David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I intentionally failed to mention my friend, the gentleman from Thibodaux, LA [Mr. Tauzin] because I knew I would have the opportunity to introduce him. He has, 8 years ago, introduced the first legislation on securities reform, and we are very pleased that we in the new majority have been able to finally move his legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Newport Beach, CA [Mr. Cox], the prime author of this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. Securities litigation reform is not some abstract proposal that will prove meaningless to everyone but a few overlitigious lawyers and assorted legal professors around the country. This bill is about jobs. This is a critical step in our effort to help create more high-quality private-sector jobs here at home. Private securities litigation is undertaken today in a system that encourages meritless cases, destroys thousands of jobs, undercuts economic growth, and raises the prices that American families pay for goods and services. This legislation targets a particularly abusive class of securities lawsuits often filed with the sole intention of extorting pretrial settlement from companies whose stock has fallen in value. Because of the innovative nature of the work of high-technology companies, their stock values are inherently volatile, making them frequent targets of strike-suit lawyers. For example, nearly every company in California's Silicon Valley has faced this type of litigation, and this problem also plagues the cutting-edge biotechnology industry. In States like California, where high-technology companies are a critical component of economic recovery and revitalization, strike suits aimed at crippling legitimate high technology firms are crippling prospects for growth and job creation. The conference report on H.R. 1058 represents a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on securities litigation reform that will promote good business practices, protect investors' rights, and free innocent parties from wasteful and baseless litigation designed to enrich litigators alone. While Chairman Bliley and Chairman Fields have done tremendous work to bring this conference agreement to the floor, I must note the efforts of my colleague from Newport Beach, CA, Chris Cox. Chris, a former securities lawyer, has been involved in securities litigation reform since his days at Harvard Law School. He has pushed this important reform effort throughout his 6 years in the House, and was ready to move forward at the beginning of this year when success became a possibility. His hard work and leadership has been critical to this effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and move to debate of the conference agreement on H.R. 1058. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material from the Committee on Rules:

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 House under the 5-minute rule. Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Commerce, Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on International Relations, Committee on National Security, Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Science. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume to indicate, as has been said, the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, our colleague, Senator Chris Dodd, is one of the prime authors of this legislation, along with many other Democrats who truly make this bipartisan and bicameral. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and an ``aye'' vote on the conference report. 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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 260, waiving the provisions of clause 4(b) of House rule XI against the consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee, be laid on the table.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this vote marks the end of legislative business for the evening and for the week. For next week, we plan on a pro forma session on Monday, December 4. There will be no legislative business that day. On Tuesday, December 5, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business to take up a number of bills under suspension of the rules. I won't read through the bills now, but Members should be advised that a list will be distributed to their offices this afternoon. The suspensions are as follows: H.R. 33, Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center Act of 1995; H.R. 1253, renaming San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; H.R. 255, designating the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building; H.R. 395, designating the Bruce R. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building; H.R. 653, designating the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse; H.R. 840, designating the Walter B. Jones Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse; H.R. 869, designating the Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse; H.R. 965, designating the Romano L. Mazzoli Federal Building; and H.R. 1804, designating the Judge Isaac C. Parker Federal Building. Members should also be advised that we do expect votes soon after 2 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5. After consideration of the suspensions on Tuesday and for the balance of the week, we expect to consider the following bills, all of which will be subject to rules: H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995; The conference report for H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State & Judiciary Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996; The conference report for H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996; The conference report for H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act; The conference report for H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996; The conference report for H.R. 1977, the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996; The conference report for H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996; and H.R. 2668, the Social Security earnings limit increase. Mr. Speaker, that should give us a pretty action-packed week, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, at this point there are just so many questions that remain, we are hoping to see a budget agreement, we are hoping to see a wide agreement of other things, and until those are resolved we do not know what the schedule will be after the 15th.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate his comments, and, as he knows, we are trying to move as expeditiously as possible, but there are so many questions that at this point remain as we try to adjourn for the year that we cannot say for certain as to how closely we will be able to adhere to that schedule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, December 4, 1995, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 1995 for morning hour debates.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment makes two technical changes to the gift ban rule that was adopted by the House on November 16. These changes were inadvertently left out of the Gingrich-Solomon amendment to institute a tougher gift ban than the one contained in House Resolution 250. This amendment simply reinstates the exemptions for donations of home State products intended primarily for promotional purposes, and items of nominal value, such as greeting cards and baseball caps. The Gingrich-Solomon amendment was not intended to force Members to return Christmas cards to our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has been detained, but has no objections to the resolution or the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order, without intervention of any point of order, to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 254), making technical corrections in the Rules of the House of Representatives; that the amendments recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the resolution be considered as adopted; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to its adoption, without intervening motion or demand for division of the question, except a further amendment, if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Rules or his designee, and one hour of debate on the resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, debate on House Resolution 254 should not take more than a few minutes, because the resolution makes technical and conforming changes to reflect the intent of the amendments adopted in the 104th Congress. January 4, 1995, ushered in the era of the reform Congress when the House of Representatives approved sweeping changes to the rules under which the House previously operated. That legacy of reform continued this month with adoption of a gift ban resolution and lobbying disclosure reform. Also this year, the House approved changes in House rules to discourage the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments, and to establish a Corrections Calendar. As a result of these changes, a number of duplicative provisions and grammatical and typographical errors need to be corrected to ensure that the rules of the House reflect their true intent. In addition, the resolution clarifies a number of longstanding parliamentary interpretations to ensure consistency of parliamentary practice in the House. House Resolution 254 is not intended to address any of the controversial aspects of House rules. I understand the minority's concerns regarding the three-fifths vote requirement on tax rate increase, subcommittee assignment limits, and committee meetings while the House is considering amendments under the 5-minute rule. Chairman Solomon and I will be undertaking a comprehensive review of all of the House rules in a continuing effort to improve deliberation and accountability, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the minority on the effort. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we make these technical and conforming corrections to the rules of the House to reflect the intent of changes adopted this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. amendment offered by mr. dreier

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 254) making technical corrections in the Rules of the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means have until midnight tomorrow, Friday, December 1, 1995, to file a report to accompany H.R. 2684, Social Security earnings limit increase.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of a motion by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to concur in the Senate amendment to the Balanced Budget Act. This rule is made necessary by the fact that two small provisions of the Balanced Budget Act were stricken from the legislation as a result of the so-called Byrd rule. Mr. Speaker, business as usual in Washington is making promises, not keeping them. Business as usual is talking about a balanced budget, but not passing one. Business as usual is higher taxes on families and more spending on Government. By each of these three criteria, Mr. Speaker, passing the Balanced Budget Act today and sending it to the President is not business as usual. Instead, this is a truly historic day in congressional history, the day when Congress agrees on a budget plan that places children and tomorrow ahead of politicians. That day is today. This rule will permit us to vote on a real plan, a specific plan that balances the budget in 7 years. It may not be perfect, but it has the support of a majority in the House and Senate. It has the support of those who want larger tax cuts, and those who would rather increase spending a little more. It has supporters who want to balance the budget more rapidly and those who think 7 years is as fast as possible. Mr. Speaker, because it is a real plan rather than some phony outline, crafting the Balanced Budget Act involved real choices and very tough decisions. The conventional wisdom was that a final package could not be put together. The majorities in the House and Senate would self-destruct, many had said. That was obviously not the case. Along with tremendous leadership from a number of people in and out of Congress, those who support this bill have come together behind a belief that it is a moral imperative that we put children ahead of politics as usual. Mr. Speaker, the American people know that balancing the budget is critical to improving standards of living. Lower interest rates from this bill alone are expected to create nearly 500,000 new jobs, private sector jobs in my State of California alone. Cutting the top rate on capital gains and extending the research tax credit will translate directly into more jobs in the companies that are at the heart of my State's transition from a defense-based to an export-based economy. Mr. Speaker, I know the experience of these new jobs to families in California. I will not apologize for cutting taxes to create more private sector jobs. These growth incentives will also increase wage levels, addressing the problem of stagnant wages that has plagued the economic recovery during the past 3 years. While we balance the Federal budget, we must be sure that clear priorities are addressed. Past Congresses have ignored the cost of failed immigration policies. Billions of [[Page H 13319]] dollars in services to illegal immigrants have been left to State taxpayers. That is wrong. For the first time this bill will create a $3.5 billion Medicaid fund to assist States with the cost of emergency health care to illegal immigrants. In tandem with the $500 million appropriated by the House to reimburse States for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons, this targeted Medicaid fund places Congress at the forefront of dealing with this very important issue of illegal immigration. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the time to put partisanship aside. We must unite behind a fundamental desire of families all across this country. We know we must balance the Federal budget. They elected the President and Congress both to accomplish that goal. The President said he was going to do it in 5 years when he ran in 1992, and this Congress, this new majority in the Congress said we would do it. The Balanced Budget Act embodies a number of the President's election promises. Along with that balanced budget, he promised to end welfare as we know it. That is exactly what happens in this bill. He promised a middle-class tax cut when he ran in 1992; that is exactly what we are doing in this bill. We should come together. This rule will permit us to send a balanced budget to the President for the first time in three decades. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on this rule. 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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded will be for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 279 and ask for its immediate consideration.