David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for yielding and would like to congratulate her on her superb management of this bill, and I would simply respond to the former chairman, the now distinguished minority ranking Member's position on suspensions versus open rules, and we need to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that under the suspension provisions amendments are not allowed, and the main reason that we have proceeded with this open amendment process is that we allow Members to have a chance to offer amendments, whereas in the past open rules were granted when there were virtually no amendments that were even being considered at all, and so our

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding me this time so generously, the distinguished chairman of the Legislative Process Subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, needless to say, like all of us I rise in support of this very, very open rule. I heard from the other side a Member state that we needed to have an old-fashioned, unfettered rule. Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more unfettered than providing the option for Members to in fact put their ideas in the Congressional Record, and then allow possibly second-degree amendments to come forward, as we did yesterday with the Dreier-Moakley compromise when we were dealing with the unfunded mandates legislation. This clearly is the kind of example of a rule that will allow Members to participate and involve themselves in the process, even before we come to the floor with legislation. I believe that this can also be an example for a bipartisan spirit, which is going to be very important for us in the Committee on Rules to proceed with. It is a new day. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] said, we are just at the end of the first month of the 104th Congress, and we have had some tremendous legislative accomplishments. And I believe that moving ahead with item-veto authority for the President of the United States is another very clear and strong example of that. Doing it under a wide-open amendment process is a very good thing, not only for this institution, but for the country. Many people have been saying to me over the past several days, as there was a high level of frustration during the open amendment process on the unfunded mandates legislation, that we should simply ram through our proposals, as though no one cares whether or not it is done under an open amendment process. I will acknowledge the work that goes on up on the third floor does not often go recognized, but I believe we can in fact proceed with an open process for debate on a wide range of legislation, and this is just one example of that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, briefly, on behalf of the Committee on Rules, I would say that sharing jurisdiction on this legislation, we would like to extend our congratulations first to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and then Clinger] and all who have played a role. There is one particular item which really has not been discussed in a major way on this debate. That is the fact that as unfunded mandates are imposed on the State and local governments, many of the priorities which those local governments have established cannot be met because of the burden that they have been shouldering to pay for these mandates. The city of Los Angeles has had an extraordinarily onerous responsibility which has jeopardized their desire to provide resources for police and fire and other public safety areas. It seems to me that cannot be forgotten.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we are doing some very simple and basic things with this legislation. We so often have gotten away from the intent here. We are increasing the level of accountability in this House. We are not saying that an unfunded mandate cannot be imposed on State and local governments. Many of us here feel very strongly that that should not happen, but what this legislation does is, it simply says that if we are going to do it, we are going to have an up-or-down vote. If that procedure fails, if that procedure fails, I do not believe we should wait until the year 2000, I do not believe we should wait until 1997, I do not believe we should wait beyond the first failure that comes from accountability to sunset this thing. I think we should actually bring it to an end then. That is why I would argue that as we look at this issue, Mr. Chairman, we are in fact dealing with the concerns that conceivably could be raised with this amendment by making sure that Members of this House actually go on record facing these tough decisions, which heretofore have been slipped into legislation, making us less than accountable.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply like to echo his statement about the congressional budget. I am opposed to this amendment because it seems to me that we are looking at an additional $4\1/2\ million for the Congressional Budget Office, simply to address the question of cost, and this amendment goes beyond that, and I believe goes beyond even the purview of the Congressional Budget Office in dealing with issues like unfunded mandates. It is for that reason I join with the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee in insisting that this amendment be defeated.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I would say in response to that is very simply that every single piece of legislation that goes through the authorization process and comes down here will be faced with that kind of review, because we will be looking at those potential unfunded mandates. Points of order will be raised. We will be having debate on them right here on the House floor, so that review process to which my friend refers will go on regularly with this legislation.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I, too, would like to join reluctantly opposing this amendment. We spent a great deal of time working with the Parliamentarian and in a bipartisan way struck an agreement with the former chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley]. And that amendment deals with this entire issue of points of order, and I believe that the accountability that comes about with H.R. 5 is very adequately addressed. We looked at this point-of-order question in a clearly bipartisan way, and it is my hope that the House will recognize that time and effort was spent doing just that and will, in fact, reject this substitute, which clearly repeals that bipartisan agreement.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Surely. Before the first of October, surely, we are going to be looking at those. It is obvious that as we begin addressing this issue, it is going to be on the horizon, but this October 1 date was very important and, as I said, was not grasped out of thin air. It was something that clearly we did with careful negotiations with the Congressional Budget Office. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to have to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this amendment really does not allow us to address the issue of payment, and, first, it only establishes a point of order for failure to include a CBO analysis in the committee report. Under H.R. 5 a point of order also exists if the bill does not provide for a way to pay for the mandate. Actually getting the cost information is needed not only to provide information, but to determine how much is necessary to pay for the mandate. It seems to me that this is completely unnecessary, and I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. DREIER. The rules of the House are not enough, and people who were formerly in the majority have had a pattern of constantly waiving them.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, beyond the standing rules of the House, on which we have had a pattern of waivers over the past several years, and this measure, what else would be necessary to ensure that we do not proceed with imposition of an unfunded mandate? I am just saying at what point? We have concluded that the rules of the House are not enough. I happen to think they are.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague knows, over in the other body they regularly have opportunities with motions to strike. So clearly this issue can be addressed there.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that as we look at the Committee on Rules' relationship to the appropriations process, for the past several years we have seen restrictions imposed on the appropriations bills and waivers granted and all, but before that, that really did not happen, and I believe very sincerely that in this 104th Congress we are going to be able to get back to the point where we are not imposing those kinds of constraints on consideration of appropriations bills. Also, I have to add that when I had the privilege of serving with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], cochairing our Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, I was just reminded, throughout that hearing process I said the greatest reform that we could possibly implement in this institution would be to simply comply with the standing rules of the House. That is all we are saying right now. The amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] tragically is based on the assumption that we are going to be waiving the rules of the House again. We would like to think, it is not ironclad, but we would like to think in most cases we will, in fact, be able to look at that as a thing of the past.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment essentially repeals the exemption in the bill for the appropriations bills, as my friend has said. Contrary to the argument that has just been provided, there really is no loophole. There clearly is no loophole. Any unfunded mandate in an appropriations bill would constitute legislating in an appropriations bill and would, therefore, alone be subjected to a point of order. So it is open to a point of order that conceivably could be raised. Even if the Committee on Rules reported a rule that waived this point of order, an amendment to strike the unfunded mandate would always be in order unless it were a completely closed rule. Those of us on this side who are in the majority now do not plan to continue this pattern we have seen in the past of closing down rules. So it seems to me that this amendment really does not do anything to effectively address the issue we are trying to get at here. There is really no need to proceed with this, and I hope very much that we will be able to reject this duplicative amendment which is already addressed in the standard operating rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, well wonders never cease. The Louisiana delegation has come together. The Committee on rules is coming together. We are working in a bipartisan way in the 104th Congress to deal with many of the challenges that lie ahead of us. It seems to me that on this issue the burden of proof should in fact lie with the Member raising the point of order. This is a very effective way to address that concern. I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. [Mr. Moakley] to the amendment I have offered. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be let off the hook with this amendment.