David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1003 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say in response to my good friend from New York once again, this is a bipartisan effort. I know that the Democratic Caucus has talked about the need to implement this reform. We hope very much, when we come back to majority status in January of next year, to renew and build on this kind of reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, a hardworking member of the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. DREIER. No, there wasn't. I chair the committee, and I will tell you that there was not an amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record a list of additional Members who would like to be considered as cosponsors of H. Res. 1000. Additional Members include: Mark Green, John Linder, and Charles Bass. The material previously referred by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 1003 Rule providing for consideration of H. Res. 1000 At the end of the resolution add the following new sections: ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text specified in Section 3. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.'' Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say to my friend that to call increasing transparency, accountability, and disclosure as pretend is absolutely outrageous. There is bipartisan concern about this problem, as stated from my friend from Wisconsin and from other Members on both sides of the aisle, and I believe that this measure will allow us to do that. The proposal that the gentleman is talking about may have been listed upstairs, but it wasn't offered on the Committee on Rules for us to consider. And in looking at it, Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you that we found that it was the most impractical thing imaginable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Newport Beach, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. DREIER. I was just going to say that there was no amendment offered in the Rules Committee whatsoever, so nothing was rejected.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, under the very able leadership of my California colleague Jerry Lewis we have seen a 37 percent reduction in the number of earmarks. We have seen either a flat line or real cuts in the appropriations bills with the exception of our priorities of national defense and homeland security, and we have seen a very strong commitment to institutional reform. I take my hat off to Jerry Lewis for the fine work that he has done. Mr. Speaker, we are constantly looking at more reform. The Speaker of the House, the majority leader, I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle believe that we should pursue greater transparency, greater disclosure and greater accountability. I have heard Democrats and Republicans alike say that over the past hour. We have an opportunity to do just that right now. We, I am very happy to say, have put into place bold economic policies that have led to a $58 billion reduction in the deficit over last year's number. We today have the lowest unemployment rate on the face of the earth. There is no other country in the world with an unemployment rate as low as our unemployment rate, and yet we need to continue to do everything that we can to try and rein in Federal spending. I, as a Republican, believe that the reach of government not only costs money, but it impinges on individual initiative and opportunity. I believe that as we focus on this kind of reform we will be in a position where we will be able to improve the quality of life and the standard of living for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will tell you this. I know full well that the United States Senate is watching this debate very, very closely and they very much are interested in seeing us comply with this. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Columbus, Indiana, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Pence.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess it is pretty obvious that we are 54 days away from an election. I listened to that speech, and the only thing that I can say is that we have seen a challenge here, both political parties in this institution, and we have stepped up to the plate, and we believe that accountability, transparency, and disclosure will provide an opportunity to address the understandable concerns that have existed, and I believe that we have a great opportunity with this legislation to bring about that change. Let me just respond to Mr. Obey's concern briefly, before I yield to my colleague, on the issue of bringing back the defense conference report. When we implement this rule, we will clearly be placing onto the shoulders of whoever is chairing that conference from the House side the responsibility of bringing back a conference report that includes a full listing, full transparency and full disclosure of all earmarks that were not in that measure when it was passed through either the House or the Senate. So for that reason we in the House would not be able to bring up and pass a report that did not have that full list that we are looking for. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, our good friend who has worked very hard on this issue, Mr. Hensarling.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a very important reform that is a bipartisan reform. It is bipartisan because it is an issue that I am happy to say, as we have moved down the road towards reform, has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. In fact, it was a key provision in the House-passed Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act, which did enjoy bipartisan support, not as strong as I would have liked, but it did enjoy bipartisan support. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, with this new rule, Member-directed spending to projects in their district, or earmarks, will no longer be anonymous. It is very simple. We all know, as it stands now, there are no disclosure requirements in appropriations, tax bills or authorizing legislation. Earmarks can be buried in the text of bills that often number into the thousands of pages. There is no easy way to account for how many earmarks are in a bill or who is sponsoring them. This new rule requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in committee reports. Conference reports must also have a list of earmarks that are ``air-dropped'' or brought into an agreement in the conference report itself. It is just that simple. We are blowing away the fog of anonymity so the public can have a clear picture of what the projects are, how much they cost, and who is sponsoring them. It is just a very simple case of transparency. Mr. Speaker, this is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a victory for spending taxpayer dollars more wisely. As an enforcement mechanism, this new rule also provides for a question of consideration when a bill or conference report does not contain a list of earmarks. The question of consideration is debatable for 30 minutes, 15 minutes equally divided. Mr. Speaker, if a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed earmark, they will have to attach their name to it. That is all we are asking. And they need to be prepared to make their case in full view of their colleagues, their constituents, and the American people as a whole. Mr. Speaker, the earmark reform bill will build on the reforms that have already been implemented by the Appropriations Committee, and I take my hat off to the Appropriations Committee for the very bold and dynamic reforms that they have made. They have reduced the number of earmarks already by 37 percent. Overall spending on Member projects was reduced by $7.8 billion below last year's level. Over the last 2 years, Member project spending has decreased by over $10 million, and I want to especially express my appreciation to my very dear friend, Jerry Lewis, who has so ably chaired the Appropriations Committee and has stepped up to the plate and taken on this issue of reform and done it with great success because of the fact that he has been able to rein in Federal spending. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but he has been very successful in doing that. Mr. Speaker, I also want to make very clear that our focus is not solely on appropriations. This was one of the requests that Chairman Lewis made of us as we were proceeding with this work. For this reform to be effective, it must be comprehensive, and that was the commitment that the Speaker of the House and our leadership team made to our Members. So let me point out that this earmark reform applies across the board. It doesn't just apply to some committees. It covers all committees, all appropriations, all tax, all authorizing legislation, anything that moves through this House through regular order. Mr. Speaker, we have taken great care to clearly and precisely state what constitutes a tax, an appropriation, or an authorizing earmark. And the good news is that there is more agreement than disagreement on those definitions. Yet clearly there is no magic bullet. There is not going to be one definition that will be perfect and please everybody. But at the end of the day, we have to come together. We have to come together, Mr. Speaker, and move this process forward. If there is an earmark in a bill, it belongs on a list. It is just that simple. If there is an earmark, we need to see it. Now, is this new disclosure going to completely end the practice of earmarking? I certainly hope not. I don't want it to, because I believe that earmarking is part of our constitutional responsibility. But it will shine a spotlight on earmarks without grinding the legislative process to a halt. Let me make very clear that the larger goal of this new rule is to make a profound and lasting change in how this institution handles earmarks and spends taxpayer dollars. The goal is to increase transparency, disclosure and accountability, and the goal is to pull back the curtain on earmarks for the public, because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they have a right to know. For this earmark reform to be both meaningful and lasting, everyone, from committee chairmen on down, must make a good-faith effort to comply with the spirit of the new rule. Our leadership, and certainly the Rules Committee, has made such a commitment, and we are determined to make this work. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that while this is an important milestone in the path toward reform, we have not reached the goal line. In fact, I don't believe that we will ever reach the absolute goal line because reform is a continuous process. It gains momentum from Members who never let up and never settle for the status quo. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for reforming earmarks, and ``yes'' to setting the stage for more reforms that we will face down the road. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. DREIER. Yes. If I could reclaim my time, the agreement that we have for implementaton of this rule means that if there is anything that has a so-called airdrop provision in it, this rule will apply to--

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. So this rule will be implemented immediately.

Mr. DREIER. If I could yield myself 10 seconds out of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and that I may be permitted to include extraneous material on House Resolution 1003.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this effort, and I want to congratulate the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. King, for his very hard work on this, and all my colleagues that have been involved. I hate the idea of our having to put up a fence. The fact of the matter is we have no choice. We have no choice because this week, as we marked the fifth anniversary of September 11, we are in the midst of a global war on terror. We face the threat of someone who would like to do us in coming across our border. We know that the fence is not the panacea. But the fact of the matter is the fence is essential, and every shred of empirical evidence that we have so far is that it has been helpful in dealing with the challenge that we have. Chairman King just mentioned the 14-mile border fence. I have had the privilege of working with our colleague, Mr. Hunter, and before that our former colleague, Doug Ose, from Sacramento, who worked hard on our effort to complete that 14-mile fence. The reason we have to have that fence in that area is that the populations on both sides of the border are very, very heavy, and so it makes it easy for someone to assimilate into society once they get across that border; and having a fence, and a double fence, is one way in these heavily populated areas to focus attention on this. We have a 1,973-mile border between the United States and Mexico. It extends from the Pacific Ocean all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. No one is advocating that we fence the entire border. We have 21st century technology that is going to allow us to utilize motion detectors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and a host of other things that allow us to deal with areas that don't have heavy concentrations of populated areas, number one; and, number two, areas known to be utilized for smuggling. This measure is the right thing for us to do. The American people know we can secure our borders. I believe that this effort is a very important one in that quest, and I am proud to be strongly supportive of it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I was just accused of making a campaign speech when I am talking about the reverence of September 11.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying it was within our leadership that I first mentioned the idea of our once again singing God Bless America on the East Front of the Capitol, and I believe that that was a very important moment to once again let the American people know that we stand together, and it was my hope that we would be able to see strong bipartisanship as we proceed in these coming weeks following the fifth anniversary of September 11. I also would like to say that as we look at this resolution, and a strong attempt was made by our leadership team to work with Members of the minority to fashion a resolution that would enjoy bipartisan support. And I believe that it is essential for us to recognize the tools that have allowed us to ensure that we have not suffered another September 11. And I deeply resent being accused of making a campaign speech as we revere the lives that were lost on September 11.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a very important point. We have seen resolutions since September 11, 2001 pass unanimously and enjoy strong bipartisan support. I would recommend that my colleagues look at the resolutions that were passed year after year since September 11, 2001, and recognize that in those resolutions we talked about the different tools and the things that have been utilized to ensure that we win the global war on terror. We want this to be bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I will predict that when this resolution is voted on, that it will enjoy strong bipartisan support

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from Dallas for his very hard work and superb management of this important resolution that we are considering here. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago this week, an act of war pierced the security and peace of our Nation. The murder of nearly 3,000 by terrorist fanatics shook our country to its core and stirred within each and every one of us the determination to defend our freedom and our liberty with all of our might. The global war on terror, a war that we did not start, has delivered many successes. Most of the top leadership of al Qaeda have been captured or killed. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where terror was once cultivated and exported, 50 million people now have democratically elected governments. Some of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, such as Osama bin Laden's deputy Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are no longer free to wantonly murder. There have been quiet successes that fall beyond the scope of the military and away from the field of battle, Mr. Speaker. Following passage of the PATRIOT Act, we have seen terrorist cells that have been broken up here in the United States, five in particular, domestic terrorist cells that have been broken up because of the existence of the PATRIOT Act. And we have also seen the breakup around the world of these cells because of legislative initiatives that we have taken since September 11, 2001. The Justice Department has won 253 convictions in terror- related cases across the United States. Intelligence gathering and cooperation between allies resulted in foiling a plot to blow up commercial airliners flying from London to the United States just weeks ago. It is absolutely essential that those in charge of keeping us safe have every tool necessary to do so. The results of these diplomatic, intelligence, and military efforts are encouraging. Five years after September 11, 2001, our homeland has not been attacked again, and that seems to be so often forgotten, Mr. Speaker. Every day we thank God that, because of what we have done and because of the initiative of our courageous men and women, the United States of America has not seen an attack in 5 years, when many predicted that we would see them follow immediately following September 11, 2001. Yet, as the years prior to 9/11 proved, periods of security at home can lead to a false security. An enemy that has no regard for human life and no tolerance for freedom is an especially fierce foe. They act and operate according to the belief that, in the words of Osama bin Laden, and I quote, ``death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers amongst us.'' Those are the words of bin Laden. Mr. Speaker, like the Cold War, the global struggle will be measured in decades, not years or months. While it is important and appropriate to question the tactics used in the global war on terror, there can be no doubt that it is critical to stay vigilant, stay committed, and stay on the offense. There have been many trying and somber days in the prosecution of this war, and there will be many more to come. We are especially thankful, as the gentleman from Dallas just said, to our men and women in uniform, from local law enforcement to those in the military. We offer our deepest appreciation for the opportunity they have given our Nation to know safety and freedom. Now, Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with this legislation, I am convinced that, contrary to what was said by my friend from Massachusetts, this resolution will enjoy strong bipartisan support just as resolution after resolution that we have passed since September of 2001 have enjoyed. Now, I have gone through and looked at past resolutions that have enjoyed great support from Democrats and Republicans in this House, and they have gone through many of the things that we have done to recognize what it has taken to be successful. And I believe that focusing on our border security is critical for that, and that is why the House-passed version of the border security measure was important. And I am pleased that we have the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, Mr. King. He has worked very hard on this and testified yesterday on behalf of the nexus between our security and the fact that border security is national security. Similarly, we have found that by breaking up the financial network through legislation like the SWIFT program, which has enjoyed great success, and unfortunately was disclosed in the media, we have had success in breaking up the financial aspect of those who would do us in because of the initiatives that we and this administration have taken. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that had we not taken the initiatives that we have over the past 5 years, things like the PATRIOT Act, we would not be here today without having suffered another attack on our soil. Today, we express our condolences, our thoughts and prayers with the families and the loved ones of those what paid the ultimate price on September 11, 2001, and the single best thing that we can do for every single one of them and their families is to ensure that we put into place the tools necessary so that it will never, ever happen again.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of our former colleague, the gentleman from California, Clair Burgener. He was an amazing individual, and I have a load of articles here that have been written about him over the past several days. I think the San Diego Union-Tribune put it extraordinarily well when it said: ``Burgener earned a reputation for honesty and modesty in a three-decade career that began in San Diego city politics and ended in the hallways of the Nation's Capitol.'' As we look at this time of partisan divide here, former nine-term Democratic Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin said, ``He was a wonderful colleague. He and I were on different levels as far as our voting went, but we didn't try to hold back or fool each other.'' And Herb Klein, the retired editor in chief of Copley Newspapers and director of communications for President Nixon, recalled a man of unbending ethics: ``Clair Burgener was the epitome of a great American Congressman. He was honest and ethical, a strong leader dedicated to his community. He was a wonderful friend whose warmth never waned.'' Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers go to Clair's wife, Marvia. We thank him for his extraordinary service to the United States of America.