David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I compliment him on his management and filing of this rule, which took place just a few hours ago, in fact, in the middle of the night, so that we can move ahead with this very important measure. We are making history here. I strongly support both the rule and this conference report. For the first time ever we are locking away Social Security money in a safe deposit box which will finally end Washington's pattern of raiding the Social Security fund. It is very important for us to recognize that that is something that is being done in this package with this budget that the other side is not doing. Compare this to President Clinton's budget, which actually spends $341 billion of the Social Security surplus over the next decade. Our budget that we are going to be voting on here devotes $100 billion more than the President's budget to save, strengthen and preserve both Social Security and Medicare, while the President's budget actually cuts $11.9 billion in Medicare. We maintain the spending discipline that brought us the balanced budget back in 1997, while, unfortunately, the President's budget exceeds the caps by $30 billion. After locking away funds for Social Security and Medicare, we return the rest of the surplus to working Americans in tax relief. The President's budget raises taxes by $172 billion. In fact, the President has said that Congress should not even consider providing any kind of tax relief to working families for a decade and a half, 15 years. Our budget pays down $450 billion more in public debt than the administration's budget does. Mr. Speaker, by practicing fiscal responsibility we guarantee that the priorities of the American people are protected, good schools, relief from overtaxation, a solid Social Security system, and something that is of great importance today, and that is a strong, rebuilt national defense capability. The difference in the parties' visions reminds me of the old adage ``the more things change, the more they stay the same.'' The bottom line is that, like the American people, Republicans are paying attention to the bottom line. We have chosen to stay within budget spending limits. And unfortunately, on the other hand, the President wants to return to the policies of tax and spend. I think it is a very clear picture that is here, and I hope that my colleagues will join in strong support of not only this rule but of this very important conference report so that, as we for the second time since the 1974 Budget Act has been put into place, so that we can in fact get our work done, which has been a priority of this 106th Congress.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his superb management of this rule. I rise in strong support of the rule. We have a very simple and basic goal here. It is to subscribe to those two words in the U.S. Constitution, ``actual enumeration.'' In so doing, we want to make sure that every single American is counted. I thought we had started to win this war on the issue of local control. We in a bipartisan way passed the Education Flexibility Act. What did it say? It said decisions would be made at the local level. What is it that H.R. 472 says? Basically the same thing it did back when the 1990 census was conducted. It said that there should be post- census local review. There should be some kind of local input for this process. Frankly, I believe that it is the most responsible thing to do. It is by far and away the most balanced thing. I think organizations have recognized that. We have heard that we have got the National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the National Association of Developmental Organizations, I mean, they are supportive of this measure because it is fair and it is the right thing to do. I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have raised questions about this rule. I will tell my colleagues, I am looking at the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who reminded me yesterday that I had said to her last month when we had this hearing in the Committee on Rules that we wanted to make her amendment in order. In fact, that is exactly what we have done. On March 18, I announced right here that we were in fact going to have preprinting. We have made with this rule every single amendment that has been submitted to the Committee on Rules over the last month in order. That basically consists of an amendment from our side by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the amendment by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). We had an interesting hearing on this issue upstairs. So we have in fact done exactly what it is that they requested. We will have, if there is a recommittal motion, a grand total of 3 hours and 10 minutes of debate, including this debate which is taking place right here. So I think that we have moved ahead with this, with what is a very, very balanced, fair rule on this question. At the same time, we have given more than an adequate amount of time for debate and again have made every Democratic amendment in order that they requested. So I urge my colleagues to, in light of that, support this rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I would like to thank my friend from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time. The underlying bill is vital to the economic growth of developing countries. H.R. 1143 is a bipartisan bill cosponsored by my friend from Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Hall), and a number of others and is designed to provide assistance for programs of credit and other financial services for microenterprises in developing countries. For a number of years I have been proud to be a supporter of microenterprise programs. I support H.R. 1143 because it moves us forward and sets the direction for the future of microenterprise programs. One of the most important elements of this legislation is the requirement to increase the amount of assistance devoted to credit activities designed to reach the poorest sector in developing countries and to improve the access to the poorest, particularly women, to microenterprise credit in developing countries. We have been informed by the World Bank that more than 1.2 billion people in the developing world, one-fifth of the world's entire population, subsists on less than $1 a day. Today this Congress sends a message that America not only supports the political and religious freedom of all people, but also advocates the economic freedom of people in nations across this globe. The bill will make microenterprise development an important element of United States economic policy and assistance. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said that part of our foreign policy to maintain peace abroad was to promote market-oriented solutions to international problems, telling the story abroad of America's free enterprise way of life. As the United States leads the way in developing a new global financial architecture, I believe that microenterprise will play an indispensable role in that quest. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation as it moves forward.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts has made an extraordinarily wonderful point when he says he does not want to have anything to do with the President's budget. We made the President's budget in order for consideration when we move ahead for debate for a very important reason; and that is, I believe that the President was very serious when he submitted his budget to the Congress. I find it very interesting that the budget of the President's had to be offered by Republicans. Why? Because not one single Member of the President's party chose to step forward and endorse, support, and propose this budget that I am proudly talking about and juxtaposing to the proposal that has come from the Budget Committee. So I will continue, if I can, to talk about more reasons why Democrats do not even want to offer the President's budget. Our budget actually pays down $450 billion more in public debt than the administration's budget does. For those on the other side of the aisle who have looked back to the days of liberal rule of the Congress and budget deficits which went as far as the eye can see, we are making in order, as I said, this old-fashioned tax-and-spend last budget that the President submitted for this Congress, the 20th Century. I think it is unfortunate that the President chose to do that. But we have to take seriously what the President has submitted to us. That is why our Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) will in fact be offering that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have no intention of waiving that one, I should say, and we do plan to have in fact this locked up. It is the first time in history that we have ever attempted to do that. That is what this Congress is doing. So I hope that, if my colleagues look at the litany of proposals that have been put forward, I am very happy that we have got the President's budget, we made the Spratt budget alternative in order, and we made the Blue Dog budget in order. Of the alternatives that we are going to have, all three of them were authored by Democrats. So I have got to say that I think we are being very fair, very balanced, and I look forward to a vigorous debate on that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend, for his very valuable contribution. I hope that the spirit that was raised as a question from the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Budget earlier this morning to me will be recognized, and I am trying to give time over to the other side of the aisle because I know that the gentleman said that he wanted to have, in fact, longer than the 40 minutes. Although I have got to tell my colleagues, as chairman of the Committee on Rules, I have had Democrat after Democrat who has come up to me and said, ``Gosh, don't you think, after 10 hours of debate, maybe tonight we could complete this budget process?'' That is exactly what we are trying to do. Frankly, I do not have to leave here tonight or first thing in the morning, but I have got so many Members on the other side of the aisle who are urging us to complete this. Let me say, I know that there is great time. I have tried to yield as generously as I can to the ranking minority member.

Mr. DREIER. If there is one question, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to once again yield to the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. And we agree on a lot of things, too.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding me this time and appreciate his fine leadership in this effort. This morning, as the House opened, since we did not go through one minutes, a lot of us were here to listen to the prayer delivered by the Chaplain. The Chaplain said, ``One of the things that we have to do here is face the challenge of those decisions that will affect the lives of others.'' This issue of the budget is a very serious one, and it cannot be taken lightly. That is why I am extraordinarily proud of, not only the process that we have gone through for consideration of these different budgets, but the budget itself that is the underlying effort that was put forward by the Committee on the Budget. When we think about the impact on lives of others, we think about retirees and those who are looking towards retirement. We are making history today when we do in fact pass the committee's budget, which I believe we will do. We are locking away Social Security money for Social Security and ending what has been at least a 3\1/2\ or 4 decade long practice of raiding Social Security for other spending. I have got to enter into the Record at this point, Mr. Speaker, a letter that has come from the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons. In it is made very clear that there is a high level of support and recognition that our plan to lock away Social Security does in fact provide the greatest opportunity for us to address the needs of retirees. The letter is as follows:

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Jack Stark, the President of Claremont McKenna College, after nearly three decades of outstanding leadership, is retiring in July of this year. He will be succeeded by Pamela Brooks Gann, currently Dean of Duke University School of Law. For thirty years, the world of higher education has been roiled by change. The free speech movement of the 1960's, the first challenge to campus authority, was succeeded by demands for black and other ethnic studies, by the anti-war movement, by sit-ins and violent demonstrations against ROTC. Then came contests over affirmative action in admission and faculty hiring, the challenge to courses in Western Civilization, ``Gay Rights,'' and the passions aroused by ``political correctness.'' Throughout this turmoil, Claremont McKenna College, unlike so many other academic institutions, has held firmly to its founding mission--and it has prospered mightily. Jack Stark kept CMC on course through these stressful years, built its endowment, raised admission standards, and recruited distinguished faculty. If this were the sum of Jack Stark's achievement, we would honor him as one of the nation's great academic leaders. It is not only as a conservator, however, but also as an educational innovator that he deserves our attention. Jack Stark built on the campus of CMC--a small, private, undergraduate liberal arts college--nine research institutes, each different in its scholarly focus, but each contributing to the education of CMC's one thousand students. The first to be founded was The Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World. The Salvatori Center supports the study of the conditions essential to the preservation of liberty, and under its directors, Ward Elliott, Ralph Rossum and Charles Kesler, has contributed vigorously to intellectual debate. The Rose Institute of State and Local Government, which was founded 25 years ago this April, specializes in survey research, fiscal analysis, and database development. The Institute authors studies of political and demographic trends, and its student team is trained in many aspects of computer-aided research. Its Board Chairman, Al Lunsford, refers to it as an ``unmatched resource of data and analysis in its geographical area of focus,'' and under its long-time director, Dr. Alan Heslop, the Institute has built a formidable reputation. The third to be founded was The Institute of Decision Science, which provides practical experience in economic and mathematical modeling, decision-making, and risk analysis for industry, government and the professions. It sponsors research and presents conferences on topics in decision science. IDS and its director, Janet Myhre, are frequently consulted by government agencies and major industrial corporations. Next to be founded was The Lowe Institute of Political Economy. Initially under the direction of Dr. Craig Stubblebine, now headed by Dr. Sven Arndt, the Lowe Institute supports the study of major issues in economic policy. Recent work has focused on the North American Free Trade Agreement, APEC and on trade and regulatory policies. The Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies was founded to support the study of critical issues in world affairs by sponsoring lectures, fellowships, visiting scholars, conferences, publications, and student internships. Its director, Dr. C. J. Lee, is an expert on Asia and has led the center in studies on Korean affairs. The Family of Benjamin Z. Gould Center of Humanistic Studies, originally headed by Dr. Ricardo Quinones, now by Dr. Jay Martin, is dedicated to understanding vital issues of the modern world in light of the perennial values provided by literature, philosophy, and religion. Towards this end, it sponsors publications, visiting speakers, student and faculty research, and organized lecture series. The Roberts Environmental Center uses an interdisciplinary approach encompassing biology, chemistry, economics, and political science to analyze environmental problems and to evaluate policy alternatives. Under its founding director, the late Robert Felmeth, and now under Dr. Emil Morhardt, it conducts field research, trains students in the use of analytical software and sponsors the Environment, Economics, and Politics major. The Kravis Leadership Institute provides for the academic study of leadership and sponsors speakers, mentoring, internships, and the Leadership Studies Sequence. Its director, Dr. Ronald Riggio, has been one of the pioneers of leadership studies in psychology. Most recent is the newly formed Berger Institute on Work, Family, and Children--the ninth of the institutes to be fathered by Jack Stark. At their best, these nine CMC research institutes provide students and faculty with opportunities to engage together in the investigation of key public policy issues. Students get close, hands-on experience of the challenges--the chores as well as the joys--of scholarship. Typically, their work is not for academic credit: the students are paid, and as their responsibilities increase so does their remuneration. Research on important subjects, produced by small faculty-student teams, funded by outside grants and contracts, is achieving a solid reputation for CMC's institutes. CMC students are making important extra-curricular gains by working with faculty specialists in methodologies they are sure to encounter in their later careers and on the important subjects that face our society. Every one of those CMC students owes Jack Stark a debt of gratitude. The world of higher education, too, would be wise to note this pioneering achievement at Claremont McKenna College.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and of the underlying supplemental appropriations bill. It is an open rule. And while I am sorry that we were unable to provide waivers to all the Members who wanted them for their individual amendments, I do believe that we will have a chance for a free and open debate here, which is exactly what this calls for. The major thrust of this supplemental appropriations bill is to deal with a very serious crisis, and it is a crisis. I just upstairs met with one of the top executives with Dole Food who was telling me about the situation in Honduras, how they as a company stepped in and tried to provide much-needed relief. We know that literally thousands of people lost their lives and over 30,000 people have been left homeless, and the numbers go on and on and on, from Hurricane Mitch. And we have been waiting to try and put together this package of assistance. I am very proud, as an American citizen, that we can step up and help our very good friends at this important time of need. We, as a Nation, have had a constant interest in Central America. My friend from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss) and I have on several occasions visited Central America and we know that the tremendous strides that they have made toward political pluralism are important to recognize. Unfortunately, they faced this horrible catastrophe. And while this is a great deal of money, it is I believe very, very important for us as a society to step up to the plate and provide this much-needed assistance to our neighbors. As we know, these dollars are offset within the guidelines that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has put forward, and I commend him for that, and I think that it is in fact the responsible and right thing for us to do. And so I hope my colleagues will join in strong support of not only this rule but this very important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) as a cosponsor of this important resolution condemning racism. America was founded on the fundamental principle that God endowed each and every human being with an innate value and equality which stands above any man-made institution or authority. This fundamental principle that human beings, with their rights and responsibilities, are the foundation upon which all good societies are built, is what has separated this great Nation from nearly every other civilization in history. That said, we know human beings are flawed and that this country suffers from many of the same evils that we see tearing apart people and communities across the globe. Racism divides us. Bigotry closes our minds and our hearts to others. Religious and ethnic intolerance eat away at our soul and reduce our humanity. Therefore, we must repeat the message of racial and religious tolerance, not only to ourselves, but to our children who are the future. We rise today unequivocally, not to state that our past is pure, not that we are without sin, not that we will not fail in the future, but that we will strive to live up to Abraham Lincoln's vision of America, ``A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Did my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, vote for it at that time, is the question that we need to ask? We welcome the gentleman to the fold.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I did. The problem that we faced was that we were never able to get that measure even considered on the House floor, and that was very frustrating for many of us.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to simply extend congratulations to the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, my very good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and just say that he has led us very, very strongly in the direction of creating a very, very strong balance on this issue of minority representation. Having served in the minority for so many years, we are very sensitive to that concern on this side of the aisle. I believe that the balance that has been struck is a very healthy one, and I hope that the House will move and pass this resolution so that we can begin to address a lot of the concerns that are out there. Technologically, we need to make sure that the equipment is available. We need to have first class staff, and I think we have that, but we have to compensate them and I think that this measure does just that. I thank my friend and congratulate him for his fine work.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I did yield. The gentleman said that he wants to have a debate, and we are going to have debate. In fact, 3 hours of debate can take place on the Allen amendment if you all so choose. So the idea that the opportunity to offer it has been denied is crazy, because we changed the rules in 1994 to make that order.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I make a couple of points as we conclude this debate on the rule?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. What I want to say is if we look at the report that has come forward from the Rumsfeld Commission which was presented to us on the House floor today in a closed meeting, the declassified segment of that makes it obvious. It says, the Rumsfeld Commission, the ballistic missile threat to the United States is broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly than reported in estimates and reports in the intelligence community. Now, what does that say? It says that as we look at this threat that is there from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, China, it is obvious that this is the most responsible thing for us to do. So that is why I will say again, one is either for it or one is against it. This reminds me of the debate that we had in the 1980s. Again, I congratulate my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for the great job that he has done on this.

Mr. DREIER. May I reclaim my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I was just going to say that we are going to have 3 hours of debate. Now, if the decision is made at this moment that the motion of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is the one that the ranking member of the committee wants to offer as a recommittal motion, for that entire 3 hours of debate, the opportunity is there, the opportunity is there for a full and open discussion on this issue.