David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I will simply say that again, mistakes were made. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has raised that. We will in fact on Tuesday have a full and very rigorous debate, as I can tell it has begun right now, on Tuesday over this budget as well as your interpretation of the process. We are complying with the rules of the House and we are doing everything that we possibly can to ensure for a full and fair debate from the Committee on Rules and we will look forward to that opportunity if we can move ahead and allow our colleagues who are here at 2:10 this morning to have the chance to go home, get some rest, go to their districts over the weekend and then be raring to go as we begin this debate on Tuesday. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Maybe the absence of that two pages has created an opportunity for my friend to spend the weekend studying this budget. And then when we convene on Tuesday, he will have had several days during which time he will have been able to consider all of these proposals, and I will assure him that when the debate begins on Tuesday afternoon on this issue, there will be an ample opportunity during the debate on the rules that are considered as well as the conference report itself for the gentleman to raise his concerns and talk about the process as he sees fit. I am just saying that I hope very much the House will allow these unanimous consent requests to be agreed to so that Members can go home and begin studying this budget. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. We have provided now an opportunity of 4 days to go home and study that. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) can spend time together working on it.

Mr. DREIER. I just wondered if he has made any tentative decision.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask, is my friend going to be voting in favor or against this budget as it comes forward?

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

Mr. DREIER. I just want to explain the request to the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman very much. I will put that on the whip count.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I have to say that I strongly support this rule, but I would be less than forthright if I were to come here and say that I am an enthusiastic supporter of this measure. We have two gentlemen from Dallas, so I can say that I agree with the gentleman from Dallas on this one, and you can choose which one. It is very painful for me to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), but frankly much of what the gentleman has just said, I agree with. Not everything; but much of it. Madam Speaker, the reason I say that is, when it comes to the issue of reducing the tax burden on working families, I take a back seat to no one. I have had the privilege of serving 10 terms in the House of Representatives. I am now in my 11th term, and I have never voted for a tax increase since I have been here. One of the proudest votes that I cast was the first one in August 1981 when I was proud to join with a number of Democrats who helped Ronald Reagan pass the Economic Recovery Tax Act, which brought about marginal rate reduction, something we are seeking today. We want to have a bipartisan compromise working with our friends in the other body to make sure that we reduce that tax burden because, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has pointed out, and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has pointed out, the tax burden is extraordinarily high. We all know that we have not had such a burden since 1934 during the Second World War, and we need to cut taxes. I happen to believe that reducing taxes to stimulate economic growth is very important. I want a capital gains tax reduction because we will increase the flow of revenues to the Treasury if we can deal with that lock-in effect. I want marginal rate reduction because I believe that will encourage savings, investment and productivity. I have said I have now completed 2 decades here and have never voted for a tax increase, and will continue to vote for tax cuts, but that is not the issue that we are debating here. The issue to me is are we going to be so arrogant that we are going to say to the American people that we are going to protect you from your future leaders. If you are going to select someone to represent you in the House of Representatives, a body based on that Madisonian model that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) was referring to, was established as a majoritarian institution, we are going to say that we are no longer going to be a majoritarian institution, we are going to say that Members who serve in this institution cannot rule by majority, that is basically what this measure is saying. Madam Speaker, I do not want to be so arrogant. I do not want to be an elitist conservative standing here saying, you know, the people who have selected me, giving me the honor of serving here, maybe will not be so intelligent in the future to select somebody who wants to reduce the tax burden on working Americans and make sure that we do everything that we possibly can to make sure that we do not have any kind of tax increases, that they cannot select somebody who believes that is the right thing to do. I think it is the wrong thing to do. I believe that a majority of this institution believes that it is wrong to increase taxes, and I believe the majority of the institution believes that it is the right thing to do to cut the tax burden on working Americans. But I think it is the wrong thing for us to say that we have to put into place a supermajority. To me this is part of the minority mentality. I think that the idea of establishing supermajorities is something that, again, James Madison spent a lot of time anguishing over; and we do have supermajorities for a couple of things that are very important: overriding a Presidential veto, dealing with a constitutional amendment. A supermajority is required to do those. I believe that we should limit supermajorities to that. Madam Speaker, I support moving ahead with this debate. I will be voting in favor of the rule when we consider it in just a few minutes. But when it comes to a vote on this measure, I will continue to fight hard to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. But I will also continue to fight hard to support the U.S. Constitution as those very, very inspired framers envisaged it. I will, therefore, be voting against this measure when it comes to a vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate him on the great job that he is doing managing this very important rule, this very important component in the tax package which I know has been authored by our friend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and others who understand fully that we are all in this together. I have listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle engage in that classic class warfare argument, us versus them. ``This is from the top down, not from the bottom up. That is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.'' The real difference is, the Republicans believe that if we are going to bring about fairness, we should be fair to everyone. Now, I know that some have quipped that Warren Buffett and Ted Turner and Bill Gates, Sr., are not proponents of this. The fact is, whether they are proponents of this or not has nothing to do with it because there may be a few other people who have been successful in this economy of ours who believe that they should have some fairness. So we are going to provide Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Ted Turner relief whether they want it or not, and it is the right thing to do. But it is also very important for us to note, it is very important for us to note that if we look at the impact that this death tax has had on so many small businesses and family farms in this country, it is the right thing to do for people regardless of where they are on the economic spectrum. African Americans in this country are the group that is hit hardest by the death tax. Seventy-five percent of businesses, small businesses in this country, fail following the death of the owner. So let us make sure that we understand the difference that exists. The Republicans want very much to make sure that we provide fairness for every single American. We are not going to pick who is a winner and who is a loser. We want to create an opportunity for everyone to succeed; and that is why we should support this rule, defeat the Democratic substitute, which the rule has made in order, because it again engages in the old class warfare argument, and then pass this very important component, which is pro-growth and will help the working men and women of this country.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for the spectacular job he has done in crafting this with members of his committee. Mr. Chairman, over the last 6 years, Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate have made history with budgets that stopped reckless Washington spending; paid down the debt; protected Social Security and funded our Nation's top priorities. For the first time in the now over 2 decades that I have been privileged to serve here in the United States Congress, we have a budget that has come from the President, that has not been designated ``dead on arrival.'' Republicans changed the culture of Washington so much that President Clinton was forced to acknowledge that the era of big government is over. Today, with President Bush at the helm, we continue to make history. The Republican budget pays down $2.3 trillion of national debt. This Republican budget provides real tax relief for every American taxpayer. This Republican budget makes our children's education a top priority. This Republican budget protects Social Security from spending raids. This Republican budget restores strength to America's military. To sum it up, Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget is a fair and balanced American budget that fully funds our shared priorities while providing tax relief to working Americans and paying down our national debt. We should all provide strong bipartisan support for this very balanced measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Following along on his comments, I think we will have to put the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) in the undecided column based on the statements he has just provided us. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who has done a superb job here with this, and I also want to commend the newest member to the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), who has also worked on this issue and done a phenomenal job. Over the past 6 years, Republican Congresses have been very proud to have made history with budgets that have stopped reckless Washington spending, paid down the national debt, protected Social Security, and, of course, focused resources on our Nation's priorities. Once again, once again, Mr. Speaker, we are about to make history. I have had the privilege of serving this body for over two decades now. Every single year that a budget has come forward during that time, and I suspect going back all of the way to 1974 when the Budget Empowerment Act was passed, there has been a three-letter acronym put on that budget: D-O-A. ``Dead on arrival'' has been placed on every budget, but late this afternoon we are going to pass the President's budget, and that is a great testimony to this administration and the fact that President Bush has provided such great leadership. We know that Republicans have changed the culture of Washington so much that President Clinton was forced over the past several years, as we were pursuing all of these great accomplishments that we had, to stand right here in this Chamber behind where I am and say, the era of big government is over. But today President Bush is at the helm, and he is making a great deal of history. The Republican budget pays down $2.3 trillion in national debt. The Republican budget provides tax relief for every American who pays taxes. The Republican budget makes education of our children a top priority. The Republican budget protects Social Security from the spending raids that went on for the three decades before we came to majority here in the Congress, and the Republican budget, of course, does what is our number one priority at the Federal level, and that is rebuild our Nation's military capability. So to sum this up, Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget is a fair and balanced American budget that fully funds our shared priorities while reforming taxes and paying down the national debt. This is a very fair rule; and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) said, he suspects that underneath the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), there was support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Florida, we make in order three Democratic substitutes, one Republican substitute. We should have a rigorous and interesting debate today. But at the end of the day, I am very, very proud that we will pass the President's budget, which is the right thing to do.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if we coordinated things perfectly.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, for the Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for a period of debate on the subject of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002; that such period of debate not exceed 3 hours; that 2 hours of such debate be confined to the congressional budget and be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and that 1 hour of such debate be on the subject of economic goals and policies and be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) or their designees; that after such period of debate, the Committee of the Whole rise without motion; and that no further consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, what a terrific week this is for the American people. Just yesterday, we were able in a bipartisan way to reduce the onerous regulatory burden imposed on them, jeopardizing economic growth, and today we are going to have the opportunity to allow them to keep more of their own hard earned money. In just 47 days, President Bush has done a phenomenal job of changing the makeup here in Washington. I am very pleased that again in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans alike, are talking about the importance of reducing the tax burden on working Americans. Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that the plan that we have put forward is by far and away the best one, because it is geared towards economic growth. It is geared towards fairness, and it is geared towards removing barriers to the middle class. I have been fascinated over the past hour to listen to the attempt by many to rewrite the history of the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President. If you go back and look at what happened when the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was passed, we were able to double the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury by reducing a tax burden. Many people said look at the deficits at the end of the 1980s. The fact of the matter is if you take defense out of the mix, if we had simply had a freeze on domestic spending, a freeze on domestic spending at the rate of inflation during the 1980s, by 1989, when Ronald Reagan retired from the White House, we would have had a $250 billion surplus at that point. We have to realize that article 1, section 7 makes it very clear, taxing and spending emanates right here in the House of Representatives. So we need to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that we put into place this plan to allow the American people to keep more of their hard earned money, to encourage economic growth, and to bring about as much fairness as we possibly can. This rule is very fair. We make in order the Democratic substitute. I hope very much that we will be able to have bipartisan support for it, and I know we will when it comes to bringing about this reduction in the tax burden.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I hear all these nice things being said about Joe Moakley by Members of the Massachusetts delegation, Members on this side of the aisle; and I have to say that I probably more than any other Member of this House know Joe Moakley to be a real fighter. In fact, he has abused me regularly up in the Committee on Rules and I know plans to continue that pattern over the next couple of years. He is one who clearly does stand for his principles very firmly. But I will agree with the arguments that have been made by my colleagues that he is extraordinarily civil in the process. Just yesterday I followed a statement that he made about the fact that he is at a point in his life where he does not purchase green bananas any longer because he does not know if he will be around long enough for them to ripen. Well, we know that Joe Moakley is going to be around for a long time. He continues to fight very hard. But the fact is I presented him yesterday with some green bananas upstairs in the Committee on Rules, and he told me that he would much rather have the gavel than the green bananas that I presented to him. I let him hold the gavel momentarily. But I will tell my colleagues that I have the highest regard for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). I have had the privilege of serving on that Moakley Commission in El Salvador, and he did tremendous work and was so dedicated in that effort. He has represented the Democrats extremely well in the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules is one of the most partisan committees in the institution, and yet we have been able to work in a bipartisan way on lots of different issues. I am proud to have worked with him on bringing about a complete overhaul of the rules structure here in this House. We did that in a bipartisan way. Were it not for Joe Moakley, we would not have been able to proceed with what was one of the boldest reforms since 1880 in this institution. On lots of issues, we have been able to find areas of agreement. Of course, the attention is focused on areas of disagreement. But he is a fighter who is going to continue to be with us for a long time to come, and I am looking forward to continuing to get the wit and wisdom of Joe Moakley upstairs and down here on the floor.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to join my colleagues in paying my respects to one of California's longtime, dedicated public servants, the late Senator Alan Cranston, who passed away last New Year's Eve. Alan Cranston's career of public service spanned almost half of the 20th century. He was first elected State controller of California in 1958, and was sent to the Senate by California voters in 1968. He served there through 1993. Throughout his career, Cranston dedicated himself to a range of important causes--seeking to strengthen federal environmental laws, to expand assistance to the disadvantaged in society and to bolster civil rights. His commitment to arms control led him to work closely with President Reagan for the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Treaty, even though the two agreed on little else. Senator Cranston was also respected for his advocacy of the interests of his State--for farmers, film makers, aerospace companies, financial institutions and independent oil producers. Throughout his career and throughout his life, Alan Cranston distinguished himself with his hard work, his tenacity and his self- discipline. He was an Olympic-class runner who kept himself in shape through the end of his life. He took the time to make himself an expert in whatever issue he was working on. Whether it was arms control, housing, or the views and concerns of his Senate colleagues, Alan Cranston took the time to master the subject. It was this discipline that made him an extremely effective party-builder, coalition builder, advocate and legislator. That dedication and that commitment deserve our respect.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at its organizational meeting on January 3, 2001, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1)(A) of rule XI of the rules of the House, the Rules Committee adopted in an open meeting, with a quorum present, its committee rules for the 107th Congress. Pursuant to clause 2(a)(1)(D) of rule XI of the rules of the House and clause (d) of rule I of the rules of the Committee on Rules, the rules of the Committee on Rules are hereby submitted for printing in the Congressional Record. Rules of the Committee on Rules--U.S. House of Representatives, 107th Congress rule 1--general provisions (a) The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee and its subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are non-debatable privileged motions in the Committee. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to the members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such day). (b) Each subcommittee is a part of the Committee, and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. (c) The provisions of clause 2 of rule XI of the rules of the House are incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to the extent applicable. (d) The Committee's rules shall be published in the Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the Committee is elected in each odd-numbered year. rule 2--regular, additional, and special meetings Regular Meetings (a)(1) The Committee shall regularly meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday of each week when the House is in session. (2) A regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chairman of the Committee (hereafter in these rules referred to as the ``Chair''), there is no need for the meeting. (3) Additional regular meetings and hearings of the Committee may be called by the Chair. Notice for Regular Meetings (b) The Chair shall notify each member of the Committee of the agenda of each regular meeting of the Committee at least 48 hours before the time of the meeting and shall provide to each member of the Committee, at least 24 hours before the time of each regular meeting. (1) for each bill or resolution scheduled on the agenda for consideration of a rule, a copy of (A) the bill or resolution, (B) any committee reports thereon, and (C) any letter requesting a rule for the bill or resolution; and (2) for each other bill, resolution, report, or other matter on the agenda a copy of-- (A) the bill, resolution, report, or materials relating to the other matter in question; and (B) any report on the bill, resolution, report, or any other matter made by any subcommittee of the Committee. Emergency Meetings (c)(1) The Chair may call an emergency meeting of the Committee at any time on any measure or matter which the Chair determines to be of an emergency nature; provided, however, that the Chair has made an effort to consult the ranking minority member, or, in such member's absence, the next ranking minority party member of the Committee. (2) As soon as possible after calling an emergency meeting of the Committee, the Chair shall notify each member of the Committee of the time and location of the meeting. (3) To the extent feasible, the notice provided under paragraph (2) shall include the agenda for the emergency meeting and copies of available materials which would otherwise have been provided under subsection (b) if the emergency meeting was a regular meeting. Special Meetings (d) Special meetings shall be called and convened as provided in clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, just 24 days ago, an agonizingly close, long Presidential election came to a close. Regardless of partisanship or ideology, Americans were touched by Vice President Gore's gracious and heartfelt concession speech. That night he recalled the words of Senator Steven Douglas from nearly a century and a half ago. Following his loss to Abraham Lincoln, Douglass said partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I am with you, Mr. President, and God bless. Those words were spoken at a time when divisions in the United States were so severe that the next 5 years saw nearly 700,000 Americans give their lives in a great Civil War. Certainly today, even with the partisan rancor that accompanies such a close election, we can stand together. The traditions of our forefathers, the honor of our constitutional democracy, and the spirit of the words of Vice President Gore call for this to be a day of statesmanship, civility, and respect.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. That is correct.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Correct.

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. Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Moakley

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I obviously believe that we have been able to successfully craft a very good package of rules changes for the 107th Congress. As I have listened over the last few minutes to the statements from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it really is a misunderstanding of what it is that we are doing here and of what the process is. You have to go back over 120 years before Speaker Reed was Speaker of the House to find a time when we did not enjoy majority rule where the party in the majority actually set forth the rules under which the House was governed. That is exactly what has happened this year. We have just over the last few minutes seen a vote for Speaker of the House. The Democrats voted for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Republicans voted for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). There were more votes for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) than there were for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). Was that a partisan vote? Well, yes, it was a partisan vote. Did we, in fact, see a crafting of the rules done in a bipartisan way? Well, we certainly took into consideration minority proposals. I am always willing to listen to the thoughts of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. But I served for 14 years in the minority here, and sometimes we did not even get that much from those who were in the majority. I am not saying we should do it exactly the same way, because we learned some things from you that I have to admit were good, and there are other things that we learned that we have not proceeded with. That is why if one looks at the proposals that we have had come forth beginning with the Republicans becoming the majority, the Republican takeover in 1994, to today, I believe we have done an awful lot to recognize minority rights. It has been my experience, having served 14 years in the minority, that led me to say that we wanted to do things, like ensure that the minority has a right to offer that motion to recommit, and we have done that. We have continued it. I know that there was consideration to this issue of reinstating proxy voting, and it is no secret that there was a discussion on our side about it, and we decided to keep the ban on proxy voting, and that, of course, ensures that committee chairmen do not simply use the proxy vote without other members of the majority being there, often at the expense of the minority. The other thing that I think is very important for us to note is the question of committee funding. I am very proud, and I have worked closely with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) on the issue of committee funding on the Committee on Rules, and I know that other committees have been able to put together a package, and under the leadership of our Committee on House Administration and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), we have increased the funding level for the minority for their committee staffs. The other question that was raised during this debate had to do with committee ratios. By tradition, Mr. Speaker, the way this works is, the Speaker of the House and the minority leader work out an agreement on committee ratios, and that is exactly what is taking place now, and that is what has taken place here. Then, on this issue of the jurisdictional change, I will say that I am very proud of the fact that going back 7 years to what was called the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, one that I cochaired, along with Senator Domenici and former Senator Boren and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, a committee which spent a great deal of time looking at reforms of this institution. At that time, 7 years ago, 1993, I offered a proposal which dealt with this exact jurisdictional shift, which we are finally including today, 7 years later. I did not quite make it then. My proposal then died on a 6-6 tie vote. We are doing it today, and obviously, it is controversial in the eyes of many, but it is being done for the same policy reasons that I proposed back in 1993. Now, it is even more important than it was then because of the passage of the very important Financial Services Modernization Act that we were able to pass in the 106th Congress. That is the reason we are doing this, and I believe that it will enhance our ability to deal with a wide range of very important public policy questions that are on the horizon. So let me just say that this is a fair package; it is a balanced package. I think it deserves bipartisan support. While I doubt that we will have too many Members on the other side of the aisle who will join in support of the rules package, I do not believe that it, in any way, undermines the commitment that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), made just a few minutes ago here in this Chamber to our goal of working to bring about solutions to the challenges that we will face in this very important new year. So with that, I will say that I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move ahead on a number of important issues, and I urge strong support of this package.