David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say I totally concur with my friend. I want to see the consumer benefit from this tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend by saying that we have the best consumer protection vehicle, and that happens to be the free market. I said in my statement that I have press releases which I have entered into the Record that have come from two of the so-called big oil companies based in my State of California. I am not here as an apologist for the oil companies, but the fact of the matter is that on ABC's Nightline, Mike Bowlin, the chairman and chief executive of the Atlantic Richfield Co., said ``If the Federal Government reduces the gasoline excise tax by 4.3 cents per gallon, ARCO will immediately reduce its total price at its company-operated stations and to its dealers by 4.3 cents a gallon.'' Chevron says, ``Any decrease in the Federal gasoline tax would be immediately reflected in the prices Chevron charges to motorists at our 600 company-owned stations in the United States.'' My colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist on mandating this, mandating it. My friend, the gentleman from San Diego, during 1- minutes today, kept saying we have to impose a mandate to make sure that this goes on. We happen to believe in the free market. I happen to take these people from these companies at their word. I know it is politically popular to bash the hell out of big oil, but the fact of the matter is they have stepped up to the plate and said that it is going to be passed on to the consumer. Before we pass another law imposing constraints on them, I think we should maybe try the free market. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fullerton, CA, Mr. Royce, one of the coauthors of this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating how my liberal colleagues can come up with excuse after excuse and a smokescreen to avoid cutting taxes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Marysville, CA [Mr. Herger], one of those rural areas that in fact does not benefit from all of the Federal subsidization of transit that we heard about from my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday afternoon I had the opportunity to address the California Contract Cities Association convention in Palm Springs, and I would like to congratulate the outgoing president, Bea Lapisto-Kirtley, and the new president, Tom Breazeal. But as I walked out of that meeting, I turned down the street, and I saw a crowd. And like any of us, we are rather curious when we see a crowd, and who did I see in the midst of that crowd but our colleague the gentleman from California, Sonny Bono, who was joined by his beautiful wife, Mary, their two little children and his 82-year-old mother, Jean Bono. What was happening was the gentleman from California, Sonny Bono, was having his star status set in stone as he was having a star placed on Palm Canyon Drive in Palm Springs, California, and I would simply like to rise and inform my colleagues that we all knew that the gentleman from California, Mr. Bono, was a star, but now it is set in stone, and I want to congratulate him, and I know that every one of my colleagues will join in doing so.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and moving the previous question. It is interesting to listen to this debate. Obviously we have gotten demagoguery, people who were trying to claim that we Republicans are opposed to working Americans because we are not out there violating the House rules to bring up, under Utah bill, the minimum wage. I mean it is preposterous. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that if we were to defeat the previous question, we could not bring this up. We could not bring it up. We are working long and hard on a compromise that will deal with increasing the take-home pay of working Americans, to deal with reducing the tax and regulatory burden which has jeopardized job creation and economic growth. The Committee on Ways and Means is working on that. This is nothing but a ruse to have our friends on the other side of the aisle come forward and argue that somehow we are going to be able to increase the minimum wage by defeating the previous question. It ain't going to happen. It is a violation of House rules, and it is crazy to have them doing it. So we should support the previous question, support this rule and move ahead with the way in which we can encourage opportunity for the people in this country to gain jobs and to gain the kind of standard of living which we hope very much will happen.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very thoughtful colleague, the gentleman from Long Beach, CA [Mr. Horn].

Mr. DREIER. I thank the Speaker very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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 the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, now I will proceed with giving the same explanation the reading clerk just gave. Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of past housing rules, this rule provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The rule makes in order the Banking Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that the substitute be considered as read. All points of order against the substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule 21 are waived. This waiver is necessary because several sections of the substitute relate to the disposition of appropriations due to changes in existing housing law. The rule provides that the substitute shall be considered by title and the first two sections and each title shall be considered as read. If further makes in order, before consideration of any other amendment, an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of May 7, 1996, if offered by Representative Lazio of New York or his designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question, and all points of order are waived. If the amendment is adopted, the bill as amended shall be considered as an original bill for this purpose of further amendment. Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instruction. Finally, the rule provides that after passage of the House bill, it will be in order to take up the Senate bill to move to insert the House-passed provisions in the Senate bill, and to move to request a conference with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, despite all of the parliamentary mumbo-jumbo that I have just gone through, this is a bona fide open rule. Over the years, I had the honor of referring to the former chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], as Mr. Open Rule, because of his commitment to bring to the floor major housing bills under an open rule. It is a distinction that I look forward to bestowing upon the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]. While an open rule on a bill of this nature will be time-consuming and contentious, 75 amendments were offered in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services alone, it is necessary. Housing policy must be seen in the context of broader welfare policy. Members have strong feelings about the impact of Federal housing programs on low-income families and how these programs should be reformed. An open rule will allow all issues to be debated and will strengthen public confidence in whatever program changes we collectively decide to move ahead with. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the changes called for in H.R. 2406 are long overdue. Our public housing programs are a failure, and those failures have been known to us for nearly two decades. Yet, until now, Congress has failed to offer effective solutions to addressing the housing and economic needs of poverty-level families. Instead, we have continued to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on costly and inefficient public housing programs that encourage waste, fraud, and abuse while destroying urban communities and relegating tenants to second-class status in Third World living conditions. H.R. 2406 will improve housing conditions and economic opportunity for tenants by substantially deregulating public housing and giving authorities the flexibility they need to operate efficiently and effectively. While 2406 does not fundamentally alter the Federal Government's intrusion into the housing market, nor does it reduce the size of HUD's bureaucracy, it will go a long way toward reforming our failed public housing programs. For that, I applaud Chairman Lazio for his successful efforts in bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with him to bring about similar reforms to the remainder of HUD's bureaucracy so we can enhance local control, reduce administrative overhead and cost burdens, maximize the direct flow of housing assistance, and promote our ultimate objective, which is the achievement of economic self-sufficiency for low-income families. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2406 is a good bill that deserves our support. More importantly, this rule provides for an open amendment process that will allow all the policy issues to be debated. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene], a very able Member and a colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the eloquence of my friend from Michigan has led me to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, under House rule IX, which requires that a Member must confine himself to the question under debate, is it relevant to the debate on either this rule or the bill it makes in order to engage in a discussion of the merits of the minimum wage?

Mr. DREIER. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Could the Chair enlighten us as to the subject matter of the question that is under debate at this point?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vineland, NJ [Mr. LoBiondo], a very able new Member of Congress.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Minnesota who raised the issue of waivers on the manager's amendment, the manager's amendment was fashioned after hours and hours of negotiations that took place between the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and Secretary Cisneros, and while there was not an agreement on every single issue, it was a compromise that was struck with them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King].

Mr. DREIER. And what is that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I would say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] that that lousy 90 cents works out to $57,000 for the average small business. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentelman from West Chester, OH, [Mr. Boehner].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth], our very able new colleague.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Providence, NJ [Mr. Franks]. (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Middletown, NY [Mr. Gilman], distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think some very important questions have to be addressed here. That is the reason that we are strongly supporting establishment of this subcommittee. It seems to me that as we look at these questions, to have my friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is totally unnecessary, one must ask: Was the administration telling the American people, Congress, our allies, and even most of the executive branch one thing while it was doing another? Did any of the administration's actions violate U.S. law? Was the U.S. Government's role in these arms transfers simply passive, or was it, as the Los Angeles Times stated on April 17, more hands on? Which Government officials knew about these arms transfers and when? How extensive was the effort to keep Congress uninformed of the Iranian operations? Why did the Clinton administration allow Iran to extend its influence into Europe after the administration had announced a policy of isolating Iran? Why would the Clinton administration allow Iran, a State Department terrorist nation, as it is designated, to unilaterally violate the arms embargo, after repeatedly ignoring U.S. congressional pleas and directives for the United States to do so? Did the administration's action increase the risk to United States Armed Forces deployed in Bosnia, or decrease the likelihood of a timely withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Bosnia? Mr. Speaker, these are among the many questions that must be answered. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to claim that this is totally unnecessary is preposterous. These need to be answered because of our constitutional responsibility, and the fact that we are accountable to the American people and to those who are courageously standing and serving on behalf of our country.