David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act, with 1 hour of general debate. Following general debate, the bill will be open for amendment under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 8 hours. While there is no requirement that amendments be printed in the Record prior to their consideration, priority in recognition can be accorded by the Chair to Members who have had their amendments preprinted. Mr. Speaker, the rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI relating to germaneness for two amendments. One is the amendment offered by my friend from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], which establishes audit procedures to detect financial fraud in securities matters. The second amendment is offered by a Member of the majority, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], to exempt securities fraud from the RICO statute. Upon completion of the consideration of all amendments to the bill the rule provides for one motion to recommit to the minority. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, providing for an open amendment process. While there is a cap on total time for amendments, the minority is able to give priority consideration to whatever germane amendments their leadership considers most important. Let me repeat: that they are able to give priority consideration to whatever germane amendments they consider most important. The Committee on Rules majority is not shutting particular amendments out of the process. Securities litigations reform is a critical step in our effort to help create more high-quality private-sector jobs right here at home. Private securities legislation is undertaken today in a system that encourages meritless cases, destroys thousands of jobs, undercuts economic growth, and raises the prices that American families pay for goods and services. Mr. Speaker, the defenders of the status quo in the minority have said on issue after issue this year: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well, this is one time there is no doubt that the current system is broke, and we are very fortunate that the bill being reported forward from the committee will fix it. H.R. 1058 creates a system that swiftly finds and punishes real fraud and allows the victims of fraud to be fully compensated for their losses. At the same time it will free innocent parties from wasteful and baseless litigation designed to enrich litigators alone. While Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee and Chairman Fields of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance have done tremendous work in bringing this bill to the floor, I would like to note the tireless efforts of my friend from Newport Beach, CA [Mr. Cox]. Mr. Cox is a former securities lawyer and has been involved in securities litigations reform since his days at Harvard Law School. He has pushed this important reform effort throughout his 6 years in the House, and was ready to move forward when the new majority in the Congress made real reform possible. His hard work and leadership has been critical to this effort. Mr. Speaker, presenting this modified open rule to the House reminds me of a report that I heard last week on National Public Radio's Morning Edition. It was about a graduate school course offered by American University here in Washington, DC. The subject of the course was lobbying. As I listened to the trials and tribulations faced by those in the lobbying community with all of the changes occurring here in Congress, I was very proud to hear that the professional lobbyists under the new majority's policy of open rules find the issue of dealing with open rules extraordinarily difficult. In the words of the lobbyist that has taught the course for years, and I quote: A position of more open rules is a detrimental thing to a lot of lobbying interests. One of the lobbyist's commandments is ``keep it off the floor.'' If you can get something done in committee and have it sealed and come out with a closed rule, then you're safe. If everything is amendable on the floor, that makes the job of the lobbyist that much harder because then you're dealing with 218 folks instead of just 22 or 23. Mr. Speaker, lobbyists know that the new Committee on Rules has brought a new openness to the House, and they do not like it. The new majority on the Committee on Rules and the many Members of Congress that are supporting the more open rules are doing right by the American people. House Resolution 105, this rule, is no exception. It is another in a growing series of rules that do not pick and choose amendments to stifle debate. I urge my colleagues to support this very fair, balanced, modified open rule as we proceed with debate on the Securities Litigations Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record material on the amendment process under special rules reported by the Rules Committee, 103d Congress versus the 104th Congress.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly what we have provided, many more open rules than we had in the 103d Congress or the 102d Congress. What we have got is a structure where modified open and open rules are 82 percent, about 82 percent of the legislation that we have considered. I think that, as we listen to people like Cokie Roberts, who, when I was quoting National Public Radio earlier-- --

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Westbury, NY [Mr. Frisa], a new member of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say Mr. Tauzin, who said that three Congresses ago he introduced this legislation, that totals 6 years that it took to prepare this, and I believe that Mr. Tauzin and others who have been involved in this should have an opportunity to consider this, and it is going to be done under a fair and open process. I suspect the gentleman from south Boston would like me to yield.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from south Boston, the former chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding. The reason I underscore the fact he is the former chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, is that it is so apparent the disparity that one must look at between the 103d Congress and the 104th Congress. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], Mr. Speaker, has just said that these Members were knocked out, prevented from having the opportunity to offer these amendments. The Committee on Rules did not have a single thing to do with that, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Rules said that we will provide a process that is open and accountable. We made it very clear this is a modified open rule. This is a modified open rule. Rules had everything to do with this, because the Committee on Rules could have given more time in order that those Members who struggled to get those amendments in proper form could have brought them forward.

Mr. DREIER. I do not know, the 3-minute address.

Mr. DREIER. Cokie Roberts erred by saying that we are doing this under an open process. Well, Cokie happens to have spent a great deal of time observing this institution. She also has, there have also been a lot of other people who have looked from the outside. And they have watched this on television and they have said, ``You all are doing it under an open process.'' Why? Because they see that a modified open rule, while it does have an outside time cap, does in fact give every Member the right to offer their amendment, have it considered, have it voted on.

Mr. DREIER. I do not know about a contract on America. I know about a Contract With America.

Mr. DREIER. Well, my people said that we would consider----

Mr. DREIER. It was said that we would consider these proposals under an open amendment process. That is exactly what we are doing. We are doing it under a modified open rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that it would be best for me to say that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this fair and responsible modified open rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and classmate, the gentleman from Humboldt, TX [Mr. Fields], the distinguished chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee. (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pathetic is the only way to describe the message which has been emanating from the other side, trying to frighten the people of the United States of America about our goals for dealing with the issue of child nutrition. We do not have a cut. We have a 4.5-percent increase. That is very clear. But as my friend from the other side of the aisle just said, we somehow in transferring this to the States will in fact allow a tremendous cut to take place. Baloney. There is a provision in this legislation which states that 80 percent of those funds that are provided must go toward the nutrition program and the requirement also states that no more than a 2-percent overhead can be provided. We are increasing the level of funding, we are trying to make it more responsible so that in fact we do not see what exists today, 20 percent of those young people benefiting from the program coming from homes with incomes in excess of $50,000 a year. We want the truly needy to benefit from this, we are increasing the level of funding for it, and they should quit the kind of fear tactics that they are imposing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to compliment him on an excellent statement; the fact that within the past 56 days we have seen the kind of openness when it comes to amendments, debate, the opportunity to participate in the process that has not existed for years and years and years, not just the 103d, Congress, but for, unfortunately, several Congresses before that. Mr. Speaker, I think Members on both sides of the aisle have been able to benefit from that degree of openness. I think it is very unfortunate that some in the minority today are trying to claim that we have been more restrictive than they have been, and I think that the very important figures that the chairman of our committee has provided clearly show that the openness has existed under the 104th Congress, and I know under his leadership it is going to continue.

Mr. DREIER. In the 103d Congress. I thank my friend for yielding. It is a very important point that needs to be reiterated.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the chairman to reiterate one very important figure. Would my colleague share again the number of open and modified open rules that we have had in the 104th Congress, juxtaposed to what happened in the 103d Congress? that we have offered under the rules we brought to this floor, truly 84 percent of them were open, 84 percent have been open, compared to 70 percent that we closed down last term.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, wishful thinking is all there is to the statements that were made by the minority leader and the minority whip, wishful thinking based on the New York Times poll that came out this morning which had people raising some understandable concerns about the Contract With America. The reason for that is that it has not been understood appropriately. Is there really a desire on the part of Republican Members of this House to ensure that young children are not able to gain lunches at school? Absolutely not. We believe that it can be done better. [[Page H2319]] The arrogance which is regularly shown by Members of the minority party in this House that only those of us here in Washington, DC, are in a position to make that decision is I believe reprehensible. The people who elected us also elected Governors, State legislators, city council members and school board members, and we believe that by eliminating this massive bureaucracy here which oversees the School Lunch Program we can better address those needs. The Contract With America is alive and well and has the support of the American people; 80 percent of them support our balanced budget amendment which we hope will pass in the other body later today.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this modified, open rule, and I do so to clarify exactly what it is that we are offering. It is a modified open rule. Not a wide open rule, not an open rule, a modified open rule. It is modified because we do have an outside time limit.

Mr. DREIER. This is a quote from October 5, 1994, last fall, and this was during the debate on House Resolution 562, and you, Mr. Chairman, called it an open rule, only those amendments printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill would be in order and debate on consideration of the bill for the amendment was limited to 3 hours. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the chairman at that time, referred to this as an open rule. I do not know if he said a wide open rule but it was called an open rule at that point. It seems to me that we have really got to underscore that under the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, we have in fact created an opportunity for amendments to take place, and one of the distinguished Members on your side of the aisle said to me not too long ago, the average American out there believes very sincerely that we should within a 10-hour period be able to address a lot of these issues, and I am convinced that this is the responsible way to deal with it. I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has done a marvelous job of managing this, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my friend offered one of my brilliant quotes. I would like to reciprocate by offering one of his brilliant quotes.