David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the magnanimity of my very kind friend from Glens Falls. Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly ironic debate that we have embarked upon. I sat there listening to the comments of my very good friend from South Boston, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) rising in opposition to this rule, and he went through all of his complaints as to why he considers this to be a do-nothing Congress. Mr. Speaker, the rule that we are considering is designed so that we can do something. We are trying very much to move legislation through and consider appropriations so that we can keep the government going, so that we can bring about the spending cuts to which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) referred, and so that we can get out of here and go home. Then they say that we have done nothing and all we want to do with this rule is to make sure that we can do something. Let us look at some of the things that we have, in fact, done. I will say that as I listened again to the litany of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), I was struck with the fact that the United States Congress is not an automobile manufacturing plant. One is not graded based on the number of cars that they put out or the number of bills that they pass. We are today at a point where I think based on, and I do not believe in all of these polls because, Lord knows, they are just a little picture at one point in time, but we all look at polls, and guess what? The 105th Congress has the highest approval rating of any Congress in recent history, and so it seems to me that we may be doing some things right. What are some of the things that we have actually done? Well, we have passed the first balanced budget in 29 years, and I think that in itself is tremendous. The President of the United States on October 1, the first day of the fiscal year, was very proud to hold a ceremony in the Rose Garden and proclaim the fact that we had a $60 billion budget surplus. That all came about not because of what was done there, not because of the largest increase that was passed under the Democratic Congress and Democratic President back in 1993, but because a Republican Congress that took over following the 1994 election got us on the road towards fiscal responsibility. We dragged him, kicking and screaming, but we are very pleased that ultimately President Clinton embraced our themes of balancing the budget and cutting taxes. We also, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has mentioned, have had a tremendous tax cut for working families, and what has that brought us? It has brought us a lot of things. One of them has been an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) mentioned, that working couple at Sears & Roebuck that has been able to realize some capital gain from their pension and other investments that they might have had, what has happened? Well, we have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. That is what has helped us balance the Federal budget. So it has been the first time in 16 years that we have been able to bring about a tax cut for working families. I am also very proud of the fact that we have been able to reform Medicare to keep the seniors' health care structure solvent. Something else that was a major concern that came to the forefront, passed in a bipartisan way, but I am very pleased that it is a Republican Congress that did it, I do not have too many constituents who call me and say, Mr. Dreier, we are very, very happy with the work of the Internal Revenue Service. What I do get is I get complaints from people who for years have talked about the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has more power than the CIA or the FBI. They have the ability to go in and close down a business and harass people. What is it that this Congress has done? We are very proud that we have been able to reform the Internal Revenue Service so that we can make sure that rather than having to prove that you are not guilty, a taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty, which seems to me part of the American ideal. I am very proud of the fact that we have been able to reform the Internal Revenue Service. We have much more to do, much further to go, but we have been able to do that. My friend from St. Louis, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), for whom I have the highest regard, has gone through a great many concerns that he has raised in the area of education, but we are very proud of our education record here in the Congress. The chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) just reminded me that we, of course, want to empower local school districts and States to deal with these education issues rather than having so many of them centered right here in Washington, but as we move in that direction there are a number of very positive things that we have been able to do. The A-Plus Education Savings Accounts Act, Merit Pay and Teacher Testing, Higher Education Act amendments, loan forgiveness for new teachers, Dollars to the Classroom Act, which we just recently passed, the Reading Excellence Act, the Charter Schools amendments, ban on new Federal school tests, low-income D.C. Scholarships, expanded prepaid college tuition plans, quality Head Start, creating safer schools, bilingual education reform, these are things that are designed to increase the level of competition so that we can have young people educated, so that they will be able to compete in this global economy. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this rule that will allow us to continue to do more good things to help struggling American families, to help us keep some kind of restraint on the spiraling growth of the Federal Government, it seems to me that passage of this rule to allow us to consider those things helps us continue in our quest to do something. Then when I hear this argument about doing nothing, I hate to stand here Saturday morning at 10:30 pointing the finger, but I am reminded that there have only been two Cabinet meetings that have been held this year, one in January and one just a few weeks ago, and that seems to be the record of the executive branch.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will give a copy of the bill to my friend. We had it in the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. DREIER. There it is right there.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time so that we can hear another member of the minority talk about not protecting the rights of American workers.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that it is my understanding that the manager's amendment, that would be next to be considered after passage of this rule, after we consider the amendments numbered 2 and 3, the manager's amendment would be in order. And it is my understanding there is, in fact, an increase in funding for the LIHEAP funding. Am I wrong?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume, I would just again tell my colleagues that this is fascinating to continue the debate that we had earlier on a virtually identical rule. We look forward to addressing all of these questions, if we can proceed. I would reserve the balance of my time in hopes that we could move ahead, have a vote on the rule and then move ahead with the work on the appropriations bill so that LIHEAP and everything else can be debated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have the highest regard for my friend from South Boston, and I would say to him, as we consider debate on this rule, which again is simply a modification of the rule that already passed the House, I think it is important to note that the LIHEAP program is something that I understand has actually had an increase in funding in the manager's amendment; and the next thing would be in order under this rule, following consideration of amendments numbered 2 and 3, would, in fact, be the manager's amendment, which would include that increase. I do not want to get into a big debate on the LIHEAP program itself, but I will say that if we look at the program that was put into place in the mid 1970s, at the height of the energy crisis, it was done so, in large part, to deal with that very serious need that was out there. Today, taking inflation into consideration, it is very clear that the cost of energy is substantially lower than it was even in those days in the 1970s. And the LIHEAP program was established, in large part, to provide reimbursement to the States, many of which had very, very serious deficit problems themselves at that point, and now most States are, in fact, running a surplus. So I would say that I think my friend raises some very interesting questions about the LIHEAP program, and I would argue that those could, in fact, be considered following the consideration of this rule when they move ahead with the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. And, again, the manager's amendment would, in fact, be the next thing in order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will continue to yield. I was correct, then, an increase from zero. There is, in fact, an increase in that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply respond to the words of my friend from Fairport, and what I would say is that we have already considered this rule. We had a vote that took place on the rule. This is simply making what is really a minor modification to ensure that amendments numbered 2 and 3 are going to be considered under the constraints that were included in the rule that did pass the House. There are many Members who have indicated that they want to have a full and fair debate on those issues, which I admit are controversial. Frankly, we have the responsibility of dealing with tough public policy questions, and they are among them. And so with that, I would say that we can continue to hear charges of the do-nothing Congress and all of this sort of stuff that was used back in 1948; we can hear all sorts of name-calling, which we heard earlier during the debate, but I would just underscore again that this rule passed the House earlier this week. We have considered this issue. We have a couple of amendments that many of our Members want to have brought to the forefront, and I think that those Members have a right to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for further consideration of the bill H.R. 4274, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill for 1999, pursuant to H. Res. 564. The bill will afford 60 minutes of general debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This rule makes in order, before consideration of any other amendments, the amendments numbered 2 and 3 that were printed in the report of the Committee on Rules that accompanied H. Res. 564. Mr. Speaker, the House last week passed a rule to provide for consideration of this appropriations bill, the single largest appropriations bill that comes before the Congress. The health care, medical research, education and job training programs provided for in the bill touch the lives of tens of millions of American families. For that reason alone, the bill deserves consideration on the floor of the People's House. Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill is immersed in highly charged social issues and is very controversial. Some may be uncomfortable with those debates but they are a fact of life when Federal Government programs impose on areas of daily life which for so long were outside the purview of Washington, D.C. When that happens, deep and often emotional questions about values will be raised. We can expect nothing less. I applaud the work of my friend from Wilmette, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), for tackling the challenges put before his committee in as commendable a fashion as possible. His bill deserves a fair hearing on the House floor. This rule, that was already approved by the House, along with this modification, will allow us to engage in what will certainly be a spirited debate that is worth having. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that fact and support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Fairport, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded will be for purposes of debate 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 584 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. We have already voted on the rule itself. This is a minor modification that was made to consider those two amendments numbered 2 and 3. There are a number of Members on our side who hope very much to have a debate on that question. We will be proceeding with funding in a wide range of other areas, and so I hope that we can proceed with this as quickly as possible and get to this appropriations work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, moving right along in an expeditious manner, as we have been trying to throughout the day on most of the questions we have faced here, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Portman

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle), my very good friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very difficult time for every Member of this House. I think it was said first by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde): Duty, duty, duty. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) just talked about our duty. But I think, over and above our duty, I think it is important for us to recognize the words of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) who talked about the importance of the rule of law. That really is why we are here. Over the past several weeks and months a number of us have dusted off our copies of the Federalist Papers, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison--James Madison being the author, the father of the Constitution. Towards the end of the 51st Federalist, James Madison puts it perfectly as we look at the challenge that we face today. He said: Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is no better advocate for our nation's veterans than Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale. Throughout his military career and in his private life, Admiral Stockdale has tirelessly worked on behalf of those who served our country in the Armed Forces. While a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, Stockdale injured himself so that his fellow prisoners could escape torture and punishment. For his service to our country, Admiral Stockdale has been awarded two Purple Hearts, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, four Silver Stars and the Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, he is the only three or four star officer in the history of the U.S. Navy to wear both aviator wings and the Congressional Medal of Honor. In a recent speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, which I submit for the record, Admiral Stockdale urged Congress to uphold the nation's commitment to our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have indeed heeded that advice. Last month, the House approved the Defense Authorization conference report which allows military retirees to join the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Furthermore, yesterday the House approved the fiscal year 1999 VA/HUD Appropriations conference report, which provides $19 billion for veterans programs, $439 million more than was requested by President Clinton. In short, I believe that Congress is following Admiral Stockdale's leadership by approving legislation that honors those who valiantly served our country. Speech Delivered by Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale The Capitol Steps, Washington, DC, September 22, 1998 Thank you very much for that warm introduction and for the opportunity to join you here today. Over the years, I have come to Washington many times for many reasons--but on this visit, we come together to focus the nation's attention on our responsibilities to the men and women who have nobly worn the uniform of their Country--the valiant Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Air Force personnel who have answered their Country's call to service. In the history of this wonderful republic, we have celebrated those who have been willing to put their lives on the line--to pay the ultimate sacrifice to protect the ideals that made America great. To protect the basic freedoms that characterize the majesty of the American experiment in defining the relationship between citizens and their government. As a nation, as a people, we have never hesitated to ask our fellow citizens to don the uniform of their country to fight for--to protect against forces detrimental to the interests of the United States. We have asked our sons and daughters to endure the horrors of war and to serve as agents of peace. We have, for 200 years, always asked, and they have always answered. Any alternative would be unthinkable. But an integral part of this bargain has been a fundamental understanding--a MORAL CONTRACT--that we will not turn away, we will not abrogate our obligations to them after they have done their part for us. For our ideals, and for the preservation of our great nation. Now, we stand here together with the recognition that this sacred compact has been shattered. With a heavy heart, I have come to this place, to our nation's Capitol, to ask the Congress of the United States to honor America's traditional commitment--a hithertofore unquestioned commitment--to its military veterans. For generations Presidents have approved the promise of free, lifetime medical care for military veterans. Legislative and administrative authority made these promises law. As far back as 1799, the U.S. Government offered free medical and hospital care to Seamen and Marines. In 1995 this all changed. Now the government says that Veterans over the age of 65-- we're talking about World War II and Korean Vets--are no longer eligible for treatment at military hospitals. Rather than fulfilling its historical contract with its fighting men and women, the Government now demands that these retirees must personally supplement Medicare benefits to obtain basic health care. I am here today to carry this message for everyone who has worn the great uniform of the United States. To urge the Government to do the right thing for all of its retired military service personnel. Many of them are old. Many are sick, and many simply cannot afford to pay the costs of supplemental health care on military retirement pay. A great American once said, ``Old soldiers never die--they merely fade away.'' I am confident that General Douglas MacArthur would agree with me that they should surely be allowed to ``fade away with dignity!'' Today, there are a million and a half retired military men and women, each with a dependent, 3 million all together, who simply cannot afford supplemental health insurance and are not receiving the benefit of the bargain--the bargain the United States Government made with them when they signed up to serve their Country. There are all too many heartbreaking examples of retired GI's who have had to sell their homes, liquidate their savings, or suffer the indignities of inadequate medical care because of the Government's current position. This is shameful. This is un-American. And this is totally unacceptable. I come to Washington to join you in asking our Congressional leaders--Senators Lott and Daschle, and Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt to right this wrong. To enact legislation to provide lifetime retirement medical care for those Americans--and their dependents--who were willing to put their lives on the line for their Country. Over the last 200 years, America has asked and received so very much from its fighting men and women--now they are asking us for so little in return. For the opportunity to see a doctor. For medical treatment. For medicine. As the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, I believe the United States of America can and should do the right thing for the very people who have suffered enormous sacrifice and burden to ensure the existence of a society we so enjoy--and a Country we so love. I hope together, we can right this terrible wrong! God Bless the United States of America, and God bless and protect the men and women of the United States military services. Thank you very much.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Mr. McInnis), another valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), one of my classmates, and the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr.BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ocala, Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)