David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], a very able Member of this Congress.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote for this very fair and balanced rule, and the conference report, and the previous question, and on any other procedural vote they might request on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time briefly to say that the very distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has spoken a little longer than I had anticipated and I would hope that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] might be able to get some time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Metarie, LA [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. The lock box is included in this bill. If the gentleman would read section 2003, it is included in this measure. I would simply like to say that as we look at this new day, the negotiations which my friend says have not taken place in the light of day, we are simply trying to address the concerns of President Clinton, a member of your party. We want to work together with him so that we can get a bill that we can sign.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like to ask him to turn to page 105 of the bill H.R. 1944 and look at section 2003. It is entitled ``Downward Adjustments in Discretionary Spending Limits.'' The lock box is included in this measure, I would say to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call [[Page H 6595]] up House Resolution 176 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the House agreed to House Resolution 176. motion to table offered by mr. walker

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1868, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from Glens Falls, distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent that we have an opportunity to deal with what the Speaker has accurately described as a corrections day, to face some of the most ridiculous, preposterous regulations the Federal Government has imposed on the American people and get rid of them. But the Speaker was right when he, on May 2, testified before the joint hearing that was held by the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House Committee on Rules, and the subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that dealt with this issue, when he said it should be done in a bipartisan way. Let me say to my friend from Woodland Hills and to others on the other side of the aisle that, as we have gone through this process, I have been working very closely with my colleagues to ensure that minority rights are not ignored. Let me underscore that again. Minority rights are very important. I have served in this House as a Member of the minority. I am much happier serving as a Member of the majority but I think, having served as a Member of the minority, I am very sensitive to the concerns the minority has raised, and I believe the Speaker was very sincere when he said we should do this in a bipartisan way. So what have we done? Well, the Corrections Calendar procedure does call for, as my friend said just a few moments ago, the minority leader to appoint the minority members, and he is right, it was just done recently, but the fact of the matter is those Members have been appointed by the minority leader. This measure requires a three-fifths vote for passage. It requires the Speaker to consult with the minority leader [[Page H 6108]] before placing bills on the Corrections Calendar. It requires that all measures placed on the Corrections Calendar be favorably reported by a committee and placed on the House or Union Calendar. It does not waive points of order against measures called up on the Corrections Calendar, and as my friend knows, I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules which was adopted in a bipartisan way which allows minority amendments through a motion to recommit with amendatory instructions. Mr. Speaker, this measure is going to deal with these onerous regulations and at the same time recognize minority rights. We should have support all the way across the board.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out today to relate to our colleagues some remarks that I made late last week; actually it was Thursday morning, the speech that I gave downtown. It has to do with an issue which quite frankly is rather sensitive and delicate and controversial. It is the proposed imposition of 100 percent tariff on the importation of automobiles from Japan to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I was careful in making these remarks last Thursday morning. I made them before the President left for his meeting in Halifax with Prime Minister Murayama, and I also have been very careful to make these remarks today only after the President returns. So I have not said these things while the President was out of the country, recognizing Senator Van Den Berg's great recognition that partisanship ends at the water's edge. I have been very proud to have been one of the President's strongest supporters when it has come to trade policy. I am a Republican, and I have been criticized by some of my Republican colleagues here and throughout the country for having strongly supported passage of the North American Free-Trade Agreement, completion of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and having pursued a very strong prohuman rights policy in China. I have been proud to have worked not only with President Clinton but with my fellow Californian, the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Kantor, and with a bipartisan group of Members of both the House and the Senate; here in the House I have been privileged to work with Chairman Archer of the Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman Crane, who chairs the Trade Subcommittee; my friend Mr. Kolbe on this side. On the other side my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson, who was here a few minutes ago; my fellow Californian, Mr. Matsui; the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gibbons, of course, the former chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means. And we have pursued very, very strongly a bipartisan approach to trade. I am proud to have worked closely in rallying support for NAFTA. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and I and a couple of others introduced legislation calling for the limitation of the tariff barriers for the North American Free-Trade Agreement 8 years ago. I spent the last 7 days with Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Matsui and members of the Committee on Ways and Means before completion of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, an agreement which creates an opportunity among 124 nations in the world to create the free flow of goods and services. Of course, on China policy, I strongly supported Mr. Hamilton's language in the past because exposure to Western values is what will enhance the human rights situation that exists in China. I believe very strongly in that. My past support for the President's trade policies has been based clearly on our goal of increasing jobs and living standards both in the United States and throughout the world, improving the qualify of life by reducing trade barriers and increasing commerce, the free flow of goods and services. Mr. Speaker, while I part company with the President on the policy that he has stated calling on June 28 for the imposition of this 100- percent tariff, the President has actually parted company with the free trade principles which we have pursued vigorously for his entire Presidency up to this point. I share the President's broad goal of breaking down tariff barriers in Japan so that we can gain greater access to that market. However, the specified U.S. demands on auto parts purchases and dealership access are clearly repugnant to those of us who stand for free trade. The administration has made tactical blunders regarding the timing and direction of this effort. The short-term economic impact of implementing trade sanctions, especially from my State of California, and I will get into that for a moment in just a moment, will be very negative. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to conclude that the President is threatening to significantly set back the prospects for additional multilateral trade initiatives and a forward- looking Asia policy that ties the United States into that extraordinarily growing market in the Pacific rim. Let me take a couple moments and talk about my State of California. California, whether you like it or not, it is the seventh largest economic power on the face of the earth; 32 million people in California. California is the Nation's largest exporter. Its $81\1/4\ billion in exports is 20 percent of our Nation's total. Exports support 1.5 million jobs in the State of California. Foreign investment supports another half million jobs. While California has suffered greatly due to the defense and aerospace cutbacks, which have taken place for the past several years, the one bright spot has been California's access to other markets so that we could, in fact, be the gateway to the Pacific rim and Latin America. California's No. 1 trading partner is Japan, with exports of $22.5 billion last year. Japanese-owned companies employ 150,000 Californians in electronics, entertainment, and computers, among other industries. If you add in the suppliers, there are a quarter of a million California jobs which are tied directly to Japanese investment. Sixty-two percent--62 percent, Mr. Speaker--of California's exports go directly to the Pacific rim; 692,000 jobs in California are supported by Pacific rim trade, and it is very important to note that every single country, every single country in the Pacific rim has stated its very strong opposition to President Clinton's plan to impose this 100 percent tariff. The State of California has a great deal to lose and very little to gain from the policies which President Clinton has proposed. The auto industry in California is more closely tied to Tokyo than it is to Detroit. The Japanese companies targeted by the President's sanctions have invested over $2 billion in California, directly creating over 13,000 private sector jobs; each company targeted, each company that has been targeted by the President's proposed imposition of this 100 percent tariff is headquartered in California. Another 28,640 are employed by dealers that sell cars imported from Japan. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is criminal to discriminate against California workers simply because the companies they work for are based in Tokyo rather than Detroit. The administration's sanctions threaten 12,000 middle income workers in dealerships and many more in California's ports and within advertising firms. Mr. Speaker, these Americans have done nothing, they have done absolutely nothing to deserve unemployment. Of course, the greatest fear of all [[Page H 6087]] is recognition that the President is playing with fire with his proposed plan. An escalating trade war with Japan, which virtually everyone has said is a possibility, with the discussion of this possibility, an escalating trade war with Japan would devastate California and clearly threaten the economic future of the largest State in the Union. Mr. Speaker, balancing trade by sector is playing bad policy. The trade imbalance between the United States and Japan is primarily a reflection of Japanese weakness, not strength. We should support openness in the Japanese economy, and we all share that same goal, but we should not support balanced trade. The administration has gone beyond the mistaken policy of trying to balance trade between our two countries, and they are now making the case that we should have balanced trade in one sector, the auto sector. That is the only place we should have balanced trade. This route is a bad one. Heading down this path is clearly a very poor policy. And the best way to look at that is the President proposes to move only in the auto sector is, let us see what would happen if the Japanese made the decision to do the same thing to us. What would we as a country say if Japan extended this policy to some of the large exporters in our Nation's greatest State of California. Well, the motion picture industry, Mr. Speaker, the motion picture industry enjoys a $1 billion, a $1 billion bilateral trade surplus with Japan. What would we say if the Japanese made the same mistake, same statement of us that we are of them on auto policy? Obviously, we would not stand for it. The agriculture industry in this country has a $9.2 billion bilateral trade surplus with Japan, and the aerospace industry has a $3.1 billion trade surplus with Japan. Service industries are on the cutting edge of California's export industries. Requiring a bilateral trade balance in each service sector would stifle our service exports to Japan, and it would be wrong. And that is exactly what we are trying to do in the area of autos with this policy. The thing that really saddens me greatly, Mr. Speaker, is that we have observed a transition, a transition that has taken place within this administration's policy from what I know you, Mr. Speaker, and I agree has been very good trade policy. It is has garnered bipartisan support. The transition has been good trade policy to good trade politics. The Clinton administration earned the strong support of those of us who are free traders in both parties over the past couple of years because of the fact that we were able to work together in a bipartisan way on the North American Free Trade Agreement, on completion of the Uruguay round on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and for a sound China policy. I regularly congratulated the President, in fact one of the most passionate speeches I ever heard him deliver was just before passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement when former Presidents and other officials stood in the East Room of the White House. The President's speech was superb and very, very heart felt. The administration in pursuing those policies took on the traditional projectionist factions within their own political party. However, the thing that concerned me greatly was that they pursued these things when it came to dealing with the issue of trade; but with the election on the horizon, they seem to be shifting back to what admittedly is a popular policy. It appears that they are now moving in a direction that many feared when neo-projectionists within the administration, like Robert Reich and Laura Tyson and others were named to senior positions from the beginning. Rather than pursuing further broad, free trade initiatives, they appear to have adopted a polticial trade strategy intended to appeal to that labor base within the Democratic Party and to make the President look tough on dealing with Japan. The first inclination of most Americans is to be critical of Japan. I admit that as I stand here right now, I am taking what is perceived as being the politically unpopular position. But I clearly believe that the goal of penalizing American consumers and workers with the planned imposition of this 100 percent tariff is wrong. We learn throughout history that tariffs have, in fact, diminished the standard of living, going all the way back to when me political party supported the Smoot- Hawley Tariff Act at the beginning of the Depression in hopes that it would somehow shorten the Depression. Virtually every economist has agreed that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act exacerbated the Great Depression, in the same way this politically popular policy that the President is pursuing creates the potential for a very serious trade war. The result, Mr. Speaker, is bad foreign policy that threatens our long-term interests in Asia and bad economic policy that threatens the trade policy gains over the past 2 years. Those gains that we have made over the past 2 years have been modeled after the fact that the United States of America has recognized that we live in a global economy, and breaking down these barriers is obviously the wave of the future. This policy as announced by the President is clearly a retrograde step on the whole issue of free trade. It is often said that only Richard Nixon could open up ties with China. It takes strong leadership to undertake bold and dramatic initiatives. Up to this point, that is exactly what President Clinton has done in the area of trade. Statements by people in the administration like Laura Tyson who indicate that they believe the Japanese political weakness makes success more likely, the opposite is the case. The argument that she has made is that political division within Japan will somehow lead them to break down on this issue is wrong; again, the opposite is the case. The economic reality in Japan reveals the fraud of those who claim the Japanese economic and trade policies have enriched Japan at our expense. There are many people out there who regularly argue that Japan has been greatly enriched at our expense, but let us look at what has happened in Japan over the past several years. Japan has had 4 years of flat economic growth, unlike the kind of growth that we are now experiencing here in the United States. Japan has undergone 4 years of flat economic growth. This year alone the stock market in Japan has dropped by nearly a third to its lowest point since 1983. The appreciation in the yen has made it very unprofitable for Japan's businesses to export. Japanese banks hold $476 billion in bad loans. Mr. Speaker, $476 billion, let us compare that to the cost of the savings and loan debacle here in the United States, the cost of which was $150 billion. So obviously Japanese financial institutions are faced with very serious problems. And it is important for us to note the present amounts of money that have been made by United States businesses when so much of the real estate market during the 1980's was sold to Japan. Remember, Mr. Speaker, how people were outraged at the fact that Japan would own so much of what is here in the United States. They purchased Rockefeller Center, a wide range of other real estate investments during the 1980's, and I think everyone has recognized that real estate values have dropped dramatically over the past several years, a tremendous loss to those Japanese investors. So this argument that Japan is greatly taking advantage of the United States is unfounded. Economic weakness in Japan, however, Mr. Speaker, hurts this country by placing a overall drag on the international economy. Remember, we are living with a global economy today. Of all industries to pick a fight with, it is incredibly ironic that U.S. automakers would be the target. Why? Because they are very healthy. We all know that United States automobile manufacturers in large part, despite competition from the Japanese auto manufacturers, have had tremendous profits, record profits just this past year. But, Mr. Speaker, not everyone knows that two of the three largest auto manufacturers in Japan have lost money in the last year. Ambassador Walter Mondale, former Vice President, our Ambassador to Japan, is now reported to believe that the new generation of Japanese Government bureaucrats desires to see Japan lean more toward Asia than toward the United States. And they are [[Page H 6088]] bolstered by this conflict, those within Japan who would choose to lean toward the other very successful nations within the Pacific rim. Those people are bolstered by this proposed imposition of a 100-percent tariff. Mr. Speaker, this would be extraordinarily detrimental to U.S. interests in Asia. One of the things that I think is a rather remarkable twist in the whole managed trade plan, the Clinton administration does not want the Japanese Government to manage auto makers. And yet this administration wants our Government, our Government to manage the Japanese automakers. The primary sticking points that are driving us toward the job killing sanctions involve auto parts and auto dealerships. In auto parts, the administration wants the Japanese automakers to purchase certain amounts of United States parts. On auto dealerships, the administration wants the Japanese auto companies to require 1,200 of their dealers in Japan to sell United States cars. Mr. Speaker, these demands do not involve Japanese Government action. They require action from Japanese businesses. It should not be surprising that the administration's proposed sanctions target the companies they want to coerce into an agreement. In fact, the administration is targeting Toyota and not Tokyo. This proposed plan is, all the way around, a lose-lose-lose trade policy. If the administration wins in this showdown, it bolsters the popularity of trade policies that threaten our Nation's long-term trade and foreign policy interests. Imposing sanctions that clearly violate the World Trade Organization rules puts us in a position to lose the first major case before the World Trade Organization. What does this do? Well, it plays into the hands of the Ross Perots and Pat Buchanans and Ralph Naders of the world, clearly undermining the potential for future multilateral trade agreements. Mr. Speaker, our allies and trading partners around the world are unified in opposition to the unilateral sanctions policy because every government invested significant political capital in implementing a stronger multilateral trade regime which is designed to break down tariff barriers, improve the quality of life for working and consuming Americans and for peoples throughout the world in developing nations. Now the United States of America is proposing to ignore that newly established policy. Don't overlook the possibility, Mr. Speaker, and it saddens me again to say this, but don't overlook the possibility that the administration's policy could, as I was saying a few minutes ago, spin out of control and set off a very destabilizing economic and political confrontation between the United States and Japan and potential other nations. In the words of my colleague, David Obey, and I quote: I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the President's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks. Well, I have been holding out hope that that Obey quote was right on target. But as June 28 rapidly approaches, it appears that we are not taking the kind of positive shift that in this case I believe would help us greatly. There is always hope, though, that the administration will come to its senses, focus on negotiating objectives that the Japanese Government can accomplish, and move away from these sector-by-sector specific negotiations to broad deregulation and antitrust enforcement in Japan, which we strongly support. We strongly support those kinds of things, so that we will have an opportunity to gain further access to that market. That is why several years ago I followed the trade subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] by introducing legislation calling for a United States-Japan free trade agreement. We know that they have access to our market. We want to gain access to theirs, but increasing these tariffs is clearly wrong. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the United States economy is healthier and better prepared to move into the 21st century than the Japanese economy is. We should not move away from the openness that has made us as a nation strong, even in an effort to move Japan toward a policy that will make it strong. The President has just completed his meeting with Prime Minister Murayama, and we know that coming up our Trade Representative, Mr. Kantor, will be meeting with Mr. Hosokawa and we hope very much that this will be resolved. But the threat of imposition of these sanctions is a wrong policy. It is a wrong way to do business. I know it is politically popular here in the United States, but we have to look at the fact that we are playing with fire, Mr. Speaker, and this policy creates the potential for very serious problems not only here in the United States and Japan but throughout the world. My request, Mr. Speaker, is that this administration go back to the great free trade policies which have played a role in enhancing the economy of the United States, those policies being the breaking down of barriers within Latin America with implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, establishment of the WTO, and completion of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which among 124 countries is continuing to pursue the goals that were established in 1947 when the GATT went into place. That goal is very simply breaking down barriers. My party and I believe this Nation strongly stands for freedom, the free flow of goods, services, ideas. That is what this agreement among 124 nations is doing. And in China, exposure to Western values, getting our ideas into China, that is what will help the very serious human rights situation that exists there, and this President has wisely acknowledged that. Mr. Speaker, let us not as a nation move backward to the days of Smoot-Hawley when we look at the issue of a global economy. We are 5 years away from the millennium. Clearly the United States of America is the world's only complete superpower. We face very serious problems throughout the world. We have stood in a bipartisan way for free trade. This proposed policy is 180 degrees from that. I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that this administration will change the policy and continue to work on other methods to break down barriers and create an opportunity for us to gain access to the consumer market in Japan.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Fairness, openness, dignity, and integrity are exactly what this rule offers, as was raised by my friend from Oakland, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on National Security. It seems to me as the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon] just enumerated, virtually every single proposal is being considered in this legislation. With nearly 200 amendments submit to the Committee on Rules, some decisions had to be made. I believe that using those guides of fairness and openness, we have successfully done that with this rule. I would like to say I believe we are clearly on track here. I think as we look at our challenge of trying to deal with the national security of this country, as we have faced as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has raised on several occasions the fact that Captain Scott O'Grady was shot down and the challenges that we look at there, and, of course, nuclear expansion throughout the world, this bill is a measure which is very positive in addressing it. It seems to me that as we look at one of the very important items that directly impacts my State, the Federal Government is making a right decision in selling off the naval petroleum reserve at Elk Hills, and also recognizing that for nearly a century and a half, the State of California has had a very modest claim on part of that, and I hope that we will be able to work out a satisfactory compromise on that with the amendment that has been brought forward. I thank my friend for yielding and strongly support this rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this bill, and I would like to take just a moment to focus on the fact that over the past several weeks we have been talking about this great hero, Captain O'Grady, and the Marines who rescued him, and there has not been a lot of attention focused on, quite frankly, the vulnerability of the F-16's and other aircraft that we have in our arsenal. It seems to me that as we proceed with this very important measure, that we need to realize that we are in a very precarious situation in Bosnia, and the problem that the F-16's face is that they were not accompanied by the EF-111's or the EA-6B's, which are essential, absolutely essential, to jam enemy radar. As we look now at this prospect of not proceeding with the B-2, it strikes me that it would be for the first time, the first time in the history of our country, that we would have taken a retrograde step on a new and advanced technology. Arguments have been made throughout this debate about the very serious national security threats that exist worldwide, and there was an interesting piece in yesterday's USA Today by Tony Snow, talking about the continued nuclear threat that remains on the horizon, and the challenge that we have is a very serious one. I come from California. Yes, the B-2 is very important for our State, but, quite frankly, job creation in California is nothing more than an ancillary benefit, as far as I am concerned. It is essential that we move ahead with this very important technology, and I hope that in a bipartisan way we can proceed with this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my very good friend, the former page from Cape Girardeau, MO, for yielding to me, and I would like to first extend to him hearty congratulations for his stellar service. He served in the last Republican Congress, and we certainly hope that these pages on the Republican side who have blazed a trail will not follow the precedent that my friend from Cape Girardeau established in seeing the years. I believe that, as we look at the fine work that these pages have done here for the past several months, it clearly is an example that should be set for many young people throughout the rest of the country and the world. We so often see the negative side of young people. It makes the headlines and the news, and very rarely is the attention focused on those who are providing stellar service as these pages have, and I would simply like to join with my colleagues here, and I know that every one of our colleagues would want to extend congratulations to them. I thank you again, my friend, for allowing me to participate, and I hope very much that these young people have great futures ahead of them.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Sanibel, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes to discuss the changes that have taken place in the procedure of bringing rules to this floor over years in the past. There is a fundamental disagreement that is being expressed today on the rule for this American Overseas Interest Act regarding the actual role of the Committee on Rules. We all recognize, we recognize that despite our support for the most open and fair process possible, scheduling constraints, when we are dealing with 435 Members, often require some kind of time limit, especially when we see the kinds of problems that have existed with the use of, quite frankly, a filibuster by amendment in the past. The most relevant standard that we should use when we look at rules that are considered is not purely the issue of openness, but in fact the question of fairness. It is disingenuous to claim that every single structured rule is equally onerous to the minority or to the process of representative democracy, and rhetorically I would like to pose the following question as we look at the consideration of these rules: First, in the process of structuring floor consideration to permit the schedule to proceed; is the Committee on Rules structuring debate for mere political advantage? And obviously, in the case of this rule, the answer to that is no. Are the rules being used arbitrarily to bring either political benefit or relief? And obviously the answer to that question is a resounding no. There is a time limit on floor consideration of this bill restructuring the [[Page H5395]] foreign aid bureaucracy. That is unquestionably a restriction on open debate, but at the same time it is also a bill that could take weeks, and weeks, and weeks to conclude if there were no structure whatsoever to the debate. My very good friend, the former chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], as my friend from Florida has said, is one of the most highly respected Members of the House. He came to the Committee on Rules yesterday and opposed a time limit. He preferred a structured rule in which the Committee on Rules ensured adequate debate of the key foreign policy issues of the day. The concern with time limits expressed by Members on both sides of the aisle has been that some amendments may not be able to be offered within the time cap. Under the regular rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, it is especially possible that amendments of Members not sitting on the committee of jurisdiction will not be offered. This is a very legitimate concern. Time limit opponents, if they intend to contribute something relevant to these rule debates, must recognize that any limitation on debate has the potential, the potential for important amendments not being offered on the floor. The vehicle could be a time cap or the Committee on Rules listing which amendments are in order and, conversely, which are not. The new majority, the new majority on the Committee on Rules, has reported a large number of rules in which a time cap has been used. The reason is very simple, Mr. Speaker. After years in the minority, during which time the 9-to-4 majority on the Committee on Rules structured rules to stack the deck politically for the majority, we learned how unfair highly structured rules can be. Time limits, I will acknowledge, are not perfect. However, it is possible with time limits for the chairman and ranking member of a bill's committee of jurisdiction to minimize the drawbacks of those time limits. They are recognized for amendments before other Members. Through this authority a chairman and ranking member can ensure that the most important amendments are addressed first. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House permit consent agreements limiting time for debate on amendments to avoid amendments consuming all of the time. The choice is very simple. Give the authority to structure debate to the highly partisan Committee on Rules or permit the chairman and ranking member of the committees of jurisdiction to largely set the course of debate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question that the more fair way to set debate is to give both parties a chance to bring amendments to the floor without having the Committee on Rules block certain amendments simply because our leadership does not want to vote on a certain issue. That is what often happens when a highly structured rule is used. We are trying desperately to minimize that procedure. So, if we will use the guide of fairness, rather than simply openness, I believe that we will be able to have virtually every public policy proposal considered.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 1158, a measure providing emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance and rescissions for fiscal year 1995. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In particular, I would note that the conference report violates clause 3, rule XXVIII, relating to scope, because appropriations related to the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City were added to the bill in conference, and I know everyone is very supportive of that effort. The debates on this floor are getting somewhat predictable. Fortunately, the American people are getting one message that is coming through loudly and clearly. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership, including President Clinton right at the top, are unquestionably, unwaveringly, and unalterably addicted to big government. We just heard the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talk about the fact that we are for the first time in years turning the corner on that. There are a number of important emergency supplemental appropriations in this bill. However, I would especially call attention to the $6.7 billion in supplemental funding for disaster relief in 40 States; not just California, 40 States are involved. I can assure the Members, Mr. Speaker, that in Los Angeles, in Los Angeles, where the impact of the Northridge earthquake is still felt, these funds are more critical than the rescissions included in the funding package. The budget debate in this House boils down to whether politicians can muster the courage and conviction to stop passing trillions of dollars of economy-choking debt to our Nation's children. This is one of the most important political debates in our history. It will impact the future of every working family in this country. This emergency supplemental is a miniature version of the budget debate that we just went through. The new majority in Congress has changed the way Washington does business. Rather than simply tossing new spending onto the mountainous Federal debt, as has been done in the past, we propose to pay for it. Is that so incredibly radical, Mr. Speaker? The Committee on Appropriations went back and reevaluated nearly every item in the fiscal year 1995 spending program. They tried to find what I call smart cuts. They used the following criteria: No. 1, spending that was not authorized; No. 2, duplicative Federal programs; No. 3, programs that receive large funding increases in fiscal year 1995; No. 4, programs with unspent funds piling up from year to year; No. 5, programs that exceeded the level in the Clinton budget; finally, programs that are wasteful and do not work. Those are the criteria that they used in looking at these items. Only among big-government liberals in Washington are these considered radical criteria. The Committee on Appropriations took another radical step. They proposed to cut as much unnecessary spending as possible, not just enough to balance out the new spending. Only inside the Beltway here in Washington would people advocate only looking for enough wasteful spending to balance the amount of new spending, but the Committee on Appropriations very responsibly went further. We proposed to get this Government on the path to a balanced budget, the one that was just called for in the resolution passed. That, of course, gets us back to the balanced budget question. We are starting to see a clear trail here, Mr. Speaker, on the balanced budget amendment, despite strong bipartisan support, the President opposed it, and it came up short. However, he sure had the rhetoric down extraordinarily well, as many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have in this House. He and his friends supported a balanced budget, not just that they supported the amendment. They said they wanted specifics. Then the Republicans came up with specific budget plans to balance the budget. Again, the big-government liberals, led by the President, ran for cover. Again there were excuses. We heard a lot of that here today when the House made history and passed this budget resolution that will put us on this glide path towards a balanced budget by the year 2002. Now, Mr. Speaker, the President's staff indicates, and the President himself has indicated, that this emergency supplemental appropriations and rescission bill will be vetoed. We are the ones who responded to his request, and he was not at the table, and yet the call is that he is going to be vetoing it. Should we be surprised? On the one hand it is hard to believe that the President is going to veto the bill that provides relief to American families that have already suffered at the hands of earthquakes, fires, flood, and terrorism. However, look at it from the perspective of big-government's great protector. Every special interest that lives off the bloated Federal Government is frightened. They all think that they are next. The President and his very liberal allies in Congress are their great protectors. The great protectors' advisers have probably told him that if he does not oppose these cuts, special interests all over the country are likely to think that maybe the President will agree with Congress tomorrow or next week or later this year, that their special program is not absolutely critical to this Nation's future. Better to make it clear to those who live off the Federal Government that he is here for them. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. It makes history. Two months ago when a bill came to the floor providing funding for these priorities, and reducing spending to pay for it, people said the spending cuts would die in the other body. Apparently they misread things. They passed by a 99 to 0 vote. Now we have these veto threats. They could be wrong, too. If not, let the President make the case that in a $1.5 trillion budget, a 1-percent spending cut is too much. By the way, explain why those cuts are more important than this extraordinarily important disaster relief. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair rule, this extraordinarily balanced conference report, which the American people are behind. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], the former chairman of the Committee on Rules. Pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for debate purposes only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to me it is very sad that we have had to continue this same kind of rhetoric that has been going on for the past several days and weeks around here. I listened to my very dear friend say that Republicans see $319 million of savings by cutting the low- income heating energy assistance program and the Democrats seeing senior citizens freeze to death in the winter. Now, the fact of the matter is: Let's us look at the low-income heating energy assistance program; LIHEAP, it's called. It was put into place in 1979, when this country was in the midst of an energy crisis. It was a foreign policy issue, and the Federal Government stepped forward because of the escalating energy costs that existed and decided that people who were in those areas that would get very cold in the winter should get some kind of assistance. Now, where do we stand in 1995 when it comes to those dramatically increasing energy costs juxtaposed to where we were in 1979? The cost of heating oil today is lower than it was when we put this program into place, and so to determine that there are going to be people who will freeze because of our desire to try and bring about some kind of sanity in the area of Federal spending is tragic, and it is really demagoguery. This program, this package that has come from the Committee on Appropriations, in no way deals with taxes. There are no tax implications to this whatsoever. This package that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has brought forward from his committee, having labored for days and days along with members of his staff and other members of the committee, does two very simple and basic things. It is designed to meet the very important disaster needs that exist, not only in my State of California, but in 40 States across this country. It is designed to entire world saw devastated in Oklahoma City, and this bill is designed to cut Federal spending. The very moving speeches that were just given over the past several hours here in looking at this balanced budget issue have underscored the need to address this. So, disaster assistance and cutting spending; that is what this bill does. It is very important for us to move ahead with this. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the rhetoric about all of these tax cuts for the rich, 75 percent of the benefits go to families earning less than $60,000, and I should not say benefits. All we are saying is that they should be able to keep some of their hard-earned dollars. Where do the rest go? They go to the very important job-creating mechanisms that this country desperately needs. We have serious economic problems. My State of California has yet to recover from the defense and aerospace cuts. We need to have the kinds of tax incentives that are built into the budget that we just passed. This is a very fair and balanced rule that will lead us toward passage of an important historic appropriations bill. As the chairman of the committee said to our Committee on Rules last night, this is the first time ever that we have been able to have this kind of rescission package built in to meet a very important need. Vote ``yes'' for this rule, and ``yes'' for this important appropriation and rescission bill. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.