimated at $320 million. Congress created the Restoration Fund in 2000, with an initial authorization of $85 million, or a 25 percent investment. To date, a little over $70 million has been appropriated, with approximately 83 percent of the cleanup provided by local sources and responsible parties, with about 12 percent federal funding. After recent evaluation of the total project, accounting for increased levels of detected contamination, increased energy costs and inflation, the total cost of cleanup now, almost a decade later, is approximately $1 billion. With a modest increase of $61.2 million, bringing the total federal investment to $146.2 million, or approximately 14 percent, the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can continue jointly administering this cleanup program. Their outstanding work is why this project is cost effective and such a huge success. In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over the past decade on this regional solution, there is no doubt that this increase is warranted and will be utilized in the most effective way to continue to provide safe drinking water. The cost-effectiveness of the original authorization of the Restoration Fund is clear. And without a doubt, that cost-effective use of the federal investment will be continued in this new authorization. The federal partnership will continue to hold the coalition of local water agencies and private parties together to finish the job that we started a decade ago. It is important to note that this bill, while originally introduced to authorize additional funds for the WQA, was amended to include additional funding for the Central Basin. The WQA and Central Basin were jointly authorized to implement the cleanup by the original Restoration Fund. These two agencies have worked side by side for many years to ensure that the millions of residents in our region have safe drinking water. While the Central Basin has realized its full authorization under the Restoration Fund, there are funds yet to be appropriated to the WQA under the original authorization. Therefore, the WQA is not responsible to provide the Central Basin with any further appropriations that are secured under the original $85 million ceiling. However, we all recognize Central Basin's desire to seek additional funds beyond what they have already been fully provided under the original authorization to ensure the safety of the region's groundwater. Central Basin has stepped forward in committing to providing the 35 percent local cost share on any future appropriations they secure. Once the WQA receives its full appropriation under the original authorization, should the WQA and Central Basin decide to pursue and split a single appropriation as they've done in the past, then the WQA and the Central Basin have mutually agreed that the WQA will receive 90 percent, and Central Basin will receive 10 percent of any annual appropriation to the Restoration Fund under the new authorization ceiling outlined in this bill. I want to commend the cooperation between these two agencies in working out the details of the implementation of this bill and for their continued service to the residents of the San Gabriel Valley. This bill is a product of strong bipartisan cooperation with the Chair of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, Ms. Napolitano, an original cosponsor of the bill and great partner throughout the years in addressing the very serious challenge of keeping our groundwater supply safe for southern Californians. I am very proud to have the support of our friends Gary Miller, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Adam Schiff, Hilda Solis and Linda Sanchez. I also want to thank Ranking Member Cathy McMorris-Rodgers for her support throughout the legislative process as well as recognize the hard work of the very able Majority and Minority subcommittee staff including Steve Lanich, Kiel Weaver, Emily Knight and from Chairwoman Napolitano's personal office, Daniel Chao. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce to the House that our distinguished colleague Devin Nunesthe proud parents of 6 pound, 13 ounce Evelyn Rose Nunes, who was born at 3:31 yesterday morning. I think all of us want to extend hardy congratulations to them. I am happy to report that mother and baby are doing very well.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I'm very sorry that my friend wouldn't yield so that we could engage in debate. And I will say, victory means ensuring that our children don't face the threat of another terrorist attack like what we saw on September 11. We know that Iraq is the central point for al Qaeda, and I am absolutely determined to ensure that we achieve victory. There have been tremendous achievements when it comes to democracy building. We can't ignore that. But we want to bring our troops home as soon as possible.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), a hardworking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I've still not heard the term ``victory'' or ``building democracy.'' I would inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just like to ask him to clarify one more time before we vote on this issue, I think this is going to be the 11th time we have had an opportunity to vote on this. I have just been reminded by our crack Rules Committee staff that this is, in fact, the 12th time that this House has had the opportunity to vote on this issue. I guess the second or third time in Veterans Week. We have just marked the date on which we honor our Nation's veterans, and this House has repeatedly, repeatedly denied us the opportunity to move ahead and get the very much-needed assistance to our Nation's veterans. I think that this vote is going to be critically important in our quest to move that effort forward.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I would simply say to my friend, I joined in heralding the selection of my fellow Californian, Ms. Pelosi, as the first woman, the first Italian American Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was a great day for this institution. I should say she was the first Californian as well. But I will say this, the record that was outlined in today's Roll Call is one which can't be denied by either the Members of the majority or the minority. I thank my friend for yielding.