David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Poland, OH [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are looking for speakers to counter all the speakers that the gentleman has. There are Members who are anxious to talk only if they are.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Del Mar, California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Stephensburg, Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 101 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Albuquerque, NM [Mr. Schiff].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Smyrna, Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Long Beach, California [Mr. Horn], my very good friend.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the very distinguished chairman and, I believe, unfairly maligned chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to inquire of the Chair what the ground rules are on personal references to Members of the House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order House Resolution 91, authorizing funding for all but one of the committees of the House of Representatives for the 105th Congress under a modified closed rule. It provides that the Committee on House Oversight amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule further provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Oversight. The rule provides the further amendment specified in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by a Member designated in the report, shall be in order without intervention of any point of order and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally the rule provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the process established by this rule for the consideration of House Resolution 91 is no different than the process established for previous committee funding resolutions. Under clause 4(a) of rule XI, committee funding resolutions are privileged on the House floor and unamendable. A rule is unnecessary to bring up the resolution unless there is a need to waive points of order that could legitimately be sustained against the resolution. Such a waiver is needed to address what I am sure the other side of the aisle agrees is a technical violation of House rules. Specifically clause 2(d)(2) of House rule X requires committees to vote to approve their oversight plans for submission to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on House Oversight by February 15 of the first session of each Congress. The rule further prohibits consideration of a committee funding resolution if any committee has not submitted plans by February 15 or if the plans were not adopted in an open session with a quorum present. As we know, certain committees were not able to organize before February 15 because the committee assignment process was not complete by that date. Therefore, these certain committees were unable to meet and vote to approve their oversight plans on time. However, I am pleased to report that every committee has submitted an approved oversight plan to both the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 is a responsible funding measure. I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and our colleagues on his committee for producing a balanced plan under what are obviously challenging circumstances. It is clear that the current level of resources available to House committees is insufficient to meet their oversight responsibilities. H. Res. 91 addresses the needs of committees while maintaining the bipartisan commitment made by the House at the beginning of the 104th Congress to reduce permanent committee staffs by a third and provide more resources to the minority party. To ensure that these new resources do not on their own result in increased spending on the operations of Congress, the rule makes in order an amendment by Mr. Thomas that requires any net increase in spending to be offset by reductions in expenditures for other legislative branch activities. In addition, to ensure that any additional staffing resources that the committees may need during the course of the 105th Congress do not become permanent staff, House Recolution 91 provides $7.9 million for a reserve fund to cover the cost of any unanticipated needs. This fund is in compliance with clause 5(a) of rule XI which authorizes the Committee on House Oversight to include with its primary expense resolution for committees a reserve fund for unanticipated committee expenses. The actual allocation of any money from the fund is subject to approval by that committee. Contrary to charges that have been made, and I suspect will be made by the minority, this is not a slush fund to be spent by the Committee on House Oversight as it sees fit. As explained in the section-by- section analysis of the resolution adopting House rules for the 105th Congress, the funds will only be used in, and I quote, extraordinary emergency or high priority circumstances. That is what the House rules actually say. And, quote, any proposals for its allocation will be carefully scrutinized and coordinated at the highest levels prior to a vote by the Committee on House Oversight. Other committee requests beyond their initial biennial budget authorization will still require a supplemental expense resolution to be approved by the House. That is what the House rules state. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 is a fiscally responsible committee funding resolution. It maintains the commitment of this Congress to lead by example when it comes to streamlining the Federal Government. It also maintains the commitment of the Republican majority to provide more committee resources to the minority than were provided to the minority when Republicans held that status in the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this very fair and balanced rule and this balanced approach to committee funding. 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 the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to inform my colleagues that on July 16th of 1787 we established the Connecticut compromise, a bicameral legislature. Someone who understands that is the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, my friend from Bakersfield, California [Mr. Thomas]. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] be able to reclaim the 1 minute that he yielded back, and I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to him 2 minutes of the 5\3/4\ minutes that I have remaining.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 66]

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL, for yielding me this time. I would like to say to the House that sometimes we have a tendency around here to do what makes us feel good, rather than what is actually the right thing to do. Clearly, the politically expedient best thing to do is to bash the living hell out of Mexico. I have plenty of grist for criticism of what we have seen from Mexico, but we have to ask this question, Mr. Speaker: What does it get us? What does decertification get us? What does listing a whole load of items that would exacerbate the anti-gringo sentiment from Mexico get us in this war which, frankly, we are in large part responsible for? If Members will look at a country that is trying to emerge and bring about economic reforms and political reforms, as Mexico is, and it is a long and difficult struggle, and it has not been as successful as we would like, but if we look at the problems that exist there and then look at the magnet of $30 billion which we in this country are providing, it obviously has to impose quite a strain on Mexico. There is a sense that every government official in Mexico is corrupt. We know that is not the case. There have been 25 assassinations which have taken place in Mexico. Loads of judges, police officers, and a wide range of other people are strongly committed in Mexico to dealing with this scourge of drugs. But obviously the $30 billion which we are providing as consumers here in the United States has clearly played a role in creating that corruption. I will support the manager's amendment compromise, but I have trouble with it. Why? Because as we look at that litany of criticisms that we are going to be imposing, which we are going to be leveling at the Mexican Government, it seems to me it will make it tougher for them to try and deal with many of these items. Why? Because of the political problems that exist in Mexico, as I said earlier, that anti-gringo sentiment. So I will say that reluctantly I will join in support of this compromise, and hope that we can do so in a bipartisan way and deal with this very, very serious problem.