David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my distinguished colleague, Representative Lee Hamilton, in introducing House Resolution 61. This resolution would for the first time give private citizens a meaningful role in the House's ethics process. Our fundamental goals are to further enhance the openness of the House to make this institution more responsive to the public, and to bolster citizen confidence in Congress. Lee Hamilton and I developed this proposal during our service as House co-chairmen of the 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Our resolution is based on the testimony of many Members and outside experts about the strengths and weaknesses of the current ethics process. Let me first make a comment about Lee Hamilton's recent announcement that this will be his last term in Congress. Lee's retirement will be a big loss to this institution and the American people. He has been a model legislator for us all, and I wish him all the best in whatever activity he chooses to pursue when he leaves the House. In the meantime, I am delighted to join with Lee once again in our mutual interest to improve the work and reputation of the legislative branch. Specifically, House Resolution 61 would make several important changes in the House ethics process. First, it would authorize the Speaker and minority leader to appoint jointly 20 independent fact finders at the beginning of each Congress. These private citizens could then be called upon to conduct ethics investigations for the Standards of Official Conduct Committee. The definition of private citizens includes, among others, former Members, staff aides, and officers of Congress, but not lobbyists. Second House Resolution 61 grants discretionary authority to the Ethics Committee to decide, on a case-by-case basis, when to request that private citizens be used to conduct investigations involving allegations of ethical misconduct. Our resolution provides that an even number of fact finders--four or six--shall be appointed jointly from the standby pool by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Standards Committee. Daily pay, travel, and per diem costs are provided the fact finders when they are engaged in ethics investigative work. Staff aides of the Standards Committee are authorized to assist the fact finders in carrying out their responsibilities. Third, the job of the fact finders is to conduct a preliminary review of the ethical complaint. They are to make the detailed inquiries, accumulate relevant background materials, gather pertinent evidence, and so on--all activities that usually consume enormous amounts of time. A benefit that inheres in the Hamilton-Dreier approach to ethics reform is that it will alleviate time burdens on members who will not have to do this pick and shovel investigative work. Another benefit is to increase public confidence that allegations of ethical misconduct are being fully and independently explored. Fourth, after the preliminary review of the ethics complaint has been completed, the private citizens would report their finds and recommendations to the full Ethics Committee. If the fact finders determine that their findings justify further formal action by the Ethics Committee, they may, by majority vote, transmit a statement of alleged violations to the ethics panel. Finally, in the event that a statement of alleged violations is sent to the Ethics Committee, that panel will then act as an adjudicatory subcommittee as provided in the Committee's rules. The full Ethics Committee will then conduct its own review of the information transmitted to it by the fact finders, including, if required, the convening of public hearings. In our judgment, House Resolution 61 provides an innovative and flexible approach to revamping the House's ethics process. On those high profile and complex cases, the Ethics Committee can turn to a pool of private citizens to conduct the investigations. For ethics complaints that appear minor, the committee can continue to appoint its own subcommittee to conduct the preliminary inquiry. Everyone who serves in Congress understands that public trust in the legislative branch is not especially high. To be sure, many factors have contributed to this development, such as heightened cynicism in the body politic, but public misgivings about how Congress handles ethical charges against its own Members also contribute to the lack of citizen confidence. This institution must devote more time and attention to congressional ethics, which is why I strongly endorse the recent establishment of a bipartisan House ethics task force to revise and improve our ethics process. This initiative by our Republican and Democratic leaders deserves everyone's support and encouragement. Members and citizens alike have a large stake in an improved ethics process. The strength of representative government rests fundamentally on public confidence in the integrity of our proceedings. In our view, there is an inherent conflict-of-interest when only members are involved in evaluating ethics complaints against their peers. House Resolution 61 will address this issue by allowing private citizens to assist in ethics investigations on a case-by-case basis. Adoption of our resolution will further demonstrate that the House and its Members care deeply about improving and strengthening their ethical processes and responsibilities.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from Massachusetts and New York for yielding me this time. Let me say that I rise in strong support of the rule, and my friend from Massachusetts might not like what I am going to say at the outset here, but I suspect he will like what I say a little later.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that he will begin to enjoy what I have to say as I persevere closer to the 5 minutes. He will not like the first minute. Let me say that for years many of us tried to get the issue of term limits brought to the House floor for debate, and there was an inclination by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Brooks of Texas, to keep that measure bottled up in committee. So I joined with other opponents of term limits in signing a discharge petition to try and get it moved to the House floor because keeping it bottled up in committee did in fact really, I believe, circumvent the will of the American people and the will of many Members of this institution. So that is why I congratulate my party for coming into the majority and bringing this issue to a full debate. I think that this rule, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the Committee on Rules have crafted, does allow for a wide range of provisions to be considered, but having said that, I do strongly oppose term limits. In fact, I remember, and I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], very vividly when 8 years ago last month Ronald Reagan turned over the reins of the Presidency to George Bush, and at that time President Reagan said, ``My number one priority in leaving Washington will be the repeal of the 22d amendment to the Constitution.'' The 22d amendment to the Constitution was passed by Republicans, pushed by Republicans, because of a very high level of frustration over the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was continually reelected by the American people, and now Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that Franklin Roosevelt was in fact one of the great Presidents of this century. It seems to me that repeal of the 22d amendment should be a top priority, and so I just introduced a few minutes ago House Joint Resolution 51, which will in fact repeal the 22d Amendment of the Constitution, doing what Ronald Reagan said was his top priority upon leaving this town. And that, I believe, underscores the very, very important reason, following Ronald Reagan's direction here, underscores the very important reason for us not to amend the Constitution to impose term limits. Now, I understand that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], although I did not hear it in his opening remarks, talked about the turnover that has taken place over the past several years. It is my understanding that during the decade of the 1990's, we have seen a turnover of 62 percent of the membership of this institution. New ideas are obviously flowing in and they have flowed in based in large part on the fact that the American people have, to the shock of many in this institution, been perceptive enough to change their Representatives in Congress. I mentioned a few moments ago the former chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. He is one of the three reasons that I voted against term limits last time. Well, there were many more, but among the three, and they were Jack Brooks, Dan Rostenkowski, and Tom Foley. Those three incumbents, the Speaker, two very powerful committee chairmen obviously had all the resources needed to be reelected. And they had loads of campaign contributions, the power of incumbency, the power of their chairmanships, and yet, while many people argued for years and years and years, the voters in those districts would never have the intelligence to replace Rostenkowski, Brooks, and Foley. Well, the fact of the matter is, in uphill struggles, we had challengers who defeated those three people. For the first time since the 1860's a sitting Speaker of the House was defeated, and it was done without amending the U.S. Constitution. So it seems to me that if we look at that fact, and interestingly enough, and it saddens me, two of the three victors in that 1994 election were defeated in the 1996 election. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], who defeated Tom Foley, is the only one remaining in this institution, so a turnover is taking place there. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the fact that a natural turnover has taken place, it seems to me that we should be very careful in moving ahead with an amendment to the Constitution. So I think that the arguments of staff having too much power; we all revere the staff around here, but the fact of the matter is, with term limits I think staff would get too much power. If we look at the fact that many people say that whenever we deal with a legislative challenge around here, what we should do is amend the U.S. Constitution. I think that that was an inspired document, and I think that the Founding Fathers were inspired when they decided not to impose term limits on the President of the United States, and they were equally inspired when they established three qualifications for service in the U.S. House of Representatives: 25 years of age, an American citizen, and a resident of the State one hopes to represent. We should allow the people to work their will in making the kind of decision that is better for them in their representation here. So I support the rule, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule, but I will vote no on all of the provisions that call for imposing constraints on the voters of this Nation.

Mr. DREIER

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 thank my friend for his contribution and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rules package and strong support in passage of the previous question. This is a very thoughtful package that builds on what we did in the beginning of the 104th Congress. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, stood up and praised the fact that we did away with proxy voting. He appreciated the fact that we reaffirmed our commitment, the elimination of proxy voting, so Members would show up for work. We also have had Congress comply with laws imposed on every other American. These are the kinds of commonsense reforms that the American people want us to have. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying with what they would offer if they were to defeat the previous question, they want to eliminate disclosure. They do not want witnesses to provide information to committees when they come forward to testify. If we defeat the previous question, they would be able to make that in order and it would be wrong if they were to proceed with that. With that I would say also that I am very pleased with another item in this package, Mr. Speaker, and that is the provision which calls for dynamic scoring. Today I introduced H.R. 14 with my colleagues the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], a bipartisan package to take the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent down to 14 percent to encourage economic growth. This is a very important package which will allow us to move ahead with that, and with that I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, and with that I yield briefly to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend for his very fine statement. I would say that we did a survey of committee chairmen and others in leadership positions on the impact of proxy voting, to see whether or not they liked it. It has made it, in fact, more difficult, but in trying to get the Congress to comply with the laws that other Americans have to comply with, showing up for work seems to be sort of a natural. We do have that. But committee chairmen, in the survey that we had that was sent back, overwhelmingly supported the idea of maintaining the elimination of proxy voting. My friend was entirely right on that statement. I thank him for his compliment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken out this special order, and as we all saw, I got in the chair before I was able to deliver it, so I am pleased that my friend, the gentleman from Florida, was able to deliver the first special order of the 105th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out to talk about legislation which I very proudly introduced today with a number of my colleagues. We know that the message that came from last November's election was that the American people want us to put the partisan political pyrotechnics aside and they want us to do a job. I am very gratified that we saw Democrats and Republicans alike, embrace what for lack of a better term, have to be considered traditional Republican themes. The themes that the President ran on, the themes that Republicans and many Democratic candidates for Congress ran on, were balancing the budget, trying to reduce the size and scope of government, reducing the tax burden on working Americans. Those are the sorts of things that I believe a majority of this institution want to see us deal with. I think we do have an opportunity to proceed in a bipartisan way. We have gone through an extraordinarily difficult and challenging day, and the next couple of weeks are going to be tough, but I hope and pray that we will be able to put the battles that we have seen in the media over the past couple of weeks behind us and do what I believe the American people want us to do, and that is govern. I have done what I believe is my bit here on the opening day. I am very pleased that I was able to join with Democrats and Republicans in introducing legislation which will go a long way toward dealing with one of the problems that we have in this country, and that is lack of available capital. What I have done is introduced a bill which is numbered H.R. 14. It is H.R. 14 because it is going to take the top 28-percent rate on capital gains and reduce that to 14 percent as a top rate. In years past we have heard this rhetoric that reducing the tax on capital gains is nothing but a tax cut for the rich. But I was gratified that in the Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton talked about reducing the tax rate on capital gains for homeowners. He wanted to target it. I happen to believe very strongly that rather than targeting it, we should allow the American people to make a determination as to exactly which capital asset they have that they want to sell and have a lower rate on capital gains for. I want them to be able to make that decision themselves. In the past we have heard that there is a tremendous cost to reducing the tax rate on capital gains. The fact of the matter is we have, with this bill, done a great deal of study on it. It is not only a theoretical study, but it is empirical evidence which has shown, going all the way back to 1921 when Andrew Mellon was Treasury Secretary under President Warren G. Harding, reducing that top rate increases revenues to the Treasury. John F. Kennedy we know did it in the early 1960's, Ronald Reagan did it in the 1980's, and we have a good opportunity to do this today. What will it create? It will create, I believe, a tremendous flow in revenues to the Treasury. Why? Because there is between $7 trillion and $8 trillion of locked-in capital that is there. People are not willing to sell it because of the punitive tax rate that exists. So, clearly in the first years we would see a great boost. In 1993, when I assembled the zero capital gains tax caucus, we found over a 7-year period a 15-percent capital gains tax rate would increase the gross domestic product by $1.3 trillion, create 1 million jobs, and generate $220 billion in revenues to the Federal Treasury. I am convinced that we can do this in a bipartisan way, so much so that of the original cosponsors, there are two Republicans and three Democrats. I am very pleased that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas City, MO, Karen McCarthy, has joined as a lead cosponsor of this; a great member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Phil English, who is beginning his second term, has joined in this; the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Jim Moran, a Democrat, has joined as an original cosponsor; and the leader of the Blue Dogs on this issue is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall. So we have three Democrats and two Republicans. While some pundits out there may like to argue that the era of bipartisanship is over, they are wrong, because on the opening day we have begun in a bipartisan way to deal with this very important question of reducing that top rate on capital gains to help middle- income wage earners and all Americans, and those at the bottom end of the spectrum, as we try to get capital into the inner city and other spots which are desperately in need, as Speaker Gingrich mentioned in his acceptance speech today. Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone a very happy, prosperous, and healthy 1997.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to salute my alma mater on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Claremont McKenna College was founded in 1946. Most of its students were returning veterans who were given a chance to earn a college education thanks to the GI bill. Those young men, including my father, were determined to take the lessons of war and build a peaceful and prosperous Nation. Founding President George Benson, who will celebrate his 89th birthday in January, kept Claremont McKenna College focused on its mission to educate young men and women for responsible leadership in business and government. Today, Claremont McKenna is recognized as one of the Nation's finest colleges and enrolls nearly a thousand students from across the country and the world. Among its graduates are leaders in business, the arts, education, science, medicine, and of course, public service. I am proud to be a graduate of Claremont McKenna College and invite my colleagues to join me in saluting a remarkable institution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I just want to say that I agree with the gentleman. I wish that it had been run in a more orderly fashion. I was assuming that there would have been a recorded vote on that intelligence bill.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is a major problem that exists in this country, and nearly every one of us knows it. In my State of California, this may be the single most important law and order issue we have faced in a generation. Three million illegal immigrants enter the country each year, 300,000 to stay here permanently. More live in California than in any other State. In 3 years, that is enough people, Mr. Speaker, to create a city the size of San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly clear that this Congress is dedicated to results. I believe results are what the American people want from their representatives here in Washington, both in Congress and at the White House. When there is a national problem like illegal immigration, they want action. Today, with this bill that we are considering that was crafted so expertly by chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Lamar Smith], we are giving them a response. Mr. Speaker, back in the 19th century, the German practitioner of politics Otto von Bismarck made a very famous statement, with which we are all very familiar, that people should not watch sausage or laws being made. That dictum has never been more true than in looking at what has taken place over the past couple of years. Under the barrage of 18 months and tens of millions of dollars of special interest attack ads, as well as the political rhetoric that came along with Congress changing hands for the first time in four decades, Washington has not presented a pretty picture to the American people. But look beyond the rhetoric, the soundbites, and the smokescreens, Mr. Speaker. Look at the results. We have gotten bipartisan welfare reform, bipartisan telecommunications reform, bipartisan health insurance reform, a line-item veto measure that passed with bipartisan support, environmental protections that have had bipartisan support, and now a major illegal immigration bill that also enjoys tremendous bipartisan support. In each case, the final product from this Congress has been a major accomplishment where past Congresses have unfortunately produced failure. Mr. Speaker, in California, illegal immigration is a problem in its own right, but it is also a factor that contributes to other problems. It undermines job creation by taxing local resources, it threatens wage gains by supplying undocumented labor, it has been a major factor in public school overcrowding, forcing nearly $2 billion in State and local resources to be spent each year educating illegal immigrants rather than California's children. As with other major national problems, the American people want results, not rhetoric, as I was saying. H.R. 2202 fills that bill. It is not perfect. There are Members of this House who spent years trying to address illegal immigration who think that the bill could be better, and I am one who thinks that this bill could be better. This conference report is not the answer to all of our problems. However, that is not a fair test, and it is not the test that the American people want us to use. People do not want us to kill good results in the name of perfection. There is no question that this conference report, filled with bipartisan proposals to improve the fight against illegal immigration, should pass, and pass with broad bipartisan support, as I am sure it will. The bill dramatically improves border enforcement, fights document fraud and targets alien smuggling, makes it easier to deport illegal immigrants, creates a much needed pilot program to get at the problem of illegal immigrants filling jobs, and makes clear that illegal immigrants do not qualify for welfare programs. Together, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a good first step; it takes us a good way toward our goal of ending this very serious problem of illegal immigration. Mr. Speaker, I must note that the 104th Congress did not just come around to this problem at the end of the session. This important bill only adds to other accomplishments, other results. Congress tripled funding, Federal funding, to $500 million to reimburse States like California for the cost of housing felons in State prisons if they are illegal aliens. The remarkable fact is that we are 1 week from the close of fiscal year 1996 and the Clinton administration has not distributed $1 in fiscal year 1996 money to States like California. The welfare reform bill, signed by the President, disqualified illegal immigrants from all Federal and State welfare programs and empowered State welfare agencies to report illegals to the INS. Congress also created a $3.5 billion Federal fund to reimburse our hospitals for the cost of emergency health care to illegals, only to see that provision die due to a Presidential veto. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must add that promoting economic growth and stability in Mexico, in particular, whether through implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement or working with our neighbor to avoid a financial collapse that would create untold economic refugees on our Southern border is critical to the success of our fight against illegal immigration. We want to do what we can to give people an opportunity to raise their families at home rather than come to this country for jobs and other benefits. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for final action on this important illegal immigration bill. California must deal every day with that flood of illegal immigrants who are coming across the border seeking government services, job opportunities, and family members. There is simply no question that the President, for all his rhetoric, has failed to make this a top priority. Once again, as with welfare reform, we can give the President a chance to live up to his rhetoric. Let us pass this rule, pass this conference report, and give the American people another issue of which they can be very proud. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], pending which, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous materials.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 528 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Sanibel FL [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Budget and Legislative Process. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply say that this may be the last rule that will be managed by my very good friend from California and to join in letting my colleagues know that he will be, by me, sorely missed. He has been a great friend and, I do appreciate the advice and counsel that he has given me over the years. Let me say on this particular measure, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this issue, it has been a long time in coming. Getting to this point has been a struggle, and I should say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I can certainly relate to the level of frustration that those in the minority have felt, because having gone through four decades of serving in the majority, they find that they are not able to have quite the control that they did as now members of the minority. But I believe that, as was the case when this bill first emerged from the committee, that it will in the end enjoy tremendous bipartisan support. The measure earlier this year had a tremendous number of votes. As I recall, there were only 80 some odd votes against the bill itself and 330 votes in support of it, and so the vote may not be identical to the earlier one, but I do believe that there will be Democrats and Republicans alike recognizing that this Congress has done more than past Congresses to deal with this problem of illegal immigration. The American people have asked us to do it, and the 104th Congress has been result-oriented as we go through the litany of items from telecommunications reform, welfare reform, line-item veto, unfunded mandates. We have provided tremendous results, and this immigration bill is further evidence of that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend the gentleman from Imperial Beach, CA [Mr. Bilbray]. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], my very good friend who has chaired our Task Force on Illegal Immigration, former mayor of Simi, CA.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], former mayor of Carlsbad, now of Oceanside, CA. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Lula, GA [Mr. Deal].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth], my thoughtful and hard- working and eloquent colleague. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mount Holly, NJ [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would say to my friend, if he does not like the sponsor provision that exists today, he should try to get rid of it rather than leaving it absolutely meaningless. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Huntington Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher], my friend, and one of the strongest proponents of legal immigration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas just said, this bill is clearly better than the status quo. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Orlando, FL [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.