David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, almost 3 yours ago, General Powell made the announcement that he was not going to run for the President of the United States. But he said he is a Republican because he is convinced that the Republicans have the energy and ideas to move us towards a balanced budget. The real tragedy is that if we look over the last 40 years, unfortunately, the Democrats have driven us to this point of a horrendous, nearly $5 trillion national debt. We have the responsibility to govern. It is obvious that what is today the minority party will not, because they have not been able to. We have a responsibility to balance the budget; they have not been able to do it, and we are stepping up to the plate now and doing that. And, most important, we have a responsibility to be honest with senior citizens. The Government is going to be paying 68.5 percent of part B premiums. There is a sense that we are somehow pulling the rug out from under senior citizens. Everyone recognizes that the system is headed toward bankruptcy. On April 3 of this year, three members of the President's Cabinet joined in recognizing that fact. We now are dealing responsibly with that issue. This continuing resolution is very important, it is for a short period of time; the Democrats have used them for years and years and years, and sometimes the CR has governed for the entire year. Let us go with this very short period of time; let us responsibly deal with this. We are doing it as the majority party. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to support the continuing resolution when it comes forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas], one of our GOP leaders, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Joint Resolution 257, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DREIER. 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. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask of the gentleman in the well, I would ask what percentage of the appropriations bills has the President indicated he will veto, having not participated in this process at all?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my friend from Sanibel who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma City, OK [Mr. Istook], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of House [[Page H 11882]] Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995. This modified closed rule provides for consideration of the joint resolution in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, with 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The motion to recommit may include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his designee. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we do not need a poll or a focus group to know what the American people want from the Federal Government. As General Powell said just a few minutes ago, the American people want a government that lives within its means. Instead, just talk to people in any shopping mall or grocery store. They want the Government to balance the books and to stop burdening their children with debt. Only the most out-of-touch Washington liberals do not agree that chronic deficit spending must come to an end. Mr. Speaker, the American people should take heart in two facts. First, despite what the defenders of big Government claim, it is possible to spend $1.5 trillion in a manner that meets our national priorities while reaching a balanced budget in 7 years. It can be done without reducing spending on important programs. Second, this Congress is dedicated to following through with its promises. Mr. Speaker, we promised to balance the budget. We promised to reform the welfare system. We promised tax relief to families with children. We promised to cut the capital gains tax rate to encourage job creation and increase wages. We promised to save Medicare for a generation of retirees. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, this Congress will keep those promises. While we know what we have to do, the process does take time. Restoring fiscal sanity to Government is the most significant change in American politics in decades. We are dedicated to looking at every program to make improvements and reduce wasteful spending. We are listening to people throughout the country to learn different approaches that we need to meet the needs within the constraints of a balanced budget. This all does take time. Mr. Speaker, I would note that one reason balancing the budget is taking so much time is that the Government bureaucracy is actively fighting the efforts of their boss, the American people, to balance the books. The greatest example that I saw was in yesterday's Washington Times and other press reports which have indicated that the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs is sending partisan, self-serving, big- government propaganda to VA civil servants using Department resources. The most shocking example was that the Secretary has been taking the propaganda put together by the President's political hacks and printing it on VA employee's pay stubs. Does anyone wonder why the Department of Veterans Affairs did not print on the pay stubs that without the 7-year balanced budget plan passed by Congress, we will mortgage the future of American children with an additional $1.2 trillion in debt? This is a gross example of the pervasive practice of Government agencies lobbying to maintain the debt-ridden budget process. The appropriations process is caught up in this historic budget confrontation. Two appropriations bills have been signed by the President. The remainder are at various stages in the legislative process, including some under a threat of veto. In September, the Congress passed a responsible continuing resolution to keep the discretionary operations of the Federal Government from shutting down at the start of the fiscal year. It is again our intention to keep things going as we work all of the spending bills through the full process. Mr. Speaker, the American people can rest assured that this continuing resolution is fiscally responsible. Funding is at a lower level than the current continuing resolution and below fiscal year 1995 amounts. However, we are not replacing the regular appropriations process. It is still critical to pass those bills and reorder the priorities of the Federal Government away from outdated bureaucracies and in favor of working families. Mr. Speaker, as we work to make all of the changes that need to be accomplished to make the Federal Government serve people rather than the other way around, we do not need unnecessary Government shutdown to complicate our task. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the joint resolution. Mr. Speaker, the sooner we get through this, the sooner we can get back to the critical work of balancing the Federal budget, saving the Medicare system from bankruptcy, ending welfare as we know it, and implementing a growth-oriented tax cut that will create more jobs and increase the take-home pay of American workers. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking, thoughtful new Member, the gentleman from Timonium, MD, Mr. Ehrlich.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to a hardworking new colleague, the gentleman from Langley, WA, Mr. Metcalf. (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) announcement of intention to offer motion to instruct on h.r. 2126, department of defense appropriations act, 1996

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to some pretty vitriolic attacks which have really obfuscated the issue. To clarify it, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman, once again for being extraordinarily generous with his time, and I would like to simply point out that the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], my friend, in opposing this bill is opposing tax relief to 2,016,767 Texans including 285,572 hard-working Texans who will be taken completely off the Federal income tax roll, and it is a very sad commentary on the representation made.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago next month I had the opportunity, having worked hard in his campaign, to vote for the reelection of George Bush. Like most Republicans, I was saddened that he was not reelected, but it really began a new day for me. I was elected in 1980 and had served for 12 years with Republican Presidents. I was ready to take on this new experience of serving with a Member of the opposing political party down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A few weeks after the election I wrote on Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. The L.A. Times has been held up here this morning. In that piece I talked about the fact that if Bill Clinton remained a new kind of Democrat, as he said he was throughout his campaign, I would do everything that I possibly could to support him. In fact, throughout his campaign, remember, he talked about a balanced budget. That is exactly what we are pursuing with this legislation. He talked about health care reform. We are going at it a slightly different way than he probably had envisaged in his campaign in dealing with Medicare, but he nonetheless did talk about health care reform. He talked about welfare reform, individual initiative, and responsibility. That is exactly what we are working on in this legislation. He also talked about the need for us to move ahead with reducing the tax burden on middle-income working Americans. We know that 75 percent of the tax reduction in this package goes to people earning less than $60,000 a year. He also talked about reducing the capital gains tax rate. Why? Because he knew that encouraging savings and investment and productivity would be key to economic growth. It seems to me that, as we look at these items, along with his desire to reduce the regulatory burden that he outlined in his campaign, we, with this reconciliation package, are in fact helping him keep his campaign promises of 1992. Mr. Speaker, I believe that while the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and I were yesterday in the Committee on Rules saying ``Gosh, if you look at the fact that over the next 7 years we are going to see a 24-percent increase, a 24- percent increase in the level of Federal spending,'' that gives some of us a little concern. What it does is it shows that we are willing to recognize that there is a Democrat in the White House, there are Democrats in both Houses of Congress, and we are trying to do this in a bipartisan way. Tragically, rather than recognizing that it is a 24-percent increase, all they do is describe it as draconian cuts. We are working to protect, preserve, and strengthen the Medicare system, contrary to anything that has been said on the other side of the aisle. Actually, this package does just that. One of the great concerns in my State of California happens to be the issue of illegal immigration. While we are working toward a balanced budget we are actually including three times as much as the President does in his budget to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. Reimbursement for Medicaid. We also, in this package, are looking at reimbursement to the States for the incarceration of illegals. This rule will deal with that issue, the Bliley amendment. It seems to me that we have a great responsibility as Members of Congress to try to come together in a bipartisan way. I am very happy to say that our party does have the majority that we need to pass this very important measure, so we can get on that glidepath toward a balanced budget, so we can in fact reduce the tax burden on working Americans, and so we can, as a byproduct of that, decrease interest rates and put into place the kind of government that the American people desperately want. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule, and an ``aye'' vote for the reconciliation package.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the 30 seconds from the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my chairman, and I do so to simply point out that my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], who appears to have left the floor here, opposes tax relief to 656,736 working families in his State of Massachusetts including 77,225 families who would have their entire Federal tax burden eliminated under the budget bill that he is opposing today, and I think it is a sad commentary.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again, as my good friend from Utah has, remind our colleagues that we are debating the rule on the transportation appropriations legislation. I think that that is something that we should recognize. I was just a few minutes ago walking out in the Speaker's hallway and was headed back up to the Committee on Rules where we are at this point considering the rule for the reconciliation bill which will begin, as was said earlier, debate this evening and go through tomorrow. I heard the statement of my very good friend from Texas somehow implying, or I inferred from this, that we had not proceeded with the kinds of reforms that he believed were necessary. I have got to say that, having authored the opening day reforms, having worked with, and I see my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], during 1993 on the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress that was established. And he worked on the issue of congressional reform before; we spent hours and hours and hours. We had 37 hearings in 1993; 243 witnesses came before us in 1993. The former majority leadership, as everyone knows, did absolutely nothing with the report that came forward. It was not until we won this new majority, and frankly many Democrats on a regular basis remind me of this, it was not until we won the new majority that we were able to implement the greatest reforms that this institution has seen in a half century. We all know what those reforms have been. They have been for the most part received extraordinarily well: changing the committee structure, eliminating proxy voting, insisting on congressional compliance with laws imposed on other Americans. To claim that nothing has been done in the area of reform, as many have, unfortunately, is absolutely preposterous. My friend from Utah is the sponsor, as she has just said, of legislation dealing with the gift ban issue. As we look at overhauling the entire makeup of the Federal Government, this clearly is a priority and something that we are going to be considering. But I believe that it is crazy to in any way imply that this historic 104th Congress has not brought about major reforms. I hope very much that the American people and our colleagues will recognize that. With that, I urge strong support of this rule that is being carried by my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the Biblical quotations throughout the morning, but there have also been a number of quotations from the media. My friend from Texas focused on an article that appeared in today's paper, and, frankly, while we do not on this side regularly champion the Washington Post, I believe that the Washington Post described so much of what we have heard over the past few minutes on the other side of the aisle, because they have observed the debate over the past several months. They said the rhetoric which has come from the Democrats is nothing but medugoguery. That is the Washington Post editorialization of what we have been hearing. We as Republicans have stepped up to the plate. Another article that appeared, Adam Clymer in yesterday's New York Times acknowledged that in the past the Democrats have tried to avoid tough votes. We as Republicans have acknowledged that when Robert Reich, Bob Rubin, Donna Shalala, and the other members of the board of trustees from this administration signed that report saying that within 7 years the system will be bankrupt, we had to do something. We Republicans are stepping up to the plate and doing it. Let us address this in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the world has changed since 1965. Back in 1965, we saw the automobile industry in a great deal of difficulty. It was world competition which played a role in bringing about the changes that we have seen. The companies that produced those automobiles back in 1965 have gone through tremendous managerial changes. We need to recognize that it is a new day. And thank heavens, this new majority has stepped up to the plate and decided to bring this very important system into the 21st century. We are doing it under a very unique process. Thirty years ago, April 7, 1965, when this measure came to the floor, it came under a completely closed rule. A completely closed rule which did not allow any amendments, any substitute, any motion to recommit. Today, as we look and seek to protect, strengthen, and preserve Medicare, what are we doing? We are providing the opportunity for alternatives to [[Page H 10326]] be met. We are doing it in a bipartisan way. In a bipartisan way we came to the conclusion that we should deal with this language that addresses the issue of fraud. We have done it very effectively. We did it last night up in the Committee on Rules. I also believe that we need to recognize that the rhetoric that we have heard from so many of my very good friends on the other side of the aisle has been correctly described by the Washington Post as nothing more than Medigoguery.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as my friend has made it very clear, I was not here. The gentleman from Florida was here then, but there was not a substitute that was offered. Mr. Speaker, this rule is much more open than the rule that considered Medicare in 1965. I urge an aye vote on this very fair rule, and recognition that stepping up to the plate and dealing with a serious problem that President Clinton has acknowledged is something that the majority of this Congress is willing to do.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have only a limited amount of time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader's hour may precede the minority leader's hour in special orders today.