David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I will say to my friend in reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I always listen to my friend and I look forward to having his vote in support of this modified open rule. And I should say that as we look at this question we should recognize that truth in marketing or truth in advertising has been brought forward by the 104th Congress, but in the 103d Congress a rule that was put into place to deal with ERISA in 1993, which had a 4-hour time limit to deal with an issue as complex as ERISA, managed by my very good friend from California [Mr. Beilenson], was described as an open rule and, in fact, when the rule came out it was labeled an open rule, not a modified open rule as we do on this side, it was labeled an open rule and it had constraints on it on an issue as complex as that. So I would argue that we on our side are being very forthright. And I have to say in response to my friend from Hannibal who was speaking about this issue of having greater opportunities to debate under Democrat rules than they have under ours, it is absolutely preposterous to hear arguments like that. Anyone who has observed this institution over the last 50 days has concluded, and I know my friend from California, [Mr. Beilenson] has observed several times up in the Committee on Rules that we are trying to be more open, we are trying desperately to allow Members to have the opportunity to participate, and offer amendments. And we are doing it. We are doing it, based on the track record we have. My friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], indicated that we debated measures for weeks under the Democrats. We spent 3 weeks on the unfunded mandates legislation. If anyone questions that, I recommend that they talk to Chairman Clinger or Mrs. Collins. It was a long and drawn-out process but we have gone through that. So we are being more open. I think that the American people have understood that it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that by any stretch of the imagination we are being less open than has been the case in the past. I strongly support this modified open rule and I hope my colleagues will join in supporting it.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from South Boston.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bipartisan rule, the support that has emerged from the ranking minority member of the committee and the former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has demonstrated that. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the bipartisan nature of support for this rule with the statement from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indian Rocks Beach, FL [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from Dallas how many speakers there are on his side?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Committee on Rules and chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Process. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a new era of fiscal responsibility. Congress is committed to requiring the Federal Government to live within its means. In short, we have seen business as usual that has resulted in a $4.7 trillion national debt come to an end. In order to foster fiscal responsibility the Committee on Rules has reported a fair and balanced rule for this emergency defense supplemental. Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 889, which makes emergency supplementary appropriations for military readiness, and rescinds $1.46 billion in defense spending, amended to add the text of H.R. 845, a bill rescinding $1.4 billion in budget authority for a range of low-priority foreign aid and domestic spending programs. In order to permit the House to consider the texts of two bills together, this rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI pertaining to germaneness and clause 6 of rule XXI regarding reappropriations. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate and an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which may be offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. That amendment shall not be subject to amendment. Finally, the minority is provided with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Due to the unforeseen nature of emergency appropriations, the rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI against the bill and the amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 889 and H.R. 845. The rule prohibits unauthorized appropriations. In the name of fairness, the amendment in the nature of a substitute provided to the rule by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations will receive the same rule waiver. Mr. Speaker, changing the culture of deficit spending is not easy. The American people need only look to the other body to observe the daily antics of reactionaries fighting to stop bipartisan proposals such as the balanced budget amendment and an effective line-item veto. In the past, Congress simply added emergency spending to the deficit. Even with a Federal budget of $1.5 trillion, there was always an excuse why offsetting spending cuts could not be found. Mr. Speaker, things have changed. Our new leadership in the House has committed itself to finding offsets for all supplemental spending bills. The deficit buck stops here. Make no mistake, this defense supplemental addresses a true emergency. As the Preamble to the Constitution so clearly states, providing for the common defense is a preeminent responsibility of the Federal Government. While we debate, the readiness of our armed forces is threatened by a strangulation of resources. Eleven years in a row of reduced defense spending, combined with a series of operations in far-flung places like Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Rwanda, and the Korean Peninsula have created an emergency. The Secretary of Defense and our leader military commanders have indicated that without these supplemental funds being provided by March 31, readiness and training will be cut back to dangerous levels. Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat this. The Secretary of Defense and our leading military commanders have indicated that if these supplemental funds are not available by March 31, readiness and training will be back to dangerous levels. This rule provides a procedure to consider this emergency defense supplemental in a manner that is fiscally responsible. The Committee on Appropriations met the challenge of reporting rescissions to fully offset all the new spending, a challenge that the President has, unfortunately, not met. In addition, the minority is given both a substitute amendment and a motion to recommit with instruction to offer alternatives. To those who believe that far more can be done in the area of rescissions, I totally agree. That day is coming. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations testified before our Committee on Rules that a major rescissions bill will be coming to the floor soon, possibly in March. That rescission, because it is not related to a national security emergency, will be considered under a much more open amendment process. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced, and responsible rule. It provides the minority with two opportunities to provide alternative proposals. It provides the same substantive waivers to the amendment as are provided to the bill. All new spending, even though we have an emergency, is offset. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule increases the likelihood we can maintain military readiness by enacting the necessary legislation by March 31. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this fair, balanced, and very responsible rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, TX [Mr. Forst], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to simply respond to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, by making it very clear that there is an important distinction between this year and last. That is, we have offsets, so that must be underscored time and time again. We are not going into deficit spending here, we are having offsets, which this Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], has adequately recognized. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Johnstown, PA [Mr. Murtha], the distinguished former chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations and a strong proponent of a tough defense posture.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my friend talking about punching out certain interests in this country, I am struck by the fact that he fails to recognize the tremendous success of the first 50 of the 100 days. We have had the most open debate process that this institution has witnessed in years. With the crime bill that we passed, we are going to allow local governments to make the determination as to how they can best deal with the crime problem, and if they want to put 100,000 police officers on the street, I am convinced that if that number is actually right, which I certainly question, this measure that we passed will be able to do that. The fact is that we have had tremendous success during these first 50 days of the 100 days, and as we mark George Washington's birthday, it is pathetic, absolutely pathetic, that one of our colleagues has to do what the Democrats have unfortunately resorted to out of their sense of frustration, and that is do nothing but dig for ``dirt on Gingrich,'' as this report from the Miami Herald said. One of our colleagues said that people have been assigned by the House Democrats to ``investigate Gingrich on a daily basis.'' The story goes on: ``We meet once a week to go over what he's done through the week.'' Mr. Speaker, that is pathetic. It is absolutely pathetic that all they are doing is resorting to digging up dirt.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I simply wanted to say to my friend that to interpret what was done during the first 50 days as trashing the Constitution and somehow encouraging raping and pillaging is a gross misrepresentation of what has been done. There is a great celebration of the first 50 days taking place on CNN right now over in the Cannon caucus room. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? California.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is a fair and balanced approach to a very important issue, trying to make permanent this very important deduction which farmers and small business men and women need if they are going to survive in this economy. We have by addressing this apparently opened up the issue of health care reform. Mr. Speaker, we plan, when we get beyond the first 100 days, to move meaningful market-oriented health care reform legislation. But this is not the place to do that. The measure here is very specific, it is being done under a fair and balanced process. Everyone has acknowledged that we should not be opening up the Tax Code for all kinds of amendments which could create many serious problems. This is the way that it should be done. I hope very much that my colleagues will join in supporting this balanced rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time this morning to focus attention on the issue which will be debated later this morning when we actually convene, and that is the crime bill. We have spent time talking about five different crime measures which have been designed to redress the problems of the 1994 crime bill. Yesterday and today we were working on the sixth measure. When I was working on the rule down here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the fact that I am hard-pressed to understand why this sixth measure is the most controversial of all. This morning on NPR they talked about the fact that it was controversial. I know Chairman Hyde said it was controversial based on the fact that in the Committee on the Judiciary a wide range of members of the minority raised serious questions about it. The reason I say it is difficult to understand why it is controversial is very simply that we in making that statement are questioning the ability of State and local elected officials, people who are elected by the same constituents who elect us, were questioning their ability to make the very tough decisions that each community faces as it relates to crime. I have the privilege of representing a portion of Los Angeles County, and we have very serious crime problems in Southern California stemming from illegal immigration and a wide range of other problems that frankly are unique to southern California. In the 1994 crime bill, Mr. Speaker, we were promised 100,000 new police officers, and virtually everyone has said that we would be very fortunate if we were in that period of time to possibly get 20,000 police officers. Yet the President continues to refer to 100,000 police officers. It seems to me that we need to allow State and local officials the opportunity to make the tough decisions as to how they can best deal with the crime problems in their communities, and it is my hope that we will listen to those State and local elected officials, just as we listened to them when we dealt with the unfunded mandates legislation. Yesterday I quoted one of my city managers, a Democrat who strongly supported the 1994 crime bill. He urged me to vote for it back last fall, and I did not. Now he has come forward and said I was correct in not supporting that, and he hoped very much that we will be able to pass this measure which will provide the block grants allowing tough decisions that are before them. I hope we can pass this bill out today, Mr. Speaker, and finally begin to turn the corner on this very serious public policy problem.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. It has been fascinating listening to the statement that my friend the gentleman from Hannibal has gone through here. In fact, the only thing that I could conclude is that those local elected officials who are going to be purchasing Jaguars, boats on lakes, additional secretaries for their prosecuting attorneys' offices are no longer accountable to the same people who sent us up here. The only thing I can conclude is that there is in fact no desire on the part of local elected officials to respond to the pressing needs of crime that exist within their jurisdictions. Am I correct in concluding that?

Mr. DREIER. If my friend would further yield, I will tell him exactly what we are trying to say.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield on that point, what we are trying to say is very simply that we believe, my State being 3,000 miles to the west of here, that the people who are on the front line are better equipped to make those decisions rather than those of us 3,000 miles away. It is not nearly the distance to Missouri, but obviously we are in a position where we are convinced that those local elected officials should have the opportunity to make those decisions for themselves rather than our dictating to them exactly what should be done. I just met a few minutes ago with the mayor of Fresno, CA, who told me that he felt very strongly that the opportunity to have the choice made right there in Fresno rather than in Washington, DC, will go a long way toward dealing with the crime problem that they have. I suspect that in the Show-Me State, they are going to be much better off making the decision for themselves rather than having us in fact dictate it to them. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. That is exactly what the status quo does.

Mr. DREIER. We are not taking away the police.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for pointing that out and I disagree with the chairman of the committee. I guess that was concluded because of the fact that controversy existed in the Committee on the Judiciary when debate proceeded. All I am saying is that the controversy probably did not come from the chairman of the committee, it probably emerged from members of the Committee on the Judiciary who believe very strongly that Federal control on this issue would be more important than local control, and I believe that is why Chairman Hyde concluded it was controversial. All I am saying is I am hard pressed to see why it is a controversial issue. And the reason I say it is that these messages have come through very clearly. Again, Jim Patterson, the mayor of Fresno, CA, was in my office about 1 hour ago and he talked about how important it is for us to move ahead with this block grant concept. And I hope very much that the controversy that existed in the Committee on the Judiciary will not exist here because I believe Members on both sides of the aisle, as I said, this Democrat city manager from Monrovia believes this is an important thing for us to pursue, and I hope very much that we can. This is an amendment process which allows for open debate. To call this a closed rule, as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] did I believe is really totally inaccurate because we will be operating with this 10-hour limitation under the 5-minute rule. We are simply putting an outside time limit on the consideration for amendments. Any amendment that a Member has to offer that is germane will be able to be considered, and a Member can stand up and simply make that proposal here. So we are proceeding with a very fair and balanced procedure, and I hope that we can bring about what people at the local level believe is necessary for them to turn the corner on this serious crime bill that we have. I urge support of this 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. I yield to the gentleman from California.