David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this effort that the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] is moving ahead with under this corrections day procedure. I am here to not only support Mr. McKeon's efforts but to support what we are doing with this corrections day procedure. I want to begin as we sit here just 42 days before the election to congratulate wholeheartedly my fellow Angelino, Mr. Waxman, for his excellent statement and his assessment that the has provided of not only this effort of Mr. McKeon's but also the corrections day procedure. I also want to congratulate Mr. Waxman for the terrific testimony that he gave to our Committee on Rules about 10 days ago, I guess it was on September 12, when he looked at the issue of corrections day and said, and I am going to quote his testimony here, he said: When corrections day was first proposed over a year ago, I had serious reservations about instituting such a process. I was concerned that the corrections procedure would become a fast track for special interest legislation. I think that was a justifiable concern he raised at that point, but we have worked in a bipartisan way to do everything possible to ensure that the Corrections Day Calendar would be used as it was intended, to deal with preposterous situations like Mr. McKeon's attempt to synchronize traffic lights when we have a bureaucracy in Washington that is blocking that. The assessment that Mr. Waxman went on to make was that he believes the process has worked basically as intended, and I quote, the bills that were placed on the Corrections Day Calendar were for the most part noncontroversial and appropriate for the abbreviated legislative process of corrections day. The corrections day process has proved an opportunity to expeditiously legislate. We have been able to repeal duplicative laws, act to increase flexibility and even make bipartisan policy changes. The speech that my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], just gave is one that I think more often than not emanates from this side of the aisle. I would like to congratulate Henry Waxman for his vision in being so strongly committed in dealing with a preposterous situation like this. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and appreciate his efforts for moving this forward. I strongly want to support the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] in his efforts.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks for the Record on this special order that the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, and I have held here.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], for taking the time for this special order. I would like to congratulate my California colleague, the dean of the entire delegation, because he has served here longer than any other Member and I think longer than any Californian has served in the Congress. I appreciate his taking out this time to talk about our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer just a little glimmer of hope with the spirit that both Tony Beilenson and Carlos Moorhead have embodied with their service here, that being that our colleagues, Messrs. LaHood and Skaggs have led an effort, of which I am proud to be a part, that will see us in the 105th Congress, God and the voters willing, a number of us will be here to participate in that, we will be holding a bipartisan retreat for the first time ever. I think there has been recognition that the work that Tony Beilenson and Carlos Moorhead and a number of others who have chosen to retire have done over the years, that that spirit of bipartisanship, when it is possible, should continue. Mr. Speaker, the point that I would make is that these two individuals have done so much to try and deal responsibly with legislation, not in any way compromising their principle, but, in fact, as our former minority leader Bob Michel used to enjoy saying, you should never compromise your principles, but you should always be prepared to compromise for principle. I think the Moorhead-Beilenson spirit is very important, and I am confident that while we will have two fewer Members here because of their absence, that the spirit will be carried forth into the 105th Congress. A number of us I know are working on that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from California, Mr. Brown.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. That clash of ideas is going to continue, but the debate can take place. I remember we often point back to Speaker O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, who said that at 6 o'clock in the evening, when the workday comes to an end, and we know it does not come to an end at 6 o'clock at all times, but there are after-hour times when people should have the chance to get together and get to know each other so the tension level can in fact be reduced. I hope we will be able to successfully do that in the 105th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I should say I have had the privilege of serving, as I know my friend has, with these two great individuals. Carlos Moorhead has served as dean of the California Congressional delegation on the Republican side for I believe longer than anyone. It was 1982 as I began my second term here that Carlos became the dean of our delegation, and he has provided terrific leadership. When it has come to California issues, Carlos has constantly stood up to do everything possible to address the needs of our State. One of the least attractive, but most important areas, has been the one which my friend Mr. Brown mentioned, that being the issue of intellectual property and job creation. In California, as we have shifted from a defense and aerospace-based economy to an export-based economy with the proliferation of the high- tech-biotech industries and, of course, the entertainment industry, Carlos Moorhead has been on the cutting edge, making sure that we have an opportunity to get our goods and services into other parts of the world. When it has come to patent and trademark work, which is so important to that, Carlos has led the charge, and we are hoping very much he is about going to be able in the waning days of the 104th Congress to continue his work on that with very important legislation. I should say he has always been a great friend and traveling companion, and I have had the privilege of sharing the representation of the City of Pasadena during this decade of the 1990's with him. I know my friend Mr. Brown has a particular interest in the Jet Propulsion Lab, which is technically in Carlos Moorhead's district, but I am privileged to represent many of those who work at the Jet Propulsion Lab. Carlos is a Californian, a native of Glendale, a graduate of Hoover High School in Glendale, one who loves our State and one who has chosen to retire to California when he leaves. He and Val will be sorely missed, and I will miss the very levelheaded advice he has given this very enthusiastic guy on more than a couple of occasions. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting with Tony Beilenson up in the Committee on Rules. Tony has been an independent voice in the Committee on Rules, and independence is not something that is always sought in the Committee on Rules, but Tony has offered it. He has been extraordinarily thoughtful when it has come to fairness and deliberation, and I have appreciated the advice that he has provided me and the friendship that he has offered. He and Delores have also been terrific people to travel with and to go from Los Angeles to Dulles with on more than a couple of occasions. Tony is a native of New York, but has been in California for a long period of time, as my friend said, and served there for many years. He will be missed. And I should say that I hope that our colleagues will take advantage of a chance to add remarks into the Record as they see fit, and I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. That is a terrific story.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it saddens me to inform the House of the passing of a great American and someone who worked long and hard in this Capitol. His name will not be known to everyone, but when my colleagues see John Duricka they automatically recognize him, and yesterday morning he tragically passed away. He had a 30-year career with the Associated Press. He had lived in southern California for a number of years and worked for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and that was up until 1966 when he joined the Associated Press. Madam Speaker, today's Washington Post in the obituary section describes him as a keen-eyed photographer who played a great role in getting still photographers into all kinds of meetings, in fact into this Chamber the day that Jim Wright announced his resignation from right here in this well. He was a great friend to me. His brother was a photographer at the San Gabriel Valley Tribune in California, and tragically I had the opportunity to deliver the eulogy at his funeral when he was killed in a tragic plane crash a few years back. But John Duricka was a great man, and he took wonderful photographs, and he is one of those institutions in this Capitol who will be sorely missed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that this weekend I had the opportunity, as I suppose many have, of seeing a political advertisement on television; we are all being deluged with these ads that are coming on, and I saw, believe it or not, a Clinton- Gore campaign ad. In this ad they described what Bob Dole and Jack Kemp have put forward as a plan to allow the American people to keep more of their own hard-earned money. As Bob Dole says so well, it is not ours; it is theirs. They describe in that ad that action as a risky tax scheme. Those three words are used to describe the plan to bring about a 15-percent across-the-board tax cut for working families in this country. Then, back from California and to Washington, to get this amazing report that has come forward. For starters we have seen the information that the Clinton proposed tax cut, actually over a 10-year period, is a tax increase of $64 billion, but, Madam Speaker, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The latest development came forward from the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Babbitt, who has informed us that he now wants to implement his Teeming with Wildlife Project. Now what does the Teeming with Wildlife Project consist of? It consists of a tax increase, a tax increase of from one-quarter of 1 percent to 5 percent on outdoor- related items. Now, when one thinks of outdoor related items, this is a very far- reaching area. Some have mentioned bird seed as one of those items that would be taxed, and others have thought about the prospect of the taxation of backpacks, and I was thinking, as children have started school this month, of the increase in the tax for those children buying backpacks, and you think of the other things that relate to this: boots and parkas and all kinds of items, and this supposedly is going into a fund that is designed to fund education, recreation, and conservation projects. Now, this administration is supposedly talking about a tax cut when the Secretary of Interior is proposing what obviously would be a tax increase, which he claims would raise approximately $350 million, that tax on our people who are hoping to enjoy some sort of outdoor activity. It is, I believe, preposterous to have this kind of proposal come forward. As a Representative who comes to this institution from the western part of the United States, I can think of little more that would be punitive than those that want to enjoy the great outdoors, and at the rate we are going on this there might be a surcharge that Secretary Babbitt may want to impose for just enjoying the fresh air that we have out West. Madam Speaker, I believe that it is a very, very sad day when we have got these kinds of proposals coming forward, but tragically, Madam Speaker, they are indicative of the kinds of things that this administration has done with its massive increase on middle-class wage earners and that they propose to do in the future even though they called theirs a tax cut and they described a real tax cut, that proposed by the Dole-Demp ticket as nothing more than a risky tax scheme. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in opposition to this ludicrous proposal which has come forward from the Department of the Interior.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to comment on a statement that was made throughout the debate on this historic welfare reform measure that was passed. I am pleased to see that we did it in a bipartisan way, but both sides of the aisle, very appropriately, accurately stated that as we look at reducing welfare we are going to be faced with an economy that will not have enough jobs for those people out there who are going to be moving off of welfare. That is a very legitimate concern because economic growth under this administration has been anemic. In fact, it has been lower than 21 of the last 30 years. Now, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important for us to follow up the very historic welfare reform legislation which we passed today with an economic growth plan that increases savings and investment, which will lead to higher rates of productivity, increase worker wages and the creation of more private sector jobs. The reason for the anemic growth that we have seen is that productivity growth is too low. Productivity is too low because we are not investing enough in both physical capital and human capital. Unfortunately, this administration is responsible for low productivity growth because the tax and regulatory burden has been way too great. Every year since Bill Clinton took office, taxes have been higher and family income has been lower than when he got elected. In fact, as we all have come to find out, the average family has a tax burden which is in excess of 38 percent. Under the Clinton administration the cost of complying with Federal regulations has also been very high. It averages $1,000 per household. Obviously, we all know that regulation increases the cost of employing workers, and thus acts as a tax on job creation and employment. Now, this administration is responsible for low productivity growth because the President has fought our efforts to reform the education system that we have. Unfortunately, this administration, due to it, government spending on education, as we all know, has gone way up, while the performance, the school performance and student achievement have remained static and are leaving young Americans ill equipped to function in today's increasingly competitive global economy. What Congress can do to increase productivity and long-term capital economic growth is very, very key, and there are more than a few items that we can do to address them. Obviously, the first that comes to mind for virtually everyone is balance the budget. We have been very committed to a balance budget, and we know what that will create. It obviously increases domestic savings, it lowers interest rates, and increases overall investment, and we know that that would be a very, very key and beneficial item as we look towards addressing this concern of anemic economic growth and slow productivity. Another one that is very key is to decrease the tax burden on investment. Now, so often these things are mislabeled as a tax cut on the rich, but every shred of empirical evidence, Mr. Speaker, has demonstrated that it will in fact be beneficial in job creation and economic growth. A capital gains tax cut will make more venture capital available for emerging technologies as we charge toward the millennium. We know how important that is. We know that job creation is emanating from the private sector and the small business sector of our economy. We also need, in looking at the technological changes that are made, we need to make the research and development tax credit permanent so that this incentive that we need for encouraging innovation in new technologies is there. We also need to do what we can to increase the skills of the workforce in this country, improving basic education through school choice, increasing local control and reducing the bureaucracy; creating tax deferred or tax-free education savings account similar to individual retirement accounts, something that this administration admittedly has talked about, but has not acted upon. And we have tried responsibly to move ahead with that and have not gotten much support from the administration. We have not cut spending on education, nor should we continue to throw money at what is a wasteful, broken system. We need also to enact significant regulatory reform. The explosion of new regulation we have seen since 1988 has raised the cost of labor and capital, created barriers to the formation of new companies and jobs, and raised the cost of employing Americans. The higher cost of employment, in turn, means that in a competitive economy the return to labor in the form of wages is greatly reduced. The regulatory burden needs to be rolled back, not only to allow wages to rise, but also to decrease the cost of hiring workers. And remember, again we are trying to address the concern that many have raised that will follow on with reforming the welfare structure. We also need to have a modest increase in the long-term growth rate, which can have a dramatic impact on the standard of living here in the United States. A 1 percent increase in long-term economic growth would mean 6 million new jobs created over an 8-year-period, $700 billion more in tax revenue, enough to balance the budget by the year 2002 without any spending cuts, and also Social Security would remain solvent for 30 more years if we were to have just a 1 percent increase in long-term economic growth. Also, 200,000 new small businesses would be created over a 4-year period. With that, I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we could go a long way towards addressing the concerns that have been raised by Members on both sides of the aisle that will following the wake of reforming the welfare system, but it must be done, it must be done as expeditiously as possible. Unleash this economy and let us do it now.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference report. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is absolutely right when he says that it is very easy to find things in this measure which we do not all support. I admit I have some concerns about some provisions as they impact my State of California. But the fact of the matter is, ending welfare as we know it is what the President said that he wanted to do when he was a candidate back in 1992. My friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], just reminded me that it has gotten to the point where a Republican Congress has been able to do what a Democratic Congress did not do in the first 2 years of the President's term, and that is end welfare as we know it. So we have finally gotten to the point where we are looking at the fact that over the last 3 decades we have expended $5.3 trillion on welfare payments of all kinds and we have seen the poverty rate move from 14.7 percent to 15.1 percent. So everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] just said, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], our friend from south Boston, acknowledges he does not want to support the status quo and we must change the welfare system. Now, earlier today, when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], was before the Committee on Rules, he talked about the fact that we will most likely, in the 105th Congress, need to make some sort of modification to this measure, but if we defeat this conference report there will be no welfare reform. We have gotten a measure, and the President has finally gotten to the point where he has agreed to sign it. That is why, as my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], said, we need to move ahead with bipartisan support so we can try our darnedest to address a system which is broke. There are many more things that need to be done. Entitlement reform is something that is important, so that we are not simply, as many are labeling this thing, attacking those who are less fortunate. We need to realize that this measure is designed not just to help those taxpayers who are shouldering the responsibility but also to do everything we can to help people get out of that generational cycle of dependence. Support the rule and support the conference report.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Sanibel, FL, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I am one who enjoys consuming seafood but I am not particularly fond of tuna. But I am very supportive of this measure because it has been a long time in coming. We have just had a great deal of excitement around here over the last several hours as we have brought about with, I think, 328 votes a bipartisan agreement on welfare reform, but the bipartisanship that exists on that, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] implied, pales in comparison when we look at the parties who are involved in this very important agreement who have disagreed on many, many issues in the past. The fact of the matter is while my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], said that we in the past would rail about rules that are like this, this rule is very clear in that we are dealing with 12 nations who were part of this negotiating process and as he knows under fast track negotiating authority, which this Congress has had in the past but does not have now, we have seen agreement struck where there would be simply an up-or-down vote on measures, and that is the direction in which we are headed with this rule, because we do have, I think, an important environmental concern that is being addressed here and also for other friends of ours in Latin America. I was talking with some people at the Mexican Embassy and they have been very anxious about this because they want to see us move ahead and proceed with what is a very important agreement not only for the consumers in the United States and Mexico but also for those in the tuna industry and those who are concerned, as we all are, about the safety of dolphins. So when we look at the World Wildlife Federation, at DON YOUNG, I know they do not always come together on issues, I believe that this is a great day as we continue the bipartisan spirit that was in evidence just a few minutes ago. About 6 hours ago the bipartisan spirit was not as in evidence here in the House of Representatives, but I am convinced that when we move to final passage on this rule and the measure that that great bipartisan spirit will be alive and well.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas].

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. This has been a very interesting debate over the past few minutes, Mr. Speaker. My friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], said it is Newt's way or no way. The fact of the matter is, the Democrats did not come up with any proposal whatsoever to deal with welfare reform, and we are still giving them two opportunities with, first, the substitute which they said they requested, which is the Castle-Tanner substitute and, second, a motion to recommit. So without coming up with proposals, they call it Newt's way or no way. We are giving them two opportunities to offer alternatives to this package. Second thing I heard during this debate is that the system, this proposal, would be vicious and heartless. I am told that my friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez], just said that. Mr. Speaker, what is vicious and heartless about doing what we can to encourage opportunity for those who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum? A few moments ago I was talking with my friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], who said that it is true that we so often hear about the extreme cases of abuse of the welfare system. The fact of the matter is, the average welfare recipient out there is that single mother who is struggling to make ends meet with two or three children. We do not want to do anything possible, we do not want to do anything at all that would jeopardize the opportunity for that mother to be able to benefit from this program as long as we continue to do everything possible to ensure that she has opportunity there. We can improve this economy so that we can have the chance for that mother to get off of that cycle of dependence, which has been generational, and back onto a running of that economic ladder so that she can see improvement. We want to end the cycle which has created drug dependence and alcohol abuse and the crime problem that exists. Most everybody who has looked at the welfare system has said that we have seen the crime as a byproduct of the welfare system. We do not know that any of the proposals that we are going to be voting on are the panacea. James Q. Wilson from Harvard University has said that no one has the guaranteed solution, but we have looked at the situation that has existed for the past three decades and we all know that it has failed. We are moving ahead again with a package that I believe will create the opportunity for us to improve the system. The President should sign this measure as we move forward. I thank my friends who have worked in a bipartisan way on this. I again thank my very distinguished friend from Sanibel, FL, for yielding the time to me.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Let me begin, as many of my colleagues have this morning, in extending our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to those loved ones of the victims of the tragic TWA Flight 800 crash that took place off Long Island last night. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I strongly support this rule. I do so because we have been struggling for years and years and years to try and reform the welfare system. From our side of the aisle, there have been a wide range of proposals over the past several years designed to do just that, to try and end welfare as we know it. We were all very enthused in 1992 with the commitment that President Clinton made to end welfare as we know it, and I have to say that right after that election in 1992, I had the privilege of writing an article for my home town newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, in which I stated that I looked forward to working with the President on issues like reforming welfare, because when he said that he was committed to ending welfare as we know it, we all took him at his word. Now I believe that we have put together a product that I hope he will be able to sign. We know that he has twice vetoed the welfare reform package that we have moved out of this Congress, and it has been very, very difficult for us to face the fact the President who wanted to end welfare as we know it would veto welfare reform legislation, but I hope and pray that this will do it. Why? Because we are not only concerned about those U.S. taxpayers who are saddled with perpetuating the cradle-to-the-grave welfare system that we have had over the past three decades, but we are equally if not more concerned with those people who have been subjected to the welfare state for years and years and years and have seen the perpetuation of this cycle, generational cycle, of dependence. My friend from Sanibel, Florida [Mr. Goss] talked about the fact that we have seen the average use of the welfare system, 13 years. We also know of extreme examples where it has gone on for generation after generation. We looked at the poverty rate as it existed in the mid 1960's when the Great Society began and the War on Poverty began, and the poverty rate was about 14.7 percent. Beginning with the Great Society programs, we started spending billions and billions of dollars, and we have now spent $5.3 trillion on subventions combating the welfare problem. What is it that we have seen? Well, the poverty rate has gone from 14.7 percent up to 15.1 percent. Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan recognition, Democrats and Republicans alike. Democrats who represent constituents who are on welfare and subjected to this generational cycle of welfare, they acknowledge that the welfare system that we have today has failed. That is why I believe that we are taking a very positive step in finally moving forward with this. My friend from Glens Falls, I am told, just mentioned a situation that he encountered last night when he was in a grocery store looking at someone who was obviously abusing the Food Stamp Program. just a couple of hours ago I was running here on Capitol Hill and I was around one of the parks, and I was over at one of the benches and had seen a number of people who obviously rely on food stamps for their survival, and what was on the ground but cracked crab legs. It seems to me that when we have people who are abusing the Food Stamp Program and living extraordinarily well off the Food Stamp Program, it obviously is a system that has failed. That is why looking at creative approaches, as the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and Means have done, and allowing the amazing proposals that have come from States like Massachusetts under Governor William Weld and Wisconsin under Governor Tommy Thompson, my State of California, Governor Pete Wilson's action allowing creativity for dealing with poverty and the welfare structure, to come from those States is, I believe, a very positive sign. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the fact that we, I believe, have legislation which President Clinton will be able to sign, and I am pleased that also it is very bipartisan. I hope we will be able to move ahead as expeditiously as possible to get this measure to his desk so that we can all be part of ending welfare as we know it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on House Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Small Business; and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 3754, pursuant to House Resolution 473, it may be in order to consider the amendment numbered 6 in House Report 104-663 in the modified form that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. DREIER. Further, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order prescribed by House Resolution 473 that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] be allowed to offer his amendment No. 1 at any time during the consideration of H.R. 3754 in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last year's legislative branch appropriations bill was instrumental in reforming this institution to make this place more open, accountable, and cost effective. By adopting this rule, we can continue those important reforms while further streamlining and updating the operations of Congress through privatization and investment in new information technologies. Updating the technological infrastructure of the White House is an enormous challenge, but thanks to this bill we will continue the tremendous progress that we have made over the past 18 months. The Thomas system at the Library of Congress is being upgraded to provide an expanded list of documents to the public and to simplify the retrieval of information. The CyberCongress plan which will bring in state-of-the-art communication networking and computer technology to dramatically improve the work of committees is moving forward under this bill. Also by the end of this year, every House committee should have the capability to provide immediate on-line access to legislative documents, transcripts, schedules, and other information. The goal is to provide Members of Congress with more comprehensive and accurate information while facilitating the exchange of information with our constituents back home. While information technologies offer us tremendous opportunities to be better public servants, we must be mindful of the need to maintain many of the practices, procedures, and precedents of this institution. With respect to the issue of minority committee Web sites, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from Sacramento, CA, Mr. Fazio, that the public should be able to conveniently access information put on a committee Web site by the minority. I hope the Committee on House Oversight can come to some compromise on the committee Internet policy that will provide sufficient safeguards in that regard. But I disagree that the minority should be allowed to maintain completely separate committee Web sites. It would set an unfortunate precedent because the Rules of the House rightfully do not differentiate between minority and majority committees. They simply refer to committees. A committee minority may not file alternative committee reports or control separate committee rooms or conduct separate official hearings. Minority views are provided for in official committee reports, and they should be provided for on committee Web sites as well. I would also like to say to those Members who feel they have worthwhile reform ideas but were not able to offer them under this rule, the Rules Committee has announced that it will begin holding hearings to consider reform proposals for the 105th Congress. Members with proposals for changing the organization procedures or legislative process in the House are welcome to participate. A letter of invitation to all Members was sent out just yesterday by my friend from Glens Falls, our committee chairman. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is a very responsible rule for a very responsible legislative branch spending bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record certain extraneous materials. The materials referred to are as follows: Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 9, 1996. Dear Colleague: Today the Rules Committee is announcing a series of hearings designed to examine further congressional reform proposals. This project is entitled ``Building on Change: Preparing for the 105th Congress.'' As you know, on Opening Day of the 104th Congress the House passed the most sweeping reform package since 1946. The Committee on Rules, through its committee-adopted oversight agenda, has committed to a continuing study of the rules and procedures of the House with an eye toward future reforms. Members with proposals addressing the rules, procedures, or the legislative process generally are welcome to participate in this project. The Rules Committee is not at this time taking further testimony on budget process reform. On Wednesday, July 17 at 10AM, the Committee will hold an ``Open Day'' for Members to testify on proposals to further amend the standing rules of the House. Members who wish to testify at this hearing should submit 35 copies of their testimony to the Rules Committee office in H-312 of the Capitol by 5PM on Tuesday, July 16. In late July and early September, the Rules Subcommittees on Rules and Organization of the House and the Legislative and Budget Process will hold joint hearings on specific reform efforts (e.g. majority and minority party task forces). The joint subcommittees will hear testimony from select groups of Members and from public witnesses. Dates, times, and subject areas for these hearings will be announced later. If Members have questions on this hearing schedule, please feel free to contact me or Dan Keniry in my Rules Committee office at 225-9191. Sincerely, Gerald B. Solomon, Rules Committee Chairman.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the Legislative Process and Budget Process Subcommittee. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule, and an ``aye'' vote on the bill, which will be beautifully managed by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 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 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 3754, the fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriations bill, under a modified closed rule. I would like to commend my California colleague, Chairman Ron Packard, and the rest of my colleagues on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee for their tremendous work in bringing what has historically been a very difficult bill to the House floor. Given that there may be some who would go so far as to recommend zero funding for the legislative branch, I believe this is a very responsible rule for what is a very responsible bill. As the reading clerk noted, the rule waives a number of points of order against consideration of the bill to permit timely consideration and to address some technical fund transfers in the bill. The rule makes in order eight amendments printed in the report on the rule to be offered only in the order printed by the Member specified and debatable for time specified in the report. The amendments are considered as read and are not subject to amendment or subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. All points of order are waived against the amendments. Further, the rule provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the vote immediately follows another recorded vote and that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. permission to offer amendment no. 6 in modified form to h.r. 3754, legislative branch appropriations act, 1997

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 473.