David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our able new colleague from Gallipolis, OH [Mr. Cremeans]. (Mr. CREMEANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Stamford, CT [Mr. Shays].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I do so to say that those who are attempting to defeat the previous question here are in fact going to block our effort here which this subcommittee has put together to clean up the corrupt and horrible public housing that we have in this country. Let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. That is the rules of this House. The fact of the matter is this is a vote without substance. The previous-question vote itself is simply a procedural vote to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record an explanation of the previous question: House Rules Committee the previous question vote: what it means House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part that: There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or ordered. In the case of a special rule or order of business resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the previous question is moved following the one hour of debate allowed for under House Rules. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair what piece of legislation is before us?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I respond to my friend by saying one of the three programs he mentioned was specifically at the request of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. It is voluntary vouchering out of public housing, which is a priority item.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are very limited on time. I am just responding to the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. It is a specific request.

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

Mr. DREIER. I am simply providing what staff has informed us, that the Secretary of Housing and Development requested that of the Subcommittee on Housing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Chicago, IL [Mr. Flanagan]. (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very able colleague, the gentleman from Bloomfield, MI [Mr. Knollenberg].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], my colleague on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered by that. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I want to join in extending congratulations to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman, to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and to others who have worked to bring about this agreement. Clearly, we have gotten to the point where we are taking a step, a step in the direction towards ending the concept of big government. This does not do it, but it is a step in that direction, and I am pleased that we are going to be doing that. During the arduous national debate on the President's massive tax increase back in 1993, the American people said, ``Cut spending first.'' There was a clear national consensus to balance the budget by reducing the waste in government and slowing the growth of Federal spending, not by increasing taxes. Our Contract With America was historic not for the specific policies proposed but for the unprecedented effort of political candidates to make substantive legislative proposals during a campaign and then to win the election and actually proceed with implementation of those promises. This was above all an effort to address the well-founded mistrust that has existed with the American people who had grown sick and tired of Presidents and congressional majorities, both political parties saying one thing in a campaign and doing another while in office. One of the fundamental tenets of our contract was to balance the budget by reducing Federal spending, not by raising taxes. The principle of the Republican Party resulted in a historic budget confrontation. The majority in Congress promised to balance the budget by slowing the growth of Federal spending and provide tax cuts to families so that people could spend their own money on their own priorities in the budget. The President opposed that effort and had more than enough support from the minority in Congress to enforce his vetoes. The unstoppable force met the immovable object. Mr. Speaker, the conference report brings the appropriations portion of the fiscal year 1996 process to a close. That in itself is a very good and positive thing. It involves compromise, but it does not change the basic fact regarding this historic effort of the Committee on Appropriations over the past 16 months. With enactment of this legislation, the 104th Congress will have reduced Federal discretionary spending by $23 billion in fiscal year 1996 spending. The Congress has saved the Federal taxpayers and, more importantly, their children who will pay for the Federal debt an additional $20 billion in rescissions from the previous fiscal year. The result has been the lowest projected deficit in 14 years and the single largest reduction in Federal spending since the 1940's. With the passage of this legislation, Congress will have terminated over 200 Federal programs. Congress has done what it promised to do and what the American people asked for. We cut spending first. Critical rhetoric will always to be part of politics, but one thing that cannot be said truthfully about the 104th Congress is that we have not done what we said we would do. We cannot fully reform 40 years of big government congressional policies in just 2 years, but today we are making a very good and important start. This is a bill that deserves bipartisan support, and I am convinced it is going to get it. It may be the product of a process that was not enjoyable to watch, but it is a product that is well worth supporting from both sides of the aisle. It is time to move ahead with fiscal year 1997 spending issues. However, be assured this majority will remain fully committed to balancing the budget by cutting spending first, not raising taxes on hard-working families to feed the bloated Federal behemoth. It is gratifying that we have finally gotten to this point. I hope very much that we sill be able to move as expeditiously as possible to pass this legislation. I thank my friend for yielding time to me.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge strong support of this rule and of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 411 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration in the House of House Joint Resolution 175, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee. It orders the previous question to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit which, if containing instructions, may only be offered by the minority leader or his designee. Mr. Speaker, the rule also modifies House Joint Resolution 175 by striking out title II, which contained language to recapitalize the Savings Association insurance fund, better known as SAIF, and avoid another taxpayer bailout of yet another deposit insurance fund. Let me underscore that again. The plan was designed to avoid a taxpayer bailout and look for a private sector solution. This is an unfortunate but necessary step that was taken by the Rules Committee because passage of this 1-day continuing resolution is needed to forestall a disruption in Government services while congressional leaders and the administration work out the details of a permanent continuing resolution. As my colleagues know, the funding authority that much of the Government is currently now operating under expires in about 12 hours and 16 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to explain why I believe that the SAIF recapitalization legislation is needed, and why I hope that the majority and minority leadership in both the House and the Senate will work with the administration to bring this legislation before the House just as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Speaker, because the bank insurance fund became fully capitalized last year, deposit insurance premiums to that fund fell from 23 cents per $100 to 4 cents. Consequently, there is a premium disparity that exists now between the bank insurance fund and the Savings Association insurance fund. That creates a situation that could undermine the competitive balance between the two industries. To address this disparity, language was added to House Joint Resolution 175, but stricken by this rule, to require thrifts to pay a one-time assessment of $5.5 billion to recapitalize the Savings Association Insurance Fund. The Bank Insurance Fund would assume 75 percent of the responsibility for annual payments on the financing corporation bonds used to pay for the 1987 thrift industry rescue plan. In return, Mr. Speaker, banks would receive a rebate of up to $500 million for excessive premiums paid to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the two FDIC funds would be merged in 2 years. The reason the legislation is needed to be enacted sooner rather than later is that, to avoid the premium disparity, many thrifts will seek to transfer their deposits to BIF-insured institutions. If this happens, there will not be enough premiums in the safe to cover the $600 million a year in FICA bond obligations. That could happen by the end of this year, forcing a Government default and sometime thereafter another potential Federal bailout of the S&L insurance fund. Every banking regulator agrees that the system needs to be fixed today, including the FDIC, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. In fact, as Chairman Greenspan pointed out in a March 4 letter he sent to my California colleague, Mr. Royce, he said, Even if there were no evolving problem with two different insurance premiums, the existing deposit insurance system, with its reliance on two funds, is inherently unstable. Mr. Speaker, the safe recapitalization legislation is the first step toward merging the funds and the industries. Today there is little of a material nature that distinguishes a bank charter from a thrift charter. The consequences of having two funds is that one industry can have a competitive advantage, even though the funds are both operated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This is not a logical deposit insurance system. Many of my friends in the banking industry argue that they should not have to help pay for the thrift bailout because banks did not cause the problem. Mr. Speaker, neither did the well-run, healthy thrifts cause the problem that exists today. Since the only other option, which is another taxpayer bailout of a deposit insurance fund, is not a realistic option from my perspective, the only solution is a shared private sector solution. The result will be to enhance the safety and soundness of the banking system, benefiting consumers of financial products and services and strengthening the competitiveness and long-term health and profitability of the industry. Mr. Speaker, Congress' failure to deal with a looming threat to the deposit insurance system 10 years ago led to the biggest financial calamity since the Great Depression. Let us not make that same mistake twice. There will be no better opportunity than now to deal with this problem, and I look forward to working with the leadership, the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Leach, and the administration, to get this matter once and for all resolved. In the meantime, we must address the need to keep the Government operating. So I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of the one-day continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, MA [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 include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I have no further requests for time and I urge support of this rule. Let us move ahead. We are now down to 12 hours and 10 minutes until the Government is scheduled to shut down. We have moved ahead with this rule rapidly. Let us move ahead just as quickly with the continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there is a well-worn saying that ``Time heals all wounds.'' As we reflected this past weekend on the one-year anniversary of the tragedy in Oklahoma City, we drew some solace from it. Mercifully, the immediate pain and sadness of that most horrendous American terrorist act in history have passed. However, while we draw comfort from the passing of time, it does not mean that we are expected or should forget. This is an especially poignant time to recall another horrible act of hate and evil, the genocide committed against the Armenian people in Turkey 81 years ago. Just as we will never forget the terrorism committed in Oklahoma, it is important that we not forget the 1.5 million Armenian men and women and children who were brutally murdered in the inaugural genocide of the 20th century. Each year, Americans, and not just Armenian-Americans, come together on this occasion. We do so to do more than simply remember that the Armenians were the first victims of what sadly has become man's bloodiest century. Rather, we each hope that raising the consciousness of past atrocities helps prevent similar tragedies in the future. With tragedy so near and so fresh in our minds, we are easily reminded that hate and evil are unfortunate aspects of the human condition. However, it is our responsibility as Americans to remain vigilant against hate, violence, and intolerance, whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman referred to me.

Mr. DREIER. Well, you pointed to me. I considered that a reference.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask, is the gentleowman not going to yield; so should I sit down?

Mr. DREIER. I do not have any time at all. My friend from California indicated that he was going to yield.

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

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?