David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, during consideration of H.R. 5 in the Committee on Rules, an amendment to section 426 was adopted that creates a mechanism to allow any Member to make a motion to waive points of order against a mandate in any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report that does not include a CBO cost estimate or a means for paying for the mandate. The language currently in section 426 is preferable to the language in H.R. 5 as introduced for several reasons. First, it more directly achieves the goal of the authors of H.R. 5 to guarantee votes in the House specifically on unfunded mandates. Second, it does not place undue constraints on the legislative schedule by requiring our Committee on Rules to report two rules every time a decision is made to waive the application of section 425. Third, it relieves some of the burden on the presiding officer when making a determination with respect to a point of order. Since H.R. 5 was reported to the House, I have been working with the parliamentarian and a lot of other Members have been working with the parliamentarian on language to address two additional concerns raised by section 426. The language is contained in the amendment that I am now offering, Mr. Chairman. First, the amendment further reduces the burden on the presiding officer to rule on points of order with respect to not only the existence of a mandate but whether the cost of the mandate exceeds the threshold of $50 million. This will be particularly troublesome in situations where a motion to waive such a point of order is not made. Second, the amendment addresses a concern raised by a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with respect to the role of the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in advising the Chair about the question of unfunded mandates. Under my amendment, that advice would no longer be necessary. Essentially, Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides that whenever points of order are raised pursuant to section 425(a) or 426, the points of order shall be disposed of by a vote of the Committee of the Whole. The question would be debatable for 20 minutes, 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and 10 minutes by an opponent of the point of order. This also addresses the concern that was raised by our distinguished ranking minority member, my friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], who argued that the 10 minutes of debate time contained in the existing section 426 was insufficient. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an honest attempt to address a number of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It further clarifies the procedure under which points of order against unfunded mandates are to be enforced in the House. The amendment should not be controversial, and I urge my colleagues to support it. amendment offered by mr. moakley to the amendment offered by mr. dreier

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would simply like to join in and praise the bipartisan spirit of this amendment and say that I believe that it is right on target and to say to my friend from Louisiana that those of us in the 52-Member delegation from California are in fact learning from the marvelous example that the two gentlemen are setting.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. We are in the position where some would like to say we are somehow abrogating our responsibility if we do not in fact micromanage these particular programs, and we happen to have a great deal of confidence in individuals and State and local governments to address these needs, and it is for that reason that we are opposing the amendment.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I would say to my very good friend, colleague on the Committee on Rules, I am very sympathetic with the need to address the concerns of those who are less fortunate, those who are hungry, those who are desperately in need. In fact, we on this side of the aisle clearly feel that one of the pressing needs out there is for us to expand individual initiative and responsibility and self-reliance. But having said that, we are well aware of the fact that there are people who do have to have some kind of assistance provided by government, but the concern that we have with this amendment here is that we are not providing the States with the kind of flexibility which is needed. I happen to be one who believes strongly that States do feel a responsibility to address these issues, and there is a sense, I have inferred from this amendment, that if we choose to accept this amendment that we are somehow saying that the States do not have any kind of responsibility to effectively address the issues of hunger and homelessness and a wide range of other social needs that are out there. I happen to believe that they are positioned to, and feel a responsibility to, address those needs, and it is for that reason that I am compelled to oppose the very well-intentioned amendment by my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to associate myself with his remarks and say that I believe that this amendment strikes the very important balance which we are seeking between the private and public sectors, so that in fact an analysis can be done that would determine if there were any negative effects that this measure were imposing on those on the private side. I think it is a very good amendment, it clarifies the situation which was in question, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, was the answer adequate?

Mr. DREIER. The effective date on title II.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I think a very important point that needs to be made here is that the dollars that would be necessary for the Congressional Budget Office to successfully implement this will not be appropriated until the next fiscal year. We can authorize it, but those funds would not be available until following October 1, and that is the reason for this date. That is why I think that it is important for us to maintain that. A great deal of thought went into it. It is for that reason that I am going to have to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Cincinnati, OH.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know that the amendment is very well intentioned, but it seems to me that there is a sense that this October 1 effective date was somehow just drawn out of thin air, when in fact that clearly is not the case. The enactment date of October 1 was not determined by the Contract With America. In fact, it was determined based on consultations with the Congressional Budget Office to arrive at a reasonable time frame that would allow the Congressional Budget Office to obtain the staffing and expertise to conduct accurate cost estimates, which clearly is the major thrust of what we are trying to do with this legislation. It seems to me that is a very responsible route for us to take. Nothing is trying to be put off at all. I think that the attempt to proceed with this is less than responsible.

Mr. DREIER. This is obviously going to be taking place over the next several weeks and months following implementation of this legislation. And they are well aware of the fact that this October 1 date is obviously key for them and that sets an actual deadline.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that my Rules Committee colleague has done a superb job. The gentlewoman mentioned my friend from the other part of California who is a coauthor of this amendment, but I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentlewoman and state that accountability is key here, and enhancing the ability for reporting back to us from the agencies is I think a very important part of this whole goal of trying to reduce this extraordinary burden which is shifted from Washington onto the shoulders of State and local governments. I would like to again say how proud I am of the fine work my friend from Columbus is doing on the Rules Committee and this amendment is clear evidence of that.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to reiterate what was stated by my friend, the vice chairman of the California congressional delegation, that being that our delegation is strongly behind this. Clearly, the issue of litigation, as we look at this question of unfunded mandates, should be a priority. It has been demonstrated that there is major concern and controversy over a number of particular items. It seems to me that as we look at those, ACIR should be in position to in fact place those items at the top of the priority list. The Riggs amendment is, I believe, a very wise and helpful perfection to the Schiff amendment. I strongly support it, and I know my California colleagues join in extending their support.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my friend, the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce] for yielding me this time, and I rise to congratulate the gentlewoman as well as the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], and the other new members of the Rules Committee for the superb work they are doing, joining the force of Solomon, Quillen, Goss, and so forth. Let me say that on this issue of the balanced budget amendment, it is fascinating to listen to the arguments that are being made in opposition to this rule by a number of my friends. I think it is important for us to take an historical perspective in looking at this issue. I know my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], raised a number of these points. But it is worth noting that over the past 14 years, we have seen the balanced budget amendment brought up to the House floor on four different occasions. Never once, never once did the Committee on Rules report out a rule that provided the wide range of options that are being provided under this rule. The other thing, there was a fascinating argument made upstairs, and my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. Schroeder], raised great concern about this. The Committee on the Judiciary only had an 8-hour markup on this measure when they met. In previous Congresses, they did not allow 8 minutes of markup, much less 8 hours. So to argue that there was not an opportunity for wide ranging debate in this markup is preposterous. I think when we listen to the overwhelming hue and cry that has come from across this country to balance the budget, we have the President who spoke here last night, and most of us concluded that it was not the President's finest hour. In fact, it was not the President's finest 2 hours here last night. It seems to me that we need to note that they are all calling for us to immediately provide a list of exactly how we plan to balance the budget. Well, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are well aware of the way the budget process works. We have a Committee on the Budget. The responsibility for outlining those things lies with that committee, not with a particular piece of legislation like this amendment. Clearly we know that we have the responsibility to bring those proposed cuts forward, and it is going to be done under the standing rules of this House, something which tragically in the past have been ignored, but something which we are doing our darnedest to stick to just as well as we possibly can. I also am concerned about the fact that behavior in the past has seen the other side use that ridiculous king-of-the-hill procedure, whereby the last standing measure, the last one voted on, even though it may not have gotten the greatest number of votes in the House, is carried. We have modified that so-called king-of-the-hill procedure so that the provision which has the highest number of votes will be the one that carries. It seems to me that we need to realize that we are, were the deliberative process, bringing this forward in a fair way, and I urge my colleagues to support this balanced approach to the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Brooklyn for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I simply will respond by saying that at the outset of the gentleman's remarks, and I should also say that we are all very sympathetic to the plight and the challenges children face, but at the outset of my friend's remarks he said there were no hearings held on this whatsoever. I know there are many new Members of Congress who were not able to benefit from the very extensive hearings that were held in the 103d Congress, but there is a sense that no hearings were held in this 104th Congress, which is 3 weeks old tomorrow. We in the Committee on Rules had a briefing, a lengthy briefing, and hearings. We heard from a wide range of Members and groups. were no hearings whatsoever held on this issue is incorrect, and not the kind of assessment of the deliberation that has just for years gone into that process.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to compliment my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for noticing this and inserting this very important aspect on the issue of discrimination. I compliment him on his diligence in addressing this issue.

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