David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee brings to the floor of the House today the third rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1977, legislation making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies in fiscal year 1996. The rule which the House passed last week for this legislation was a very straightforward and balanced rule. It was open, it was fair, and it was reasonable given the importance of moving ahead with this year's appropriations process. Unfortunately, despite the wide open amendment process called for in that rule, we saw the bill become needlessly bogged down in partisan politics, and we witnessed the deliberative process being taken hostage by dilatory tactics. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the time has now come to rescue this bill, and the deliberative process, from the clutches of partisan delay and obstruction. This additional rule is offered simply as a precaution, to enable the House to move this critical funding legislation forward, but in a manner which is fair and reasonable to both sides of the aisle. First, the rule provides for the further consideration of H.R. 1977 for amendment without any intervening motions, except for: amendments which have been printed in the Congressional Record prior to July 14, 1995; motions that the Committee rise if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee; and motions that the Committee rise and report with bill back to the House with any amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, as a preferential motion pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXI. Second, under the rule, amendments which have been printed in the Record may be offered only by the Members who submitted them to be printed. Such amendments shall be considered as read, and are debatable for a period not to exceed 10 minutes each, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Moreover, such amendments are not amendable, and are not subject to a demand for a division of the question either in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Furthermore, the rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone any request for a recorded vote on an amendment to a later time. Finally, the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the time for a vote on any amendment in a series of amendments, provided that the time for voting on the first in any such series of amendments is not less than 15 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee recognizes that there are a number of amendments on issues important to both sides of the aisle, such as funding for the arts and humanities, which merit additional debate time beyond the 10 minutes allowed under this new rule. Accordingly, I intend to offer an amendment to the rule which would permit the House to debate nine specific amendments already printed in the Record, each for a period not to exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The amendment is the result of close cooperation and consultation with the minority, and in light of our cooperation with the minority on this amendment, I hope very much we will be able to maintain strong bipartisan support for it. Mr. Speaker, in recent months the House has made remarkable progress toward fulfilling its legislative agenda. On the very first day of this session, the House passed a sweeping set of congressional reforms. Within the first 100 days we completed the historic Contract With America, often with bipartisan support. Just last month we passed an equally historic plan to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. Now we have the obligation and the responsibility to move ahead with the annual appropriations process. I do not have to remind our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, just how important these funding bills are. Without prompt passage of these bills by both Chambers, the continued operations of the Federal Government would most certainly be in jeopardy. The August district work period is just 3 short weeks, I hope they are short weeks away, and the end of the fiscal year itself is just over the horizon. Clearly, time is of the essence, and our work is cut out for us. While the Rules Committee continues to support a generally open amendment process, as much as possible, when considering appropriations bills, I believe we owe it to our constituents, whom we are elected to serve, to legislate in a responsible and efficient manner. These are not mutually exclusive goals, Mr. Speaker, and that is the principle underlying the rule which we consider this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to simply say that this is a very fair, balanced, and open rule. It is obvious that we have members of the appropriations subcommittee and the authorizing committee working very closely together to deal with the issue of meat inspection. We also are working on a compromise to deal with the question of the lockbox. It is very important that we overwhelmingly pass first the previous question, and then the rule, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on both. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Syracuse, NY [Mr. Walsh].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Dodge City, KS [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to say that this is a new day. We have seen tremendous cooperation between the authorizing committee and the appropriations subcommittee that is dealing with this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 188 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1976, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The bill is to be read by title for amendment, and each title is to be considered as read. The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI--which prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bill--and also waives clause 6 of rule XXI--which prohibits reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations in general appropriations bills--against provisions of the bill. Under the rule, it is in order to consider first an amendment printed in the rule to be offered by Mr. Skeen of New Mexico. This amendment shall be considered as read. The amendment is debatable for 10 minutes divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. The amendment offered by Mr. Skeen is not subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or Committee of the Whole. If this amendment is adopted, it shall be considered as a part of the original text for the purpose of further amendment under the 5 minute rule. In allowing this amendment, we are following past practices of previous Congresses, in order to be as fair as we possibly can be on these appropriations bills. This rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule does not require pre-printing, but simply encourages Members to take advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor. Finally, House Resolution 188 provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority members of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth open rule to be offered during the consideration of the 1966 appropriations process--the sixth if you count the first Interior appropriations rule. House Resolution 188 is a typical open rule to be considered for general appropriations bills. This rule does not restrict the normal open amending process and any amendments that comply with the standing rules of the House may be offered. H.R. 1976 appropriates a total of $62.7 billion dollars, which is $6.3 billion less than was appropriated last year. This bill provides $13 billion in discretionary spending and $49 billion in mandatory spending, a decrease of about $5.3 billion below the amount available for fiscal year 1995. Clearly, the Appropriations Committee has had to balance a wide array of interests and had to make very difficult choices with drastically reduced resources. With that in mind, I want to commend the close work of the authorizing and appropriating committees in crafting the legislation that will soon be before the House. They have worked together under an incredibly tight budget to ensure that all funding is spent where it is needed most. Together, they have responsibly sought to maintain functions that are crucial to the health and safety of the American consumer and the future success of this nation's farming communities. H.R. 1976 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, as was the open rule by the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with consideration of the merits of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information on the amendment process. The document referred to is as follows: [[Page H 7018]]

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this rule, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to include extraneous matter).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. I want to again congratulate her on superb management of this rule. It is a little easier today than it was last night, I will acknowledge, because we have, I believe, come to an agreement which will clearly be acceptable to a majority of this House. Mr. Speaker, many of us have tried for a number of years to delete taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, and that is obviously one of the major items of real controversy here. I will acknowledge there are other items that are very, very important in this measure, but the NEA on our side of the aisle especially has been a very, very contentious point. We are going to, under this open rule, have an opportunity to in fact zero out the National Endowment for the Arts. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has offered that amendment in the past, he will have the chance to offer it again today when we proceed with the measure. I believe that there is a very important signal that has been received. I will acknowledge that there was a little bump in the road last night when we did not quite get a majority vote for this rule, but this has been a very well thought out compromise which, as my friend from Illinois has just raised, in fact, insists that conferees on our side of the aisle adhere to the constraints that have been outlined in our proposal. This is an open rule. It allows for the kinds of amendments that Members want to offer. I hope very much that we can now proceed and move as expeditiously as possible through this appropriations process, because we are trying desperately to maintain the kind of openness that we proposed at the beginning of this Congress. I believe this bill will be another great example of that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Columbus for yielding me this time. I would like to congratulate her for handling this very challenging rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for several reasons, first and foremost, because I want to have a chance to vote as I have in the past to zero out the National Endowment for the Arts, to zero out the National Endowment for the Humanities. Guess what, this rule is going to give me a chance to do that. There some people who have been claiming that we will not have a chance to do that if we pass this rule. That is wrong. I happen to be a very strong supporter of the arts. The former chairman of the subcommittee walking right up to the aisle there, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], knows very well that my family has encouraged me to be a supporter of the arts. However, I want to see us do it privately. That is why I am going to support the Crane amendment, if we can get this measure through. It is my belief that as we look at other way important provisions within this bill just discussed by the former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, like defunding the California Desert Protection Act, that gives us another very important reason on our side of the aisle, especially, to vote in favor of this rule. The other reason is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] made it very clear. When it comes to the lockbox, we are going to proceed and make retroactive, retroactive, the provisions that we come to, in a bipartisan way. This is a rule which is balanced, fair, and it is open. I would not dream of voting against an open rule. I cannot imagine why anyone would do that. It is fair, it is balanced, it allows us to zero out the NEA and the NEH. I believe everyone in this House should support it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding this time to me, and I would simply like to ask my very good friend from the Palos Verdes Peninsula if in light of this strong statement that has come from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules if she would now be inclined to support us on this open rule which is very fair and balanced and will, in fact, be inclusive of the lockbox provision once we come up with a bipartisan compromise.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and the Budget Process, which I understand is at this moment taking testimony over in the Rayburn Building, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it saddens me that we have come to the point where we have to have this rule. We have tried desperately to enhance the level of deliberation in this institution. On January 24 when we put into place the opening day reforms, that was one of the major guides we had, to make this a deliberative body, and one might claim that staying up around the clock, as we did the week before last, was part of the deliberative process. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that the dilatory tactics that came from some of our very, very, very distinguished colleagues jeopardized the ability to deliberate over this very important piece of legislation. We desperately want to have every single rule open. Some have claimed that we have had many, many closed rules. Sixty-two percent of the legislation has come up under an open amendment process, as the chairman of the Committee on Rules has just said. We want more and more open rules. We have done it so far. However, when people are standing in the way of our responsibility to meet the appropriations deadlines, we have little choice other than to move ahead with some sort of structure with the rule. To me, as one who has worked and continues to this day to work on reform of the institution, I am very sorry that we have to in fact move forward with this kind of structure to the rule. I hope that when we go ahead with the remaining appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to work in a bipartisan way to implement the kind of legislation that the American people said last year they wanted us to proceed with, and that I believe with a majority of this institution wants us to implement. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I rise in support of this rule, because we have no alternative, unfortunately. I hope we will be able to finally bring a successful conclusion to this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from California, that he is absolutely right. It is much, much easier to deal with disasters by simply adding to the deficit. It is tougher. However, the message that came through last November 8 was that business as usual has obviously got to come to an end. We had a big debate in the 103rd Congress on the issue of whether or not we would have offsets to deal with the Northridge earthquake. We lost that battle when it came up here. Now, in the 104th Congress, with this new majority, we have made the determination that when we deal with these very tragic situations and we want to provide emergency assistance, we are only going to do it if we find offsets, and that is what we have done here, and we have successfully been able to more than offset the cost of the Northridge quake and the disasters that have taken place in 40 other States. Mr. Speaker, I also should add that this bill is virtually identical to H.R. 1158, which has been considered by this House, exhaustive hearings on the issue, and we are simply making changes to try and address the concerns of the President, so we can get this measure signed. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Savannah, GA [Mr. Kingston].

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1944, which largely consists of the rescission and supplemental appropriations contained in the conference report for H.R. 1158. The bill was vetoed by the President 4\1/2\ weeks ago. It was the first veto of his presidency. unfortunately, there remain enough defenders of the status quo in this House that an override of that veto would have been impossible. Facing an impasse, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has been striving to find a compromise with the administration in order to provide needed disaster relief to 40 States, and to place a down payment on our balanced budget, which we have just been debating here over the past hour. This modified closed rule, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of the bill that can break that impasse, with 1 hour of general debate in the House. The rule permits the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to offer one amendment, which shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to amendment or division. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Members that in California, the message from the President's veto of H.R. 1158 was received loudly and clearly. The President talked a lot last year about standing behind the families, rebuilding their lives after facing the worst that nature could possibly throw at them. The Northridge earthquake was devastating for southern California, and I shall never forget the President's visit to that region, and how moved he was by those who were victimized. Unfortunately, his veto pen spoke louder than those words, telling struggling communities that if providing assistance meant cutting his sacred Federal spending programs, that disaster relief really was not all that important. H.R. 1944 is the product of the tireless effort of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to send a compromise bill to the President. The bill restores funding to a number of the education, training, and housing programs that the President said were the basis for his veto. The language on striker replacement incorporated in H.R. 1158 was also dropped from this bill. As we know, the first time around the White House did not engage in negotiations on the rescission conference report until after the process was completed. No one in the administration was at all involved in the negotiating process. Instead, they waited until the process was completely over to issue a veto threat. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations reports that the administration has simply refused to come to closure on numerous provisions under endless negotiation. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to stop letting perfection be the enemy of the good. The rescissions most objectionable to the President have been addressed. They have been replaced with other spending reductions. H.R. 1944 will provide $6.7 billion for much needed disaster relief in 40 States. It is not just California, this impacts 40 States. The bill also continues to place a $9.2 billion downpayment on deficit reduction, which obviously is a goal to which we all seem to aspire, and that was evident from the debate on both sides of the aisle on the budget. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know that the very responsible spending reductions in this bill, which account for a 1- percent reduction in fiscal year 1995 Federal outlays, are the product of a thorough, a very thorough review process conducted for months by members of the Committee on Appropriations. I have said it before and I will say it again, the criteria used by the committee are clear, concise, and utterly reasonable to the American taxpayer. Rescissions were proposed when programs were not authorized, were duplicative, received large funding increases in fiscal year 1995, had unspent funds piling up from year to year, exceeded spending levels in the Clinton budget, and were wasteful or did not work. Mr. Speaker, the President killed the balanced budget amendment by encouraging Senators in his party to flip-flop and oppose that amendment. The President opposed the specific balanced budget plans offered by the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. The President vetoed H.R. 1158 that started the country down the path towards a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, some cynics might conclude that the President can talk the talk but not walk the walk when it comes to controlling Federal spending. Even though the original objections to the rescission bill have been addressed in H.R. 1944, some administration officials are indicating that the bill just may be vetoed once again. I would especially note that some in the administration consider minimal disagreements regarding the proper way to dispose of dead and rotting trees on Federal lands to be an excuse to kill this bill. Those people either have their priorities seriously misplaced, or this administration could never find a serious spending reduction plan that the President could possibly sign. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and balanced rule for a very important bill that has come from the Committee on Appropriations. Once again, it will be up to the President to make the case that, despite all of his original concerns being met, that a 1-percent cut in the $1.5 trillion in Federal outlays is too much for him to accept in order to fund much needed disaster relief. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the following document regarding the amendment process and special rules. The document referred to is as follows:

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the 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. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the great natural resource happens to be dead trees in those surrounding communities where the potential for fire is very great. They do not consider it a marvelous resource. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Sugar Land, TX [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished Republican whip and a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Brevard, NC [Mr. Taylor], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Atlanta, GA [Mr. Linder].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding time to me. I rise in strong support of this rule. Clearly, this day is a very important one, not just the fact that we have stayed up all night here but the fact that we are bringing about a conference report that has been agreed to by both the House and the Senate, that is going to put us on that glide path toward a balanced budget. Earlier several of my colleagues have been trying to tragically, once again, engage in this class warfare argument which we have been listening to for [[Page H 6567]] such a long period of time. The ``us versus them'' case that they make really does not hold water, because I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that an overwhelming number of the American people realize that we are in this together. We need both Democrats and Republicans alike, if we are going to move toward a balanced budget. The President of the United States has, in response to our passage of a balanced budget, said that within 10 years he could balanced the budget, angering many Members of his own party by pointing out some of the tough decisions that will have to be made. Unfortunately, our friends here in the House have continued to try and pit one group of Americans against another. I believe that this is very sad. They have called us mean spirited, coldhearted. We have been accused of taking food from the mouths of babes. As we look at some of the programs that we have addressed in the first 6 months of the 104th Congress, it is very apparent, very apparent that only in Washington, DC, can a 4.5 percent increase, as we have put in the school nutrition program, be labeled a draconian cut. That is exactly what they have done with that issue. They have tried to do that with Medicare and a wide range of other things. We desperately want to ensure that no American is hurt by this, but we also recognize that if we are going to have a balanced budget by the year 2002, tough decisions have to be made. That is exactly what happened in this conference report. I am particularly gratified with the fact that this conference report is geared toward economic growth. I represent the state of California, which has an economy that is still going through a very very great difficulty, as it has for the past several years. I believe that issues like the capital gains tax rate reduction will do more to create jobs, spur economic growth and not be a tax cut for the rich but help middle-income wage earners than virtually any Government program that we could put into place. It seems to me that as this debate has proceeded, many Members have so often forgotten the fact that we want to do what we can to allow working Americans to keep some of their own hard-earned dollars. This is a very good conference report, and it is very fair rule. I support it strongly and thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.