David Dreier

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 House Resolution 115, the rule just adopted.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I moved the previous question on the rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may we vote on the rule?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple debate which has come down to a combination of rhetoric and reality. We have Members on the other side of the aisle who offer great rhetoric about trying to balance the budget, and yet the reality is they want to maintain the status quo because they are not willing to step up to the plate and make these tough decisions. Most of them, according to Mr. Solomon's findings here, are big spenders. But when it comes to actually making the tough decision, they are voting to keep government as it is. We want to change government for the better so the American people can be proud of what it is that we are doing.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Small Business; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests for all of these spectacularly named new committees.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all points of order against the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments; to strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal governments; to end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate funding, in a manner that may displace other essential governmental priorities; and to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and for other purposes, for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 3 of rule XXVIII be waived.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend, the gentleman from south Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to insert extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the House is considering a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1995. The first was necessary to address critical shortages in the defense budget which were threatening the readiness and safety of our national security forces. The supplemental appropriations in H.R. 1158 are equally critical. They provide disaster relief for 40 States with the largest recipient being by State of California in order to respond to last year's tragic Northridge earthquake and the flooding that has taken place in California. Prior to last month's consideration of the defense supplemental, Congress had a spotlessly consistent track record of disrespect for the taxpayer on this type of spending bill. No emergency supplemental had ever been paid for through offsetting spending cuts. When emergency spending was needed, the answer was always to pile it on top of the already monstrous deficit. ``Charge it to the future, let them pay'' was the attitude that we had around here. Mr. Speaker, this is a new era of fiscal responsibility in the House. This emergency bill reduces deficit spending. The rule makes in order H.R. 1158, provides 1 hour of general debate, and waives clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits unauthorized and legislative provisions against the bill. The rule makes in order as original text for the purpose of amendment the text of H.R. 1158 combined with the text of H.R. 1159, except for section 306 of H.R. 1159. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and subject to amendment for up to 10 hours. The rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, and clause 2 of rule XXI against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Only amendments to H.R. 1158 and 1159 printed in the Congressional Record before March 14, 1995 are in order. Debate on each amendment is not to exceed 30 minutes. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI requiring emergency designation is waived for each amendment. In order that amendments promote fiscal responsibility to the same degree as the committee's bill, amendments are not in order if they cause the net level of budget authority to increase. In addition, budget authority must be redistributed within a chapter or title if there are no chapters. Points of order are waived against 3 amendments that have been printed in the Record, all filed by Members of the minority. These are a Brewster amendment providing for net savings from the bill to be placed in a deficit reduction lock box, and amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] appropriating net savings from the bill to deficit reduction, and an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to strike section 307 of H.R. 1159 regarding the emergency salvage of dead and rotting timber. Mr. Speaker, changing the culture of deficit spending is not easy. Deficit spending is ingrained in the very heart of the bloated Federal Government.

Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, we have a number of requests for time over here, and I have a statement. Then I have members of the Committee on Rules to whom I will be yielding. I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] will have time and I am sure be very generous with it as I am with our time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, changing the culture of deficit spending is not easy. Deficit spending is ingrained in the very heart of the bloated Federal Government. But effecting that change is the right thing to do. Taxpayers recognize that many programs despite good intentions clearly do not work. They also are very appreciative of the fact that our new majority has a clear position on new spending. We step up and pay for it. Nobody who cares about our Nation's future hopes we revert to the old ways. Mr. Speaker, the $17.4 billion in very thoughtful rescissions reported by the Committee on Appropriations obviously far exceeds the level of disaster relief. However, this is only troubling to those who love the Federal bureaucracy. The committee did not set out to simply find the minimum amount of wasteful spending needed to offset the emergency funding. Instead, they set clear criteria to judge current programs and they rescinded spending that met one of the following conditions: Spending that was not authorized. Duplicative Federal programs. Programs that received large funding increases in fiscal year 1995. Programs with unspent funds piling up from year to year. Programs that exceeded the level in the Clinton budget. And programs that are wasteful or do not work. To those around here who are committed to protecting the status quo, those are radical criteria which should not be utilized. But to the American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, these standards are nothing more than common sense. I am happy to say that our new majority is using these as we proceed with this issue of spending. The Committee on Appropriations followed a lengthy and very open process. They make a solid case that each and every rescission in the bill meets one of those stated criteria. The final total of $17.4 billion covers the disaster relief and makes a real down payment toward a balanced budget. They deserve our support, Mr. Speaker. Of course we are going to hear complaints here on the floor from big spenders. They do not oppose the $200 billion deficit status quo. They look at the complete failure of the welfare state and say that the only problem is that we have not spent enough. Many of the same people who oppose the committee's rescissions opposed the balanced budget amendment because it did not include specific cuts. Now they get a first installment of our specific cuts, and how do they respond? They say, ``No.'' Others claim to oppose the cuts because the Committee on Ways and Means is going to report a bill that cuts taxes for working families. Besides the fact that families send too much of their hard-earned money to Washington already, if a Member does not like the tax package, vote against that. It is a Contract item, it will get here to the floor for a vote. This rule debate really comes down to a very simple choice, Mr. Speaker. Some people want to continue to simply add new spending to the deficit. They always have an excuse why every program in the $1.5 trillion Federal budget is too important to cut. On the other side are those who recognize that things have to change. We offer answers that are no more complicated or profound than those offered by every middle- income family that spends more than it earns. We want to cut back a little here and there to work back to a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and responsible rule, support the Appropriation Committee's very find work. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record material on the amendment process under special rules reported by the Committee on Rules, 103d Congress versus 104th Congress, as follows:

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would add to the brilliant remarks of my friend from South Boston and say yes, this is the bill that gets us on the road to a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee has chosen the rule for the supplemental appropriations bill to debate the tax bill. I encourage him to debate and vote against the tax bill when it comes up. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 3 minutes, not to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am yielding it to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a response, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DREIER. We want all these ideas to be considered. I hope my friend, the gentleman, will support the rule now that we have done this. I assume my friend from Texas, Mr. Doggett, will be supporting the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Wilmette, IL [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I say, yes, it is the Brewster amendment which has been made in order. That is the same as the Crapo amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very dear friend from Redlands, CA. [Mr. Lewis], the senior California member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the problem here with the statement from my very dear friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, is that once again it is looking at the past. We no longer plan to spend dollars that we do not offset. We are going to be responsible in dealing with even disasters that exist. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a new member of the Committee on Rules, who played a key role in fashioning this rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a couple of moments to address one particular item that was raised in the debate earlier, and that has to do with the attempt made by the majority, those of us on the Republican side, to listen to and get some input from Members of the minority when we came to discussing not the rule that we are going to be voting on in just a few minutes, but tomorrow's rules because the one we are voting on in just a few minutes is simply calling for 2 hours of general debate. So it is interesting we have begun debating a rule that we are not considering now on the House floor. I am very happy to see my good friend from south Boston, the former chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules [Mr. Moakley] here, and of course my friend from Glens Falls, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. I was standing in the back of the Chamber when a discussion took place between the chairman and the ranking minority member. Now my hearing is awfully good, I had a hearing test downstairs. I could not hear exactly what was being said, but I got a report from the chairman and the chairman told me that an offer was made to the minority to come forward by 2:30 this afternoon with recommendations as to what amendments we might consider making in order, and it was not until we met at 4 o'clock this afternoon and gave a 10-minute break at the request of the minority to look at the amendments that were made in order that we heard anything at all about what ideas we wanted to have considered.