David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4567, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. Specifically, Congress continues to provide significant homeland security dollars for State and local governments, which is essential in our ongoing global war on terror. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has provided $26.7 billion to first responders, thus far including training and equipment. While this is undeniably the greatest support our Nation's police, firefighters and other responders have seen, we continue to face challenges in distributing this funding in a fair and appropriate manner. Chairman Hal Rogers has accomplished a great deal by taking the helm of this new appropriations subcommittee and all its responsibilities, with the most recent success of streamlining the process of applying and receiving Federal funds for local governments with a ``one-stop shop,'' eliminating choke points and bureaucracy. But we still have a fundamental challenge to tackle--and that is the disparity between States in receiving the first responder block grant. The bulk of first responder funds is distributed on a per capita basis, leaving the largest, most vulnerable States with the least amount of Federal resources. While we have achieved some balance with the concentration of the high-threat urban area grants, I believe we can and will continue to work toward even greater equity within the formula. I look forward to working with Chairman Rogers and all of my colleagues from urban and rural areas to ensure that as Congress continues to provide significant resources to our responder communities, that we do it in an effective and efficient manner.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We have had facts put out by my friend from Virginia, both of my friends from Virginia and others, and I would like to take a moment to look philosophically at this. Building on what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) just said, this really is about the cause of freedom and ensuring that we have access to the best quality product at the lowest possible price. We just this week passed the American Jobs Creation Act. One of the reasons I was so proud of that measure is that rather than constantly pointing the finger outward, it led us to look at ourselves. What is it that encourages the flow of capital and products and services across borders? The fact of the matter is, we in the United States of America have a tax and a regulatory burden which creates great challenges. I believe that we need to realize that as Americans. The patriotic thing to do, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the patriotic thing that we should do is to continue to do everything that we can to encourage greater freedom. That is why this measure which counters, counters completely a decision that was made, hurts the United States of America, hurts the cause of our homeland security by, in fact, saying to the American taxpayer, you cannot have access to the best possible quality at the lowest possible price. I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset talk briefly about this issue of minority rights. I feel very strongly about the rights of the minority, doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that in the Madisonian spirit of minority rights, their ideas are considered. That is why when we went from minority to majority status exactly 10 years ago, we guaranteed something that was often denied to us, and I served for 14 years in the minority, it was often denied to us as members of the minority, and that was an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit the bill, a bite at the apple. It was often denied to us, and we have guaranteed that. I will say that we try whenever we possibly can to make in order a substitute, a substitute measure when it is brought to us in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that working back and forth with Members of the minority, I tried to last night see if we could, in fact, have a substitute and make it in order. I will admit I said to them that I was not sure that we would be able to, but the opportunity was still there for Members of the minority to give us a chance to consider a substitute measure in the Committee on Rules, and it did not happen. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe that we should be here celebrating, celebrating the fact that we are on the verge of passing very important legislation that is going to build on the fact that the measures that we have passed in a bipartisan way dealing with our Tax Code under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the proposal that initially was submitted to us by the President of the United States, has created in excess of 1 million jobs over the past 3 months. We are going to be able to have a chance today with this legislation to build on that. That is why I want to say something that has not been raised here at all. I want to thank the European Union and the World Trade Organization for getting us to this point. In 1947 when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established, the goal was a very clear and simple one. It was to eliminate tariff barriers so that we could have the free flow of goods and services and capital. What is it that has happened? We have seen the WTO build on that and one of the goals, of course, is the elimination of subsidization. The WTO was right. The FSC/ETI provisions have been subsidies; and what we are doing is we are, in fact, phasing those out. We are phasing those out because they have chosen to, at a rate of 1 percent a month, increase the burden on U.S. products trying to get into their markets. So what is happening? Rather than simply pointing outside, we are looking at ourselves, realizing that one of the challenges that we face as we try to compete globally is the tax and regulatory burden that exists in the United States of America, impinging on our workers, our manufacturers, our producers the chance to get into new markets worldwide. That is why what we are doing with this policy in bringing about a reduction in that tax burden, it is the right thing to do. It is going to create more jobs right here at home. How the other side of the aisle can constantly complain that this is going to do nothing but create jobs overseas is beyond me. What we are doing here is we are reducing the burden that exists on job creators, meaning that there will be a greater chance to create even more jobs here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time in coming. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and members of the Committee on Ways and Means and many of the rest of us have been involved working for 2 years on this measure. It has been discussed, it has been debated, there have been hearings; and we now have had an hour of debate on this, and we will now have another hour of debate and an up-or-down vote. It is not perfect legislation. We all know that there is no such thing as perfection emerging from this place; but as we deal with this challenge, it does create a wonderful new opportunity for the workers of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying measure which we are going to be voting on.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there was no substitute submitted to the Committee on Rules. I think it is important for us to note that we would have had an opportunity to consider that if we had had a substitute put together. We had a cut-and-bite amendment, a perfecting amendment provided from the ranking minority member. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me respond by saying that the gentleman is absolutely correct, that one of the things that we try to do is we try to ensure that the minority, Democrats in this instance, have an opportunity to have their proposals considered. In 1994 we changed the rules to ensure that an opportunity for a recommital motion would be guaranteed. We also try to add, when we can, an opportunity for a substitute to be offered. Now, yesterday, as the gentleman is correct, when I approached him, I said, we want to work and see if we can put together a substitute proposal. And I know from the discussions that I had that there was a lot of disagreement on the minority side about exactly what kind of shape it would take. The proposal that was submitted by my friend was in fact not a substitute. It was simply an amendment. And so we made very clear that a substitute would be what we would consider. Yes, late last night I said I was concerned and was not sure. I said I was not sure that the Committee on Rules----

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

Mr. DREIER. If gentleman will yield, what I said was I was concerned about the possibility, and I will say that there were other members of your leadership team who indicated to me at that point when we stood right here that, in fact, there was not a substitute that had been put together.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman did not come and testify before the Committee on Rules this morning and was not there when we had the markup. The proposal that was offered by the gentleman in the Committee on Rules was, in fact, an amendment, not a substitute, which is what we stated was necessary for us to even consider it. Okay. That was not offered, and so when there was no substitute offered, of course we did not make a substitute in order because it was not even an option for the Committee on Rules. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I am happy to respond.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, what I said was----

Mr. DREIER. No, I did not say that. I did not say that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset I think it is extraordinarily appropriate that the gentleman, the former mayor of Simi, California, the home of the Ronald Reagan Library and what will be the final resting place for Nancy and Ronald Reagan, is presiding over this institution at this moment. I would also like to thank my friend, the true dean of our California congressional delegation, for yielding me this time. A generation was inspired by Ronald Reagan is what we have been hearing, but it was really a generation and then some inspired by Ronald Reagan. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) heard Ronald Reagan's speech in behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Two years later, Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California, and 2 years after that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) was elected to the California State Assembly, serving 6 of the 8 years that Ronald Reagan was Governor of California. In fact, he is the only Republican Member here who did serve while Ronald Reagan was Governor of California. He went on to inspire many others. I am among them. I was pleased this morning to be able to include in the Record very thoughtful remarks that were provided by a great American, George Shultz, who Sunday afternoon read his statement to me and I read it into the Record this morning, and I would like to commend it to my colleagues because it talks about the vision and the perspective that Ronald Reagan offered in a wide range of areas. Ronald Reagan made it very clear that the Republican Party is the party of ideas. We constantly hear about Ronald Reagan being the Great Communicator, but he had a message to communicate. Members on both sides of the aisle have talked about that message. To me it embraced four very simple points: his commitment to a free economy, limited government, a strong national defense, and personal freedom. Those are the bases from which Ronald Reagan made his decisions on public policy issues, but he had those deeply rooted principles. And because they were so deeply rooted, he was able to communicate them extraordinarily well. Why? Because it came right from the heart. It came right from his heart. We have heard a lot of very serious statements made about Ronald Reagan; but, of course, one of the most memorable things as people talked about his ability to communicate was his ability to communicate with that amazing sparkle, that twinkle in his eye. There were some wonderful things that he said that were able to, in fact, break the ice and really entertain all of us. Remember, it was Ronald Reagan who said, ``Hard work never killed anybody, but I figured, why take the chance?'' It was Ronald Reagan who after he had been hit by that bullet, right up Constitution here at the Washington Hilton when the statement was made to him shortly thereafter that the government was working as usual and he looked up and said, ``Why would that make me happy?'' There was, of course, his last speech which really stuck with me. It was on February 3 of 1994, and the Republican National Committee was having a dinner over here at the Pension Building, and Ronald Reagan was obviously quite elderly then, and the speech was delivered literally months before he wrote his famous letter in November of that year to the American people stating that he had Alzheimer's. So when he stood up at this meeting, I remember that Bill Clinton had been elected President of the United States the year before, and we as Republicans were gathering, we were poised to win our majority, and Ronald Reagan stood up without a great deal of strength as he got up for this speech. He stepped up to the lectern, and he looked out at the audience, and he said, ``Well, I flew into town today to give this speech this evening, and as we came in, we circled the White House, and as I looked out the window, I looked down there, and there was everything just as I remembered it, the south lawn, the rose garden, David Gergen,'' who was at that moment working for President Bill Clinton. And we knew then that even though the President was obviously not in the most robust of health, that sparkle continued. He still had that amazing wonderful sense of humor. I see my friend from San Diego Mr. Lowery here on the House floor. I was very pleased to, along with Bill Lowery and 51 others, be part of the Reagan Revolution. We came here to the House of Representatives, elected in November of 1980, and we made Ronald Reagan an honorary member of our class in 1980, and that is because he was leader of the revolution that brought all of us here and allowed us to vigorously pursue those goals that we shared in common. We stand on his shoulders. George W. Bush stands on his shoulders. The similarities, to me, are so striking. The ``ism'' that Ronald Reagan stood up to was communism. The ``ism'' that George W. Bush is standing up to is terrorism. Ronald Reagan had broad, across-the-board tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. That is exactly what we have done. He did it in 1981. George W. Bush has started it in 2001. The party of ideas is strong and vibrant. It is doing extraordinarily well, and it is the vision that Ronald Reagan put forward. And I thank my friend for taking this time, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are joining in this very important recognition of one of our Nation's greatest leaders.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, not 24 hours after Ronald Reagan had passed away, I had the opportunity to talk to a great American, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, George P. Shultz. He already by Sunday afternoon had penned a statement, which was so moving that I asked him if I could share it with my colleagues. Secretary Shultz agreed, so I would like to do that at this point, Mr. Speaker. He entitles this ``Remembering Ronald Reagan.'' It reads as follows: ``We have lost Ronald Reagan, but his ideas remain with us, as vital as ever. We can remember the gifts he gave us, his advocacy of freedom, his contributions to our security, his belief in America and his restoration of our belief in ourselves. ``When he took office as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan took responsibility for a state that was in rocky shape; when he left office, California was golden again. When Ronald Reagan took office as the President of the United States, the country was adrift, inflation was out of control, the economy was in the doldrums, and the Cold War was as cold as it had ever been. When he left office inflation was under control, the economy was expanding, the Cold War was all over but the shouting, and America once again stood tall. ``Ronald Reagan brought so much to this country. He started with carefully thought-out ideas and he put them to work effectively. He had a strong and constructive agenda, much of it labeled impossible and unattainable in the early years of his presidency. He challenged the conventional wisdom: On arms control, on the possibility of movement toward freedom in the communist-dominated world, on the need to stand up to Iran in the Persian Gulf, on the superiority of market and enterprise-based economies. The world learned when Ronald Reagan faced down the air traffic controllers in 1981 that he could dig in and fight to win. The world learned in Grenada that he would use military force if needed. He did not accept that extensive political opposition doomed an attractive idea. He would fight resolutely for an idea, believing that, if it was valid, he could persuade the American people to support it. He changed the national and international agenda on issue after issue. He was an optimist; he spoke the vocabulary of opportunity. He had a vision of what he stood for and what we aspire to as a nation. ``Ronald Reagan had and could express a clear and simple view of a complex world. Every Sunday, he brought acorns down from Camp David to feed the squirrels outside the Oval Office. The squirrels at the White House hadn't had it so good since Ike cleared the area to put in a putting green. His most endearing aspect was his fundamental decency. He appealed to people's best hopes, not their fears; to their confidence, rather than their doubts. ``Ronald Reagan was a doer, a pragmatist, a man who enjoyed hard physical tasks, as in the ranch work he loved to do. But that brush clearing and fence fixing was a symbol, too; he wanted to be doing it himself because from the land came not only strength and clarity, but a vision, the vision of the West and the endless horizon. The American people liked Ronald Reagan and reelected him in one of the biggest landslides in history because he trusted them and he conveyed to them that they need not be bound, tied down by class or race, or childhood misfortune, or poverty, or bureaucracy. They, the people, could make something of themselves; indeed, they could remake themselves endlessly. ``But beneath this pragmatic attitude lay a bedrock of principle and purpose with which I was proud to be associated. He believed in being strong enough to defend our interests, but he viewed that strength as a means, not an end in itself. Ronald Reagan had confidence in himself and in his ideas and was ready to negotiate from the strength so evident by the mid-1980s. ``He was a fervent anti-communist who could comprehend and believe that people everywhere would choose to throw off the communist system if they ever had the chance. And he worked hard to give them that chance. He favored open trade because he had confidence in the ability of Americans to compete, and he had confidence that an integrated world economy would benefit America. He stuck to his agenda. ``The points he made, however consummate the delivery, were unmistakably real in his mind and heart, an American creed: Defend your country, value your family, make something of yourself, tell government to get off your back, tell the tyrants to watch their step. Ronald Reagan conveyed simple truths that were especially welcome because `nowadays everything seems so complicated.' What he said ran deep and wide among the people. ``Reagan as president was a Republican, a conservative, a man of the right. But these labels will mislead historians who do not see beyond them, for Americans could see some of Ronald Reagan in themselves. You couldn't figure him out like a fact, because to Reagan, the main fact was a vision. He came from the heartland of the country, where people could be down-to-earth, yet feel the sky is the limit, not ashamed of or cynical about the American dream. ``Not far from Ronald Reagan's small town of Dixon, Illinois, is Jane Addams' small town of Cedarville; not far from Cedarville is Ulysses Grant's small town of Galena. And not far from Galena is Carl Sandburg's Galesburg. Reagan had something of them all: His heart going out to the people; his will ready to fight for the country; his voice able to move the nation. And, as Carl Sandburg wrote it, `The republic is a dream. Nothing happens unless first a dream.' ''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Of course, it is well intended. We have all worked together. The request was made of me that we have a chance to vote up or down on this constitutional amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I worked this out. Now the author of the amendment says it is flawed. We have the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution saying it is flawed. We have a proposal before us. It should be unanimous that we vote ``no.'' It is a bad idea, and it should not be done. The thing that troubles me is while I know that my colleagues would like to ensure that there are elections, their proposal does, in fact, provide the opportunity for appointed individuals to serve in the House. There was a debate in 1787 on this very issue. Charles Pinckney, as he discussed the issue of the first branch, talked about the fact that Members of the House should be appointed. Why should they be appointed? He said the people were less fit judges. Now, I am not claiming that the people who are proponents of this constitutional amendment believe that the people are less fit judges. I am not claiming that they do not want to have elections. But I will say that as we look at the debate in 1787, Madison, Mason, Dickerson and other Framers, I think, got it right and concluded correctly with Madison's quote when he said: ``The right of suffrage elections is certainly one of the fundamental articles of democratic government. A gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.'' I think it is very important for us to note that it was the James Madison view that prevailed, ensuring that the people are elected when they serve in the people's House. Remember, it was Federalist 53 when Madison said: ``Where elections end, tyranny begins.'' This proposal would, in fact, have something take place before elections. So I think that we have the opportunity with this amendment before us to tragically move in the Pinckney direction, which did, in fact, say that the people are less fit judges. And that is why I believe it would be wrong for us to potentially have a totally appointive government which we conceivably could have if this constitutional amendment were to prevail. It is possible that we could have an appointed President, Vice President, an entire United States Senate and, with this proposal, appointed Members of the House. That is why James Madison was so careful, and that is why he was so correct in ensuring that at least one entity could not serve, could not have any power unless it is vested in them by the people. Mr. Speaker, the author and other Members have now admitted that this is flawed. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) just came forward having offered a proposal to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) about making a modification, and he has come forward and said he would like to have another proposal. Well, we have gone through this for a long period of time, and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said, a hearing on the constitutional amendment was, in fact, held in the last Congress. We know what it consists of. A constitutional amendment consists of having appointed, rather than elected, Members of the House. And the proposal itself is flawed, as has been admitted. That is why I encourage my colleagues in an overwhelming bipartisan way, just as we in an overwhelming bipartisan way by a vote of 306 to 97 voted in favor of our expedited election legislation, we should come together in the same way and vote down this ill conceived measure that would fly in the face of the vision put forth, the inspired vision of the Framers of our Constitution.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me respond by saying that in the Committee on the Judiciary I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, offered an amendment. He withdrew that amendment. So there were no amendments offered. An opportunity for bipartisanship obviously existed in the committee in that Members could, in fact, offer proposals. The agreement that we had, the request that was made of me, was that we allow for an up-or-down vote on the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) constitutional amendment on the floor. That is what we are doing. We are going to, in fact, be having an up-or-down vote. I cannot understand why it is that people want to talk about the fact that in the Committee on the Judiciary they did not believe that there was a proper hearing. In the last Congress, there was hearing on the issue of a constitutional amendment. We know that the members of the Committee on the Judiciary oppose amending the Constitution to allow for appointed people to serve in the People's House, where everyone has always been elected; and the members of the minority in the Committee on the Judiciary did have, in fact, an opportunity to offer amendments themselves to this proposal. That is what a markup is about. The agreement was that there would be a markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. That was the request that was made of me. We complied with it. So I believe that we are doing the best thing we can; and, I apologize to my friend from Washington if he thinks what I just said was a filibuster.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that I totally agree with the need to make sure that we deal with this life-or-death issue. The request was made of me that we, in fact, not have a hearing, that was not the request that was made of me. The request that was made of me is that we have an opportunity for the full House to vote on the issue of a constitutional amendment which would allow for appointed Members to serve here in the House of Representatives, as opposed to having the people elect them, and that is the agreement we had.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if you would just yield me a minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman has made a couple of statements that I need to respond to, I would say in response to the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Baird) statement, no, I was not there. I do know that, in the Committee on the Judiciary, if the gentleman would further yield.

Mr. DREIER. No.

Mr. DREIER. My job is to chair the Committee on Rules.

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