David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by yielding to my friend from Washington (Mr. Baird), to see if he would like to pose a question to me.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I in no way said that people are trying to avoid elections. What I am arguing is, if we do move in the direction of appointments, we create the opportunity for Members of this institution who would serve here by appointment to potentially move in that direction.

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

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, what I would say is that the Civil War was a time when this Republic faced its greatest threat, greater than the threat that we face today, and the answer that was provided at that point by President Lincoln was to proceed with elections, and so, of course, there was tremendous uncertainty at the founding. We saw all kinds of challenges, but Madison continued to go back time and time again. He argued at first for annual elections and then they ended up with this issue of biennial elections, and so we have had the Speaker establish this quorum requirement. My friend says it is true that it is possible that very few Members could be serving here in the House; but within 45 days, those special elections would be held under the structure that we have, and there would be a chance for us to deal with those issues. I would say that I somewhat rhetorically ask what issues would we be dealing with here in the House of Representatives? Health care? a tax issue? No, we would be dealing with the crisis that would be before us at that time, and that is why I am convinced that the best way to do that is to have the people's representatives make that decision, and I am convinced that that could happen within a short period of time. I thank my friend for his contribution, and let me again compliment him for all the time and energy he has put in the effort. I thank my friend for yielding this time, and I look forward to our debate.

Mr. DREIER. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has time, but I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate his very, very thoughtful opening statement. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary with whom I have been privileged to work with on this; the whip; I mentioned my friends, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who in the last Congress chaired a task force on this. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) are very thoughtful Members who have spent a great deal of time contemplating this issue. Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001, as we all know, was a devastating day for our Nation. It really launched the global war on terrorism. It changed all of our lives. And many of us had not pondered the thought of this Capitol being under attack. I was, in fact, the last person to leave this building on September 11 of 2001, and I did so when one of the guards said that there was a plane they had lost contact with, and it was headed right towards this building, and it ended up being the plane that was very courageously taken down by those passengers into the ground in Pennsylvania. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been done focusing on this issue of what would happen if we were to see a tremendous loss of life of Members of the House of Representatives. We know that almost immediately the Speaker of the House took some steps. He established the ability to adjourn to an alternative place and to declare an emergency recess, the ability to effect a joint leadership recall from a period of adjournment through designees, and requires the Speaker to submit to the Clerk a list of designees to act in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Speaker. These are actions that the Speaker has taken codifying a number of important things, including the quorum provision, which does allow us to continue our work. As I listen to the remarks by my friend from Dallas (Mr. Frost), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, I do think it is important to note that we do have a bicameral Legislature, and the United States House of Representatives does not operate unilaterally. So there would, even if we went through a period of time, and I would say it would not be months. Our legislation that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I have calls for special elections to be held within 45 days following that disaster. Let me say that the legislation that we do have addresses a number of very important issues, but I want to get to this issue of service here, representation, and what our framers went through on this question. When I was an undergraduate, I had a professor, with whom I spoke last night, who pounded the Federalist Papers into me. It was after that great Constitutional Convention, and I remember when we marked the bicentennial of the Connecticut Compromise, and the House of Representatives convened in Philadelphia on July 16 of 1987 to mark that. It was the Connecticut Compromise that established this bicameral Legislature, which is a very, very important thing for us to note. And what I did last night is I went through and I started rereading the Federalist, and I went to some of the items that were mentioned, Federalists 52 through 57, where James Madison talked at length about this institution. And some of the things that I believe are important for us to note on this as we look at the work of James Madison is that he talked about as he was justifying the Constitution this importance of the institution being elected, and a couple of items that he raised. He said in Federalist number 53, ``Where elections end tyranny begins.'' As my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pointed out, it was very clear that this House is the only Federal office where no one has ever served without having first been elected. And they talked about the fact that this is the body of the people. The other body is the body of the States. Madison in Federalist 52 wrote, ``It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy with the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.'' He went on in Federalist 57 to write, ``Who are to be the electors of the Federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor, not the learned more than the ignorant, not the haughty airs of distinguished names more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.'' And Madison rejected the idea that appointment of Members is acceptable to the American public. He said, ``The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of democratic government and ought not be regulated by the Legislature. A gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruin of popular reforms.'' I think it is very important for us to understand that there have been times in our Nation's history where we have faced even greater difficulty than we do today, and that was the Civil War. If we think back to the time of the Civil War, this Capital was surrounded by troops who were threatening our very being. And yet President Abraham Lincoln proceeded with elections, understanding how critically important that is for our Republic's survival. That is why when we look at some of these options, the stand-in provision, whereby Members of the House would actually select their successors if they were to lose their life, we ask about the challenges that would be before us. Will stand-ins be responsible for passing laws, declaring war, or suspending habeas corpus or perhaps both? Will stand-ins be running for office in special elections? Would those follow soon after their appointments? What incentive does someone who has gotten into this House by appointment have to, in fact, be responsible to the people? Is it possible that we could, through intrigue or cabal, see some make an attempt to prevent the prospect of elections in the future? I just believe that when we take this very, very unique institution, the people's House, where no one has served without having been elected and move in that direction away from elections, we threaten the very basis on which this institution is founded. So that is why, as we look at this tough challenge, this legislation is the most responsible way to deal with it. If we look at the loss of more than 100 Members, the idea of having the States hold special elections in that 45-day period is something that is doable. My State of California went through last year an unprecedented time. We had the recall of a Governor; and with the election that took place, it was 55 days after we saw certification, and it was not a single congressional district where 644,000 people reside and there are two to three candidates. We had 125 candidates on the ballot, and we have a State of 35 million people; and I am happy to say that that election came off without a hitch. Many people had predicted doom and the fact that it could not work; and that is why I believe that for us to deal with this situation, if we do see tremendous loss of Members of Congress, this country will have suffered greatly. I am convinced as we look at the struggles taking place in Iraq today that the building of a democratic institution is something that is very important; and I am convinced, too, that following a tragedy, after people are feeding their families and getting a roof over their head, choosing their leader is a very important key to success and proceeding and survival; and that is why I believe that this legislation would, in fact, provide us an opportunity to do that. We are going to have a great chance for rigorous debate today, and I will say that it is because I believe that Members of the minority who are proponents of the amendment to the Constitution, that I did get in contact with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and asked him to do this, and he agreed very readily to at his next markup, as I just said, report out the constitutional amendment. While I am not in a position to guarantee, I would say to my friend from Dallas, to say exactly when this would be scheduled, we are trying to have a full debate on the constitutional amendment on the floor, but as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) said in his opening remarks, it seems to me to be very important for us to use the structure that exists for us today, and that is, the legislative structure, to deal with this. This legislation may not be the panacea, but I think that it is so important to realize again, Madison said, ``When elections end, tyranny begins,'' we should do everything we possibly can to make sure that we keep the very precious election process. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again the statement that I made when this question came forward. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is here on the floor, and, as you know, in the past couple of weeks he and I have been discussing and I have shared those conversations, and the chairman has indicated his willingness to at the next markup the Committee on the Judiciary holds, they will mark up the constitutional amendments that you all put forward. And I think it is also very important for us to note that we have been seeking, having worked with the task force that the gentleman and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), shared to work in a bipartisan way on this, and I know from having had discussions with friends on the gentleman's side of the aisle that there is, in fact, bipartisan support for the effort that we are proceeding with here. And that is one of reasons that as we look at the structure of this rule, we did make in order amendments offered by Democrats. I see my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), here who has a thoughtful one. I know the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has been working on this issue as well. I will say to my friends, bipartisanship is something that we have been seeking on this, and I hope at the end of the day we will be able to find that.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I wanted to clarify one point that my friend was making.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just say that I have not seen the letter, and I do not believe that we are seeking to ban elections, so I want to make that clear.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I simply would like to ask my friend, as we have been discussing this issue of a constitutional amendment, the one question that I have is that it is my sense that in this House there is not a two-thirds vote that would, in fact, allow for the process of the constitutional amendment to begin.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me just join in the bipartisan welcome and to say that Steny Hoyer has just recognized Billy Pitts, and I think it is important to note that Billy Pitts' father worked for 41 years for the longest-serving whip in the history of this institution, Les Arends. Billy, as you all know, worked for Bob Michel and ran this place when we actually were in the majority, even though many on the other side of the aisle did not realize that, during the 1980s, leading up to 1994. Billy made sure that we were in the majority, and I feel very fortunate that he has come back to work with me on the House Committee on Rules. He is sitting next to the guy who appointed me to the Committee on Rules. And it is interesting as I sit here and listen to the great remarks, and I listened upstairs, I had the television on and listened to Larry's comments about the international involvement that so many of you all are having. I have just come back from a 12-nation and 12-day trip. Billy and I went all over Southern Europe, Central and South Asia. And because I come from California, I have talked to a number of people from Mexico who have referred to the fact that the work of the study group has had a great impact on this very important relationship. So I want to encourage you there. I also want to join in recognizing my friend Sam Nunn, and you all are absolutely right on target, and Steny is right in saying that we wish he were still here because of the stellar leadership he has provided us. But he is doing it in so many other areas, and I have been thrilled to work with him at CSIS and in a number of other fora. In just a few minutes, we are going to be beginning a very interesting debate that all of you will be fascinated with, and that is the question of the continuity of Congress. After September 11, we looked at the prospect of this fact. I was the last person to leave the Capitol on September 11. I left about 11 a.m. that morning, and I did so when one of the guards down here said there was a plane they had lost contact with that was headed right for this building. We all know it was the plane that ended up going into the ground in Pennsylvania because of those courageous people who were on board that flight. After that time we looked at the thought that really had not been contemplated by many, except it was discussed in the 1950s, of a huge loss of life. So we are going to today be considering legislation which would call for expediting the special elections that would be held following that loss of life. And just to give you my view on it, I am struggling because there are some who want to have Governors appoint Members of the House of Representatives or have us actually appoint our successors, which to me is completely counter to the Madisonian view of this being the people's House. I see two former Members of the Senate here, and you can serve in the Senate by appointment. We know from the former minority leader of this place, Jerry Ford, that you can become President of the United States by appointment, yet we all know this is the only federally elected office where you have to be elected to serve. So we are going to begin in just a few minutes that debate, and I hope that all of you will follow it because it is going to be a fascinating one as we look at this challenge to the institution. Anyway, I hope it is a long time before I join your ranks, but I just wanted to let you know it is nice to be here with you all. Thanks.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we have all seen by now, the Department of Labor released its payroll survey dated today showing that in the month of March the economy created 308,000 new jobs. Mr. Speaker, 308,000 new jobs created in the month of March. It also revised its new jobs data for January and February with sharp increases in both months. Now, these strong numbers, Mr. Speaker, clearly demonstrate the vitality of our 21st-century economy. They are a reflection of what other indicators like the strength of the stock market, the level of homeownership, and the growth in gross domestic product have shown. They have been telling us for months that we have a growing economy that is creating jobs. But the real significance of the job creation numbers is what it tells us about the best way to ensure job growth in this country. We would all like a job creation number like 308,000 every single month. It is a strong number that Americans would like to see more of; and everyone here would, of course, like to see that continue. The question is, How can we ensure that those kinds of job numbers continue? There are always lots of ideas and proposals being touted as the best way to grow the number of American jobs, but they all boil down to essentially two fundamental approaches. The first is to try, try very hard to keep any existing job that we have from being lost. We have seen this in proposals such as the one included in the presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate, John Kerry's, economic plan. He proposes a tax increase for companies that invest in growing overseas markets in an attempt to prevent any American job from being lost. Now, many of our colleagues have proposed different approaches like preventing globally engaged companies from bidding for Federal contracts or saddling them with further regulation. But the ultimate goal is always the same: to prevent any job from being lost. These job-preservation proposals may be new here in the United States; but they are old news, they are old news in Western Europe. For years, countries like France and Germany have imposed strict regulations in an attempt to prevent any company from ever making an employment decision that would possibly eliminate a single job. For example, both countries, France and Germany, require a significant notification period before a company can reduce its workforce. France guarantees all workers a hearing; and in Germany, a worker can go to court and get a preliminary injunction to stay on the job until the issue is resolved in the courts. Now, at first glance, these ``job security'' measures may seem like a good idea. After all, they are clearly intended to save jobs and prevent hardship for workers. But have they worked? Are the French and German people better off than the American people are? Well, let us look at the jobs data. It clearly shows that they are not. In France, the unemployment rate has been stuck around 10 percent, more than double the unemployment rate that we have here. In Germany, the job situation is almost as bleak, with a long-term average of over 8 percent unemployment. Growth in GDP has been at a near standstill for many years in both of those countries as well. Neither country has seen an annual growth rate of over 2 percent in a long time. Remember, we had an 8.1 percent growth rate a couple of months ago, and we are going along now at an excess of 4 percent growth that is double what France and Germany have seen. New business start-ups, venture capital, research and development, by virtually every possible measure, the French and German economies and job markets are very, very weak in all of those areas. Now, Mr. Speaker, these attempts at job preservation clearly failed the workers in France and in Germany. They will not help American workers, either. What will help Americans is encouraging greater job creation. Fortunately, this is where Americans excel. While the French and Germans have cornered the market on stifling regulation, Americans have long been the global leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. We are the world leader in venture capital, new business start-ups, research and development, and new patents. Our emphasis on creativity, productivity, and free thinking has made our economy the most dynamic in the world. It has allowed Americans to constantly develop new ideas and create new jobs. In fact, fully 25 percent of all Americans are working in fields that did not even exist in the Department of Labor's job codes 25 years ago; and today, a third of all job creation is in the entrepreneurship categories of self-employment and independent contracting. If we continue to encourage the innovation that leads to new opportunities, we should be looking at the barriers to productivity and job creation. We should be looking at ways to minimize the damaging effects of frivolous lawsuits, excessive regulation and taxation, and rising health care costs, just to name a few. The critical part is that our job growth agenda has got to be a job- creation agenda. We need to recognize that we are on the right track and we can do even better.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow Friday, April 2, 2004.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. We have looked into the history of rules that allow for consideration of transportation legislation. And going back to the 102nd Congress we found that 12 amendments were made in order. That was consideration of the ISTEA legislation. The TEA 21 legislation had six amendments made in order. And this measure will allow for 23 amendments. And I believe it will give an opportunity for full consideration. Actually, it is probably 23 more amendments than the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), would have preferred because he is so proud of his work product; but we are going to allow Members the opportunity to have the chance to work their will on this very important measure. If I had my way, the Federal Government would not be involved in these kinds of transportation decisions. In fact, I think that the notion of being able to completely turn back to the States the revenues that come into the trust fund and allowing States to make these decisions would be in many ways the wisest thing. But I have to face reality. And reality is that the Federal Government is involved in the issue of transportation. I believe for that reason we need to do it in the most responsible way. This measure authorizes in excess of a quarter of a trillion dollars. A quarter of a trillion dollars. And I believe that as we look at the very important pressing needs out there, this is a level of funding that can allow us to make sure that we do improve our infrastructure. We know that our infrastructure includes more than highways; it includes a wide range of other areas which have to do with transportation. And when we think about the ability of the United States of America to compete in this global economy, it is important for goods and services to be able to move around this country. It is important for U.S. manufacturers, for workers in this country to be able to get their goods to our Nation's ports so that they can, in fact, move into these new markets which this administration, and many of the rest of us, is working to pry open through new bilateral as well as multilateral trade agreements so that we can get into those markets. And that is why I believe this is a very, very important measure for all of us. For our security, which is an important aspect of this measure, it is important that we improve our infrastructure here. Let me say that when I think about that issue, I do have, as a Californian, a particular concern. My State is, in fact, the gateway to the Pacific Rim, Asia, Latin America. And a tremendous percentage of the goods that come to and from this country come through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, as I said in my opening remarks. And we have a very important issue that needs to be addressed in Southern California, the extension of the Alameda Corridor East, which is an issue that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) chose to address when he was testifying before the Committee on Rules as an important one. With these two ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, it is important now that we have the Alameda Corridor project that takes goods to downtown Los Angeles and brings goods into that Los Angeles area to get to the ports for export. We have to realize that there are areas to the east of Los Angeles that are impacted tremendously because of this new trade. We have to realize that this also deals very closely with the issue of safety and making sure that in the area that I represent in the Inland Empire, east of downtown Los Angeles, that our emergency vehicles, ambulances, fire, police, that they are able to move as easily as possible throughout the area. The Alameda Corridor East project is something that will be very, very greatly benefited by this legislation. And I think it is important that we proceed with that. There are a wide range of other very important projects which will, as has been pointed out by many Members, create jobs to see this already strong and growing economy grow even stronger. So I hope that my colleagues will join in a bipartisan way to agreeing to the previous question, making sure that we move ahead with this legislation and pass this measure with a strong bipartisan vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, all I was saying is that if you go and look at the pattern of consideration of transportation measures, when the gentleman's party was in control, half the number of amendments were made in order.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my colleague when he was going through his prepared statement, but I did want to clarify one issue that the gentleman raised. He said in his opening that this was an unusually restrictive rule, and I would just like to state for the Record that when the ISTEA legislation was considered, there were a total of 12 amendments made in order. That was in the 102nd Congress when the Democrats were in charge. When TEA 21 was considered, there were a total of six amendments made in order, Mr. Speaker; and then in this legislation we have provided for consideration of a total of 23 amendments. So that is why I asked the gentleman to yield.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern); and when he has completed his statement, if he would yield to me for 1 comment, I would appreciate it