David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. In response, if the gentleman would yield further, I would respond by simply saying we plan to comply with the rules of the House which do, in fact, allow for motions which can, in fact, bring an end to debate. That, as the gentleman knows, is a rule of the House, and so based on that, we plan to comply with the standing rules of the House which will be an unusual, near precedential development here.

Mr. DREIER. We plan to follow all of the rules of the House. In so doing, we will go through the normal procedure of the 5-minute rule which is the way the open amendment process is handled.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Our plan here is to do something that often has not been done over the past several years. We plan to follow the rules of the House.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], another able new member of the committee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have an extraordinarily impressive cadre of new members of the Committee on Rules. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of them, the gentleman from Tucker, GA [Mr. Linder].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rockwell, TX [Mr. Hall]. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cincinnati, OH [Mr. Portman], a very hard-working Member who was one of the many progenitors of this legislation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth].

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to ask why my friend voted against it if it is such a fine rule.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying we are in fact considering this under a wide-open rule so the American people can view the entire proceedings that are taking place here in the House. Six times last year, six times, the Committee on Government Operations moved legislation directly to the floor without a single hearing. We are doing this under a full and open amendment process as it was done in the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Process of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me, since it is my first opportunity, to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the new chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I am anxiously looking forward to my friend's statement, but I just wanted to state that I believe we accepted the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts offered, so I think it is a bit of a push to say that no Democrats had any input on this measure.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just one quick observation?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Omaha, NE [Mr. Christensen], a new Member of the House, from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by complimenting the sponsors of this bipartisan legislation. Messrs. Clinger, Portman, Condit, and Davis have done a superb job. The four of them have worked diligently to produce a balanced bill that addresses the need to make Congress accountable when enacting unfunded mandates without unduly hamstringing the legislative process. During a markup last Thursday the Committee on Rules adopted amendments to clarify that H.R. 5 does not apply to straight reauthorization bills, and to streamline the process when a point of order is made on the floor with respect to unfunded mandates. H.R. 5 does not explicitly prohibit the enactment of future unfunded mandates. But it does make enacting such mandates procedurally challenging. That is because, for too long, Congress has been casually passing the buck by imposing enforceable mandates on State and local governments without commensurate funding to carry out those duties. Frankly, I would like to see the bill go further by rolling back some existing unfunded mandates, such as the motor voter bill. Enforcement of that law will cost my State of California more than $35 million annually. In addition, a number of Federal environmental laws and regulations imposed on local governments are paid for by taxes on homeowners in the form of impact fees. In California, these fees exceed $20,000 per new house. For every $1,000 added to the price of a home as a result of these mandates, 20,000 middle-income families are priced out of the market. However, H.R. 5 is not the proper vehicle to retroactively resolve these onerous mandate problems. Congress will have the opportunity to modify or repeal existing unfunded mandates when the commission which is established under H.R. 5 conducts a thorough study and reports its findings to Congress early next year. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling for more time to study this mandate relief bill, arguing that the measure is complicated and could hamstring the legislative process. That is the point of the legislation. As long as committees do not report bills containing unfunded mandates, H.R. 5 makes no changes in existing legislative procedures. The bill is the result of years of negotiations with State and local government officials who have been calling for mandate relief since the early days of the Reagan administration. Yet while Democrats were in control of Congress, their leadership chose to ignore the problem. In fact, in the 1980's, as Ronald Reagan sought to deny liberals in Congress carte blanche access to the tax code to finance their spending binge, they began instead to use State and local governments as unreimbursed instruments of their social welfare agenda. Between 1980 and 1992, according to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Congress enacted at least 63 Federal laws that contained mandates that affect State and local governments. These laws do not include the so-called motor-voter law and the Family Medical Leave Act, both enacted in 1993. An October 1993 study by Price Waterhouse for the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that compliance with just 10 unfunded mandates cost the cities $6.5 billion in 1993 and a total of $54 billion proposed between 1994 and 1998. Undaunted by the impact of these burdens, opponents fear that H.R. 5 will become a major obstacle to their efforts to nationalize the health care system, increase the minimum wage and impose new environmental cleanup costs on States and communities. They plan to offer amendments to exempt from the unfunded mandate prohibition entitlement programs such as welfare [[Page H347]] and measures affecting public health and safety. These amendments would essentially gut the bill because the definitions of public health and safety are vague, and most unfunded mandates fall in these categories. Nine weeks ago, the voters sent a message that they were tired of the unrestrained growth of governments at all levels that has occurred over the past decade while Congress was dragging its feet, paying lip service, scapegoating and passing the buck when it came to streamlining and reforming government. The reality is that the new Congress cannot act fast enough to end unfunded mandates and reduce the size and scope of government. H.R. 5 takes a significant step in that direction. Combined with a balanced budget amendment, regulatory reform and tax cuts for working families, this legislation will transform Government and restore the confidence that the American people once had in this institution. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Alfalfa, OR [Mr. Cooley].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield 5 minutes of our Committee on Rules time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], and that he be able to control that time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago today we passed the most dramatic reforms of the way this institution does business in literally decades. It was done under the most open amendment process imaginable. We had votes up or down on eight different provisions that passed, not by a simple up-or-down vote as we have had in years past when the Congress has organized. We right now up in the Rules Committee are holding a hearing on the unfunded mandates question so we will not see Congress continue to impose constraints on State and local government without providing the wherewithal to comply with those constraints. There are a wide range of things that are going to be going on during this 100-day period. But I think it is very important for us to realize that while we did pass these eight major reforms a week ago today, the issue of reform did not end on January 4. We are continuing to review further opportunities to change and improve the operations of the U.S. Congress so that it can in fact become more accountable to the American people and once again be established as the greatest deliberative body known to man.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out to talk about an issue which I raised briefly in the 1-minutes earlier, the question of congressional reform. I would like to take time because today marks the 1-week point of the strongest and most dynamic reform of this institution that we have seen in decades, and there has been this sense issue of congressional reform. The new Members who are represented, among others, by the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] here on the floor insisted that we pass a resolution in the Republican conference which called for continued review of the issue of reform of this institution. Because while we have spent a couple of years in the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress and in our Republican conference talking about the need to reform the Congress, we have not completed our job. Now, on January 4 we did a number of things that were extraordinarily important, having Congress comply with laws that are imposed on every other American, very important; trying to reduce the number of committees and subcommittees in the Congress, very important; reducing the number of committee staff, very important. But we have not completed that effort. I believe that it was really a first step on the road toward even further reform of the institution. Now, as we look at some of the things that we would like to do, I believe that this review effort that the Republican conference has put together will have a great deal of input from new Members of this institution, and as they familiarize themselves with the workings of Congress, I am convinced that they will come up with a wide range of recommendations which will include, among other things, probably even more streamlining of the committee process. We, I believe, still need to look at changes that conceivably could be made throughout the 104th Congress. Also, a number of the items that came up in our rules package need to be incorporated in statute, and we know that if we are going to have complete and full compliance of the laws imposed on every other American, we cannot simply do it with a rules change here. We are going to have to look at a statute. So I think that what needs to be realized is that tremendous reforms were made with those votes that were cast 1 week ago today, but much work lies ahead. We, of course, during this 100-day period are focusing on the balanced budget amendment, unfunded mandates which we are discussing right now upstairs in the Committee on Rules, and a wide range of other items, and then following the first 100 days, we obviously are going to be addressing items which were actually included in that advertisement that appeared in TV Guide magazine, that pointing out things like health care reform. We have not ignored that, and there are other proposals that will be debated as we go on into the rest of the 104th Congress. It is important to realize that the 104th Congress is not going to be 100 days long. It is a 2-year period. While we address issues beyond the 100 days, included among them will be further reform of this institution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him for taking out this special order. I would like to follow on the line that was raised by my friend, the gentleman from Redlands, CA [Mr. Lewis], who referred to the fact that Ed Madigan was able to match the mountains that we have in California. I was extraordinarily saddened and shocked, as everyone was, at Ed's passing, because we have all known Ed to be an extraordinarily vigorous and impressive human being. It is difficult to imagine that he is gone. But when Jerry Lewis mentioned the fact that Ed Madigan was one who could match those mountains, I could not help but think about a great opportunity that I had with Ed, when he come to southern California to visit with some former constituents of Mr. Lewis, our mutual friend, Howard Margolies from the Coachella Valley. Mr. Madigan had not had the chance to, since he had become Secretary of Agriculture, focus on what is the largest industry in our State of California, that being agriculture. We all know how devastated so much of the State is now because of the terrible floods that have hit us. But Ed came to southern California and spent a couple of days traveling around the State, familiarizing himself even more with our specific concerns in the area of agriculture. And it was a great honor that I had to be able to spend that couple of day period with him when he visited California for his first time after having been named Secretary of Agriculture. One other experience that I had that I would like to mention very briefly was that, in 1986, I had the chance to travel with Ed and Evelyn and a rather large delegation to the Pacific Rim, and Ed was the leader of that delegation. And we had a tremendous time looking at some of the trade and agricultural issues that affected the relationship between the United States and nations in the Pacific Rim. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I know I was given 1 minute. I would simply like to say that, along with every other Member of this institution, we extend our condolences to Evelyn and other members of the Madigan family. We certainly do miss the presence of this extraordinary human being.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding this opportunity to me. I would like to simply rise in strong support of the case that the gentleman has been making. Quite frankly, having just entered the Chamber, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, who has just talked about the need for accountability, compassion, concern, responding to the wishes of the American people. That is exactly what happened right here just a few hours ago before we adjourned the first day of the 104th Congress, by creating the kind of openness that my friend said is absolutely essential if we are going to effectively do our job. It seems to me, as we look at the challenges ahead over the next 99 days, we are going to easily tackle every one of these problems. But we have to do it. We have to do it not only because we stood on the steps of the Capitol on September 27 and signed that contract, letting the American people know we would bring to the floor in the first 100 days those 10 pieces of legislation, but because so many of them are the right thing to do. We are not simply putting into place legislation which was structured, as many in the media have said, based on public opinion polls. These are the kinds of things that we on this side of the aisle have been trying for years and, in many cases, decades, to bring to the floor of the Congress. Now, I think the point that the chairman of the Committee on Rules is making is that we are in a position where we have been denied the opportunity to even have a hearing on so many of these measures. That is what we are planning to do. We want to create a fair and an open process here, which unfortunately, the pattern of leadership that we have seen at least over the last decade and a half, the last 15 years, has been such that we have unfortunately not been able to have the kind of openness we would like. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his special order, and I want to thank him.