David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today a ``dear colleague'' letter was sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet later this week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules up in H-312 of the Capitol by 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 20. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Commerce on October 13. Copies of the bill may be obtained from the committee. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments to both bills are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the Rules of the House. I would like to inform members of the Committee on Rules that we are going to be meeting in 10 minutes upstairs for the consideration of two measures.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today I sent a Dear Colleague to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 1993, the Export Enhancement Act of 1999. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to their consideration on the floor. Amendments should be drafted to the version of the bill reported by the Committee on International Relations. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House. I join in extending happy Columbus Day to all of our colleagues.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. As the gentleman from Texas understands the rules of the House very well, he understands germaneness. It is not germane to do that. The gentleman signed the discharge petition in the well, I suspect, with a lot of people. If that would have moved forward, it would not have been made in order.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. As the gentleman knows, that is the prerogative of the majority, to set forth these guidelines. But it is very clear that if we are going to address the question that my friend has accurately raised, the fact that we have gone from 1992, when the President was elected and 38 million Americans were uninsured, to the report we just received this week, that 44.3 million Americans are uninsured, we believe very strongly that unless we provide those things that are in the access bill, that we will not be able to address the concerns of those who will become even more uninsured if we simply have the kind of legislation that the gentleman supports. That is the reason we want to tie these bills together.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the fine job that he has done on this issue. It is not often that I stand in this well somewhat saddened over the debate that we have gone through. This is one of the first times that I can remember that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) used the word ``warped.'' Last night, he pounded on the table upstairs. If there is any kind of unfairness, it is coming from the rhetoric that we have gotten from the other side of the aisle, using words like ``cynical'' and ``calculated'' to describe what we are doing here. One hundred and eighty-four Members signed the discharge petition. I have to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, that is not what it takes to force a bill to the floor. We very much want a deal, with the fact that there are 44.3 million Americans who do not have insurance, and we want to increase accessibility for them. We also want to make sure that people are accountable when there are problems out there, and that is exactly what we are doing with the reform measure itself. We also want to make sure that affordability is out there, and that is what we are doing with this measure. This is a very fair bill. My colleagues are screaming about one amendment on the other side of the aisle. Fifty-nine amendments were submitted to our committee. Forty-three Republicans were denied, and the Members on the other side are saying this is an unfair rule because of the six amendments the Democrats submitted, one of them was not made in order. Well, that to me is unfair rhetoric. We are about to proceed with what I think is going to be a very fair, fair debate. In fact, we have to go back a quarter of a century, 25 years, to the debate in 1974 on the ERISA act to find a rule that is more fair. Now a lot of people have been complaining, saying that this bill ties together the reform package and the access package. It does not do that. At the end, after the votes are taken, they are engrossed and will be sent to the other body for a conference, which we hope will address each issue. So if someone does not want to vote for the access bill, they do not have to vote for the access bill. They can still vote for the reform bill and only after both measures pass will they be engrossed and sent to the other side of the Capitol. So I happen to believe very strongly that we are going to begin an important debate. Everyone acknowledges that there are problems with our health care, in spite of the fact that we have the best health care system on the face of the earth. People come from all over the world to enjoy it, but there are still problems. They need to be addressed and this bill, with three balanced substitutes, will allow for an open debate, a fair debate; and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER. Well, I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) did and several other Members. It is not germane.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) for his superb handling of this issue and the very important input that he has had in structuring this and working closely with the distinguished Cardinal Callahan in helping to move this measure forward. There is, obviously, some controversy around it. But frankly, it is a measure which falls right in line with our commitment to fund our national priorities, and to do so under the very tight spending constraints with which we are forced to live. At the same time we are doing that, the conference report utilizes our scarce resources to ensure our successful and very important leadership abroad. A previous speaker mentioned the fact that we are committed to recognizing the importance of global trade. That is something that is underscored here. Another issue that is very important is for us to, obviously, address the spread of communicable diseases in the developing world, and especially among children. Legislation we are going to be dealing with later today also focuses on children. This conference report itself provides $715 million for child survival and disease programs that are highly effective in fighting diseases out there, such as tuberculosis, malaria, and yellow fever. We can all agree that the drug abuse issue is no longer simply a domestic concern, it is a global concern. The bill of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) addresses that by providing $285 million to fight international drug traffickers. We recognize in doing so that wiping out that scourge of drugs must be a top priority for all nations throughout the world. The conference report also is very, very key to dealing with that continued challenge we face in the Middle East. This report maintains our commitment to Israel and Egypt, as laid out in the Camp David accords. Nearly half of the funding is devoted to peace in the Middle East, so this vital region will continue down the path towards democracy and prosperity and stability. So I urge my colleagues to join in support of this rule and the very important conference report. The easy issue which is often demagogued around here is to oppose foreign assistance. It is something that frankly I have done in years past. I have done it because in many instances we were spending much more than we should. But the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and other members of his subcommittee and the conference itself have dealt with these spending constraints which have been imposed on us appropriately, and they have established priorities. The priority for us is to maintain our Nation's leadership position in the world. We all recognize that the United States of America is the world's only complete superpower militarily, economically, and geopolitically. Responsibility goes with that, so providing this assistance is really a very, very small part of that. It is important to note that much of this assistance benefits the United States of America directly in dollars that are expended here. So I urge support of the rule, support of the conference report, and look forward to what probably will be a reasonably close vote, but I think we will be successful.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Iowa will yield, I would simply like to congratulate my friend and tell him that I have just filed a rule, which in fact, will allow us to have the freest, fairest debate that we have had in over a quarter century on the health care issues. We anxiously look forward to bringing that measure up tomorrow morning here on the House floor, and we will continue to debate it into Thursday. And I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I look forward to his continued remarks.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Dallas for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his fine statement and his work on this. I mention that he is from Dallas. I feel compelled to bring at least a modicum of geographic balance to this debate. As I look at the manager of the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the manager on the minority side, the other gentleman from Dallas; and then once we pass the rule, we look at the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the manager on the minority side will be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). So I am pleased to bring some geographic balance to this debate and say this, obviously, is an issue which transcends simply our friends from Texas and is, in fact, a very, very important issue. I think that the statement that was made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is right on target when he says that it is better to be prepared rather than simply reacting to weather. And we clearly know that, as we have been dealing with disasters that have hit throughout the past several weeks and months here in this country and the tragedies that we have witnessed around the world. Obviously, this legislation, which enjoys strong bipartisan support, as does the rule, is designed to ensure that we have better risk management and those tools that are essential to an industry which obviously is dependent on the weather. So I simply want to congratulate my friend and say that I am pleased to join in support of what is obviously a very, very important step to make sure that we maintain a continuity for ranchers and farmers in this country.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues the very unfortunate case of Zhang Rongliang, one of the most prominent church leaders in the People's Republic of China. During the month of August, Chinese officials arrested over 30 House church leaders, including Mr. Zhang. It is reported that government security officers burst into a meeting of his church, telling the gathering that they were a cult, engaged in illegal activities. Last year, Mr. Zhang made it clear by signing the United Appeal to the Chinese Government and the House Church Confession of Faith that he has no desire to undermine his nation. Instead, his desire is to serve the people of China. Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Chinese Government in this case are a blatant violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which they have agreed to uphold. Mr. Zhang is not a criminal and should not be treated as such. The actions of the Chinese Government in this case, and others like it, are undermining their own ability to bring China fully into the community of nations. I urge them to immediately release Mr. Zhang and others unjustly arrested and imprisoned because of their religious beliefs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield time to the gentlewoman. I will just say that that just is not an accurate statement because we have in fact been able to meet the deadline.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 68, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2000. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, for 5 years, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly made the tough decisions necessary to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. The hard work of American taxpayers, combined with our commitment to spend their money wisely, has resulted in the first 2- year budget surplus since the 1950s. I am very proud to say that our victory over irresponsible spending has been so overwhelming that maintaining a balanced budget is now a priority, not only for Republicans, but for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and other Members on the other side of the aisle who join with us in our quest for maintaining balanced budgets. Now it is time for us to take the next step and live up to the contract that we have made with America's voters. People will say it cannot be done. People will claim that we are threatening our important national needs. I happen to disagree with that assertion. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the $1.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2000 is the largest amount of Federal spending that we have ever had. I do not believe that the unexpected tax revenue coming from hardworking Americans is a windfall given to the President and those of us in Congress to spend on nice-sounding, poll-tested programs. First and foremost, our budget decisions should be made after we set aside the Social Security surplus, and we just had that debate on this resolution, which is obviously key to providing long-term retirement security to millions of Americans. Just like with balancing the budget, this will require hard work and fiscal discipline. So far, under the very able leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who is sitting here to my right, the House and the other body have each passed 12 out of the 13 appropriations bills. One bill, as we know, has already been signed into law, and we hope to have eight more ready for the President's signature before the fiscal year ends on Thursday. I guess we already do have three that are over on the President's desk right now we are hoping that he will sign, although I guess we have heard he is scheduled to veto one of them today. The bottom line is that we are committed to getting the appropriations work done right here in the Congress. And I think, again, that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has done a superb job in this effort. This continuing resolution will allow the Federal Government to continue its normal operations while we meet that goal that we are pursuing. Now, it should go without saying that continuing resolutions like the one we are going to be considering here, as soon as we report out this rule, are a normal part of the annual budget process. As my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), knows very well, when they were in the majority, it was routine for many appropriations agreements to get hammered out with the President during the month of October. While we work in a bipartisan effort to wrap up the appropriations bills just as soon as possible, we on this side of the aisle remain focused on our Nation's top priorities: Saving Social Security and Medicare, which, again, was discussed in the last resolution we just had with us; restoring our Nation's defense posture; improving public education; and providing tax relief for working Americans. We are making real progress on these fronts, passing the Social Security lockbox, the National Ballistic Missile Defense Act, the Education Flexibility Act, and the Teacher Empowerment Act. Although the President chose to veto the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, we remain committed to providing meaningful tax relief to the people who have, in fact, created this anticipated $3.4 trillion surplus. Completing the appropriations process is more than just an accounting procedure. Throughout this process, we need to keep our broader priorities in mind. I am very confident that H.J. Res. 68 will give us the time to get that job done within the next 3 weeks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my very good and hard working and overworked friend; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding will, as usual, be for debate purposes only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy to associate myself with many of the comments just made by my friend from South Boston. And, frankly, the one with which I am most proud to associate myself is his strong praise of the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would like to begin by praising my friend from Wisconsin, the former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, now ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. He is correct when he pointed to the fact that he was able to complete the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 1995 when he served as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. There is a big difference, though. Obviously we know that the work was done in 1989, completing those 13 appropriations bills, and it was done under this majority in 1997. So basically three times in the last two decades it has been done. I again congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin for having accomplished that. But between 1994 when he completed his work and today, something has happened, and, that is, we are living within amazing constraints that did not exist when he was chairman of the committee. For starters, the United States Senate was in the hands of Democrats, the United States House of Representatives was in the hands of Democrats, and we had a Democrat in the White House, which was an important issue. And as the gentleman last night said, appropriately, he worked with the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations to deal with the 302(b) allocations in a bipartisan way. But the real difference that has taken place is, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) very appropriately corrected his earlier statement, we did not have a balanced budget when we dealt with this in 1994. He did complete the 13 appropriations bills on time, but we did not have a balanced budget. So what we have done twixt 1994 and today is that we are living with the 1997 balanced budget agreement which was put into place and as we all know has in fact brought about this surplus that we are all arguing over. Now, a lot of finger-pointing has taken place from my friends on the other side of the aisle towards the Republicans. We are here today with a continuing resolution which the gentleman from Florida is going to be very ably handling in a bipartisan way in just a few minutes when we complete the debate on this rule, because we have been working with the President. We are in fact meeting our constitutional obligations. And while it does not appear terribly likely, even some on our side of the aisle would say it, we are still desperately trying to reach that midnight deadline, day after tomorrow, and have the 13 appropriations bills done. Now, the gentleman from Maryland was correct when he said that Speaker Hastert on his opening day said that we would complete our appropriations work, getting these bills out of the House, by the summer. Just before we adjourned in early August for that 5-week period, we had completed the work on 12 of the 13 bills. Unfortunately the day that we adjourned, we received the tragic news of the death of the father of our colleague the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. For that reason we were not able to complete that work just before we went into the recess. So we would have had 12 of the 13 bills accomplished. And so I think that with again the narrowest majority that we have had in nearly five decades, that Speaker Hastert was very, very close to being on target in what obviously is a very difficult situation. So we are trying to do our constitutional duty. I think we are doing pretty darn well in accomplishing that. We are here on this 3-week continuing resolution. I hope, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said and as the gentleman from Maryland said, that we will not have to have another continuing resolution. I hope that we are going to have an agreement which will allow us to move ahead and get this work done and let us adjourn by the October 29 deadline that the Speaker has said he wants us to meet. I encourage strong support of this rule and the continuing resolution. At this moment, I am going to go back upstairs to the Committee on Rules where we are reporting out the rule on yet another conference report, the Foreign Operations conference report, and we will have that tomorrow here on the floor. So we are on target and doing everything we can. I urge support of this rule and the bill itself. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would like to commend my colleagues the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and others who have worked on this. Obviously as a Californian, the gentleman from California and I know full well of the devastation of earthquakes. His area suffered the Loma Prieta quake in 1989. I remember that day very well, October 16, 1989. We on January 17 of 1994 suffered the terrible Northridge quake in southern California. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is from northern California, I am from southern California. Obviously we in our State have many Chinese Americans, people who are both from the mainland and from Taiwan. So I just would like to say especially as a Californian that my heart goes out to those who have been impacted, of course, the families of those who were killed and also to those who, we are happy to say, have survived. I just heard as I entered the Chamber the gentleman from California refer to the incredible and heroic mission that was embarked upon by several of those seeking to rescue the people where they found two young men who after several days were still alive. I would just like to say that it is important for us to do everything that we can to encourage private support that will be going through organizations directly to the people. I am frankly happy that we have seen an indication of support coming from the People's Republic of China to provide assistance and that statement I know was made by Jiang Zemin at the very outset immediately following the quake. I just want to do everything that we possibly can to assist the people of Taiwan as they go through what obviously is a very challenging time. One of the things that again the gentleman from California and I know very well is that it is one thing to go through the quake itself but the rebuilding process itself is a real challenge. It is going to be important for us to continue to provide whatever assistance we possibly can. I again thank both of my colleagues for authoring this important resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of Monday, September 27, 1999, to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H. R. 2605) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes; that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived; and that the conference report be considered as read when called up.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, for his fine leadership on the Committee on Rules and his management of this and his moving it so expeditiously. I am not going to take a long period of time other than to say I cannot believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) would advocate opposing an open rule which simply had a prefiling requirement for the Congressional Record. I mean, it is a modified open rule. Seven amendments have been filed. We are going to see what obviously will be a free-flowing debate, I suspect not unlike the exchange we saw between the two gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Doggett and Mr. Frost, just now. This bill is not about attorney bashing. I mean, the trial lawyers are often criticized around here. But that is really not the issue. The fact of the matter is, in my State of California, we have often seen judge shopping take place. That is what is going on right now all around the country. What has that done? It has unfortunately increased cost to consumers, and it has created an amazing burden. That is the reason that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and others are going to be moving forward with what I believe to be a very fair and balanced measure which will have a free and open debate. It is the right thing for us to do. We want to make sure that people do, in fact, have their day in court. I will tell both of the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Doggett and Mr. Frost, that I am looking forward to superb judicial appointments coming from the next administration. I am looking forward to a United States Senate which will, at the speed of light, confirm those spectacular appointments.