David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Close.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to respond to all three of my friends here who are discussing what is clearly a very important issue by saying, first, it has been concluded we will have only one day of hearings. It is possible that there could be an additional hearing. The distinguished ranking minority Member, my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], is in a position to look towards an additional hearing on this. I think it is also very sad to take an issue which is so critically important, which we have agreed to step up to the plate and address in response to the Board of Trustees' Report that was signed by Secretary Rubin, Secretary Reich, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Ms. Shalala, stating this system will be broke within seven years. The American people overwhelmingly are supportive of our goal of dealing with this. As I said earlier, the President of the United States has acknowledged that we are going to have to slow this exponential growth in the cost of Medicare, well beyond the rate of inflation, nearly three times the rate of inflation, based on the figures that just came out yesterday. So it strikes me we are doing the responsible thing. And to have my friends just criticizing willy-nilly, when there is going to be opportunity to look at this issue, and to say that somehow when this hearing opens, it will be the first time that the word ``Medicare'' will have been uttered in any committee, is preposterous, because we for months and months and months have seen this debate raging on. I think we have a very good and adequate schedule put together for next week.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that we have gone through exhaustive hearings on the issue of Medicare, and to argue that this issue has not been debated either in Congress or in the public is obviously not the case. I see the gentleman from Florida, my friend, here, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I understand that this particular piece of legislation will not have had the specific hearings on this bill, but for more than a day or so, but virtually every option, as we have looked at the proposal that came forward on April 3 from the trustees on the prospect of the entire Medicare system being bankrupt within 7 years, virtually every option has been addressed. We know the President has demonstrated a need to deal with this issue, and I believe that it is going to be timely for us to move forward, and so we will be proceeding just as rapidly as possible.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield for just one clarification on this, the gentleman said that we are going to have the largest cuts when, in fact, we will over the next 7 years see an increase of from $4,800 to $6,700 per beneficiary, which is roughly about a 52-percent increase in the level of expenditures. We will be expending well over $1\1/4\ trillion, or approaching $1\1/4\ trillion, on Medicare over the next 6 to 7 years, and so to call it a cut is obviously an inaccurate statement.

Mr. DREIER. To inquire of the program for the week.

Mr. DREIER. We are doing it right now, have been doing it over the last several months.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just respond to my very good friend from Martinez who has raised some very, very good questions. The fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] indicated, 16 hearings were held in the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, they were on the issue of Medicare reform. Those have come forward. This has been debated in the media, here in the Congress, and I hasten to add that to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that in some way we are going to be not utilizing the proper procedures of the House as we proceed with this really makes one incredulous, in light of the fact that we have seen legislation rammed through here when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority for years and years and years, and we are planning to comply with the rules of the House, and we will continue this debate. The evidence that we have right here is that during this 1-minute, which has lasted about 20 so far, we have seen a vigorous debate take place, and I suspect that it is going to continue. It will most likely continue this weekend on the television, and I believe that we will see a full airing, and those groups to which my friend referred have been heard from by many of the different committees that have been involved in this.

Mr. DREIER. I ask my friend if that is the same question he asked about 90 second ago, or are there two questions?

Mr. DREIER. If my colleague would yield, I would answer.

Mr. DREIER. My pleasure.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend, the gentleman from Mount Clemens, MI [Mr. Bonior], for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 18, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 noon for legislative business. We plan to take up the following 11 bills under suspension of the rules: S. 464, extension of district court demonstration projects; S. 532, clarifying rules governing venue; House Resolution 181, encouraging the peace process in Sri Lanka; House Resolution 158, congratulating the people of Mongolia; House Concurrent Resolution 42, supporting dispute resolution in Cyprus; H.R. 1091, the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Partnership Act of 1995; H.R. 260, National Park System Reform Act of 1995; H.R. 402, the Alaska Native claims settlement amendments; H.R. 1872, The Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 1995; H.R. 558, The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act; and H.R. 1296, providing for the administration of certain Presidio properties. After consideration of the suspensions, we plan to take up H.R. 39, the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, subject to a unanimous- consent agreement. Members should be advised that there will be no recorded votes on Monday; any votes will be postponed until Tuesday. Members should not expect any votes on Tuesday before 11 a.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. Members should be advised that there will be no votes on Friday, September 22. The House will consider the following bills next week, all of which will be subject to rules: H.R. 1617, the Careers Act; H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995; H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995; and H.R. 1323, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1995. Members should be advised that conference reports may be brought up at any time. On Monday and Tuesday, we expect the House to conclude its business between 7 and 8 p.m. On Wednesday, we plan on working later, but we hope to adjourn between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight. It is our hope to have Members on their way home to their families and their districts by no later than 6 p.m. on Thursday. Mr. Speaker, does my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, have any questions?

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

Mr. DREIER. That relates to the program itself that we are going to be considering next week.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, next week the Rules Committee is expected to meet to grant rules for several bills scheduled for floor consideration. As has been the practice in recent times, the Rules Committee may include a provision in these rules giving priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. On Monday the Rules Committee will meet at 4 p.m. to consider rules on two bills--H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, and H.R. 1617, the CAREERS Act. A preprinting option will likely be included in both rules. With respect to the Cuban Liberty bill (H.R. 927), Members should be advised that the rule will likely make in order a new amendment in the nature of a substitute, taking into account the concerns of committees of shared jurisdiction, as base text for amendment purposes. For the convenience of Members, the text of the amendment will be printed in today's Congressional Record. With respect to the CAREERS Act, Members should be advised that the Rules Committee has been asked by the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee to make in order as base text an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text H.R. 1617 combined with the text of H.R. 1720, the Privatization Act of 1995. That amendment in the nature of a substitute will be placed in today's Congressional Record for Members' convenience. It will also be introduced as a new bill for reference in the rule as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for amendment purposes. It is especially important that Members' pre-print their amendments for this bill since it involves several formulas that are complex in nature. Members are requested to use the Office of Legislative Counsel for drafting their amendments to the new base texts for both bills to ensure they are properly drafted. It is not necessary for Members to file their amendments with the Rules Committee or to testify. On Tuesday, September 19, the Rules Committee is tentatively scheduled to meet to consider rules on two bills, H.R. 2274, to designate the National Highway System, and H.R. 1323, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1995. While we have not received specific rule requests on these bills at this time, Members should expect at the least that the amendment preprinting option for priority in recognition may be included in these rules. As always, the continued cooperation of Members in preprinting their amendments in the Congressional Record is appreciated both by the committees of jurisdiction and their colleagues.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I have to join in opposition to this amendment. I certainly have the greatest of admiration for my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], but my concern is that, as we look at the issue of saving, and now to go, as my friend has just said, a step further and jeopardize the ability to reduce the incredible tax burden on working Americans, I believe, goes far beyond the purview of the intention of the lockbox. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, there are many of us, most everyone, concerned about the pattern of deficit spending we have seen over the past several decades. But we are also concerned about the fact that there are so many people out there who feel that the Federal Government imposes a tax level which is way too high, and it is our goal as we reduce the deficit to also reduce that burden of taxes on working Americans. It is clear that the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], would joepardize the opportunity to do that. For that reason I am compelled to join in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there are many very pressing and important issues which we have been discussing. The previous speakers have been talking about some very pressing budget matters. But I have taken this time out this evening to talk about a personal item and that is the fact that [[Page H 8584]] just last week one of our colleagues, Congressman Moorehead, announced his retirement, and I wanted to take a moment. Usually people wait until the very end of the session to talk about Members who have chosen to retire, but I wanted to take just a moment to talk about a person who I believe is a stellar citizen legislator and one who will be sorely missed when he, after 12 terms of service here in the House of Representatives, will retire. Carlos Moorhead is a citizen legislator. He had a small law practice in his hometown of Glendale, CA where he had grown up. He went to Hoover High School and was one who regularly participated in many civic items, and he is one who chose public service. Now, we know that in this day and age public service itself is much maligned. We regularly see people who have chosen to spend some years of their life in public service criticized. But the fact of the matter is Carlos Moorhead is a very unusual person. We all know from serving here in the House that he is not a show horse. He in fact is a workhorse. He is the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, not one of the most exciting issues discussed here on the House floor, but I am one who believes that it is very important. It is very important, as we look at international trade agreements and other items, that we maintain the intellectual property rights which are so key to the very unique talents which citizens of the United States of America have. Carlos served 6 years as a member of the California State Legislature before choosing to run for Congress in 1972. He served on that Judiciary Committee that held the impeachment hearings in the early 1970's, and his loyalty was very great. It has been written up in the media over the past week or so that he stood strongly behind Richard Nixon, and his quote in the papers consisted of the following: He believed it very important to maintain the Presidency at that time. He also has been heavily involved in the issue of telecommunications, having served as ranking minority member when we were in the minority here on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, and it was a great achievement to see the legislation which passed this House just before the August recess come about, and Mr. Moorhead had spent a long period of time working on that legislation. I would simply like to say that it is going to be a great personal loss for me when, as he regularly reminds me, in a year and a half he chooses to retire. He will still be serving here for the next 17 some odd months and we know we are going to be spending a great deal of time here, but when he does choose to retire at the end of next year, it will be a personal loss. I have had the privilege of trying to represent the district which joins his in Los Angeles County, and we all know that he has been a great friend, a very hard worker, and I happen to believe one of the most underestimated Members of this institution. When he does retire, he will be sorely missed by many of us.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Miami, the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, for yielding me this time. I would like to bring us back to the issue that we are debating here. It happens to be the legislative branch appropriations bill. If we are going to simply comply with the standing rules of the House which is what we try desperately to do on a regular basis, we will not waive germaneness. With the exception of the conference report itself, there are not waivers on this bill, and so it seems to me that the responsible thing for us to do is to recognize that a measure which is going to cut $205 million, a real cut of $205 million, should have the chance to be voted on here on the House floor. We have been debating during this legislative branch appropriations debate the issue of lobbying reform. The fact of the matter is that is going to come up. As my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, has pointed out, an opportunity has existed for four long, uninterrupted decades on the other side of the aisle to deal with this issue. The 104th Congress has met for 8 months. We have had 8 months to deal with a wide range of things. I would hasten to say to my friends from Texas, Mr. Doggett especially whom I asked to yield earlier, when he said that we have not brought about reforms, I have to take that as a personal insult, because on January 4, we passed the largest, most sweeping reforms that the U.S. Congress has seen in over half a century. Not since the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act have we done very important things that gained bipartisan support, like eliminating proxy voting; dramatically reducing the number of committees and subcommittees, by 25 percent; reducing by [[Page H 8571]] a third committee staff; and something that my friend from Connecticut also worked long and hard on, having Congress comply with the laws imposed on other Americans. The fact of the matter is we brought about major sweeping reforms and it has not come to an end. But this bill is not where we should be debating this. We are simply trying to cut the level of appropriations for this institution, and I hope very much that we will be able to pass the previous question, and pass this rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Atlanta for yielding time to me. Believe it or not, I know it is 11:34 p.m. But over the next couple of hours, because of the fact that the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations wanted us today to proceed with consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we are going to embark on what I am convinced is one of the most exciting debates that we have possibly addressed in this Congress. It is a debate which is going to lead us towards the millennium and in fact lay the groundwork for dramatically improving the opportunity for consumers in this country to benefit in the area of telecommunications. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be done on a very, very fair, under a very, very fair and balanced rule. This rule will in fact allow for the consideration of a wide range of issues, contrary to some of the statements that have been made by those who are opposing the rule. It will allow us to get into debates on the V chip issue, on broadcasting, on cable, on Internet, a wide range of items, including that very important item which was just addressed earlier, the issue of local control. We also had a very healthy exchange between two former mayors, which is going to ensure that not only here but in the conference we will see the issue of local control addressed. This is being done in a bipartisan way. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and those on the other side of the aisle who have been involved in this issue. It is being addressed with the support of the leadership on both sides. I believe that as we move toward the millennium, we are going with this legislation to greatly enhance the opportunity for the U.S. consumer.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me this time. I hope the time he used to introduce me does not come out of such time as I may consume. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that our former colleague, Dan Rostenkowski, used to always say that if everyone is unhappy with a piece of legislation, it is probably a pretty good bill. We do not always say that when we are looking at a rule, but we know that it took a great deal of negotiation to get to the point where we are today, and as the chairman of the Committee on Rules has just said, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations did have input in determining the time for general debate that was added for these three titles, and virtually everyone has had a hand in this. If you look at the very beneficial aspects, I believe that it should lead a majority of Members of this institution to support this rule. Now, one of the items that has been discussed in a bipartisan way consistently has been the lockbox, the desire to deal with deficit spending, and Members on both sides of the aisle again have stepped up and said, ``We need to deal with the issue of the deficit.'' We have had very strong statements made by our colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] consistently before our Committee on Rules on that, and, of course, we have had Members on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], and others who have been dealing with the issue of the lockbox. This rule allows us to finally face that question. Then we look at a number of the other items. Well, it has been stated time and time again the legislation that deals with the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Labor, clearly is an overwhelmingly large bill, and there are many items in it, but it seems to me that it is our responsibility to deal, as well as we can, with them, and this rule, while it may not be perfect, is, quite frankly, the best product that can be assembled. I am disappointed that things like the Riggs amendment were not made in order that would allow us to deal with the issue of illegal immigration, and I can point to other aspects of it that I believe should have been addressed. But we need to move forward. This is an extraordinarily important appropriations bill, and I hope very much that our Members will come to the conclusion that providing support for this rule will at least allow us to consider this very important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I would like to congratulate both my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], and my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], who have worked long and hard on this extraordinarily important piece of legislation. This is an open rule. It is an amendment process which will allow Members to work their will on a wide range of issues that are going to be coming before us. It is very important to note, as we embark on the defense appropriation bill, that this is legislation that we are addressing as we are all very concerned about the budget and the deficit and the national debt, and yet it seems to me that as we look at the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, it is very important for us to recognize that providing for the common defense is paramount. There are a wide range of levels of government, State and local governments, county governments that can deal with many of the issues that the U.S. Government today addresses, and yet when it comes to the security of the United States of America, only one level of government, only one level of government is in a position to address those, and that is the U.S. Government. So it is for that reason that we have to recognize the preeminence of the issue of defense appropriations. Now, there are going to be some controversial questions that will come forward. The B-2 bomber is one which I know my very good friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and I have worked on for a number of years. Let me just say this very briefly about that issue, it seems to me if we look at this question and try to back off, it will be the first time in the history of our republic that we would have taken a retrograde step on a new and very important technology. There are many who argue that since we have seen the demise of the Soviet Union, that it is no longer necessary, and yet there are potential conflicts in the Middle East which a friend of mine in California was talking to me about not too long ago, and other spots where this technology is very important, and it cannot be ignored. I have to say that none of the jobs for this are actually in my district. I recognize that many of them are in California, but I believe this very firmly, because of the national security of our country, that what we should proceed with the B-2. I hope very much we will be successful when that comes up on the floor. Let me say that I do congratulate again my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, for the valiant effort he has put forward, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingstone], and others who have been very involved. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this open rule. Then we will look forward to having the House work its will.