David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. DREIER. OK. Thank you.

Mr. DREIER. But I think the debate is something that is very important here.

Mr. DREIER. I just think it is a very important matter.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my very dear friend that this is a historic moment for me. I wondered if at any point in my life anyone from the well would in fact yield time to me. So we have gotten to that point, and I would like to express my gratitude and say that I plan to use it briefly but, I hope, very wisely. It is unfortunate, as my friend said, that on the other side of the aisle that our colleagues refuse to engage in any kind of discussion on this issue. They want to simply embark on a monolog. Mr. Speaker, if I could just take a couple of moments to respond to some of the preposterous claims that were made on the other side of the aisle. First let me offer a disclaimer and say that I concur with my friend who has worked long and hard on this issue that having a federally mandated minimum wage is in fact not a benefit to working Americans. In fact it is something that will jeopardize job creation and economic growth, something which we seek very sincerely. During this special order I did not hear this but it was just written down by one of our crack staff members on the floor. Our colleague from Connecticut reportedly said their taxes keep going up but their wages do not go up. The fact of the matter is we on this side of the aisle tried to help President Clinton comply with one of his campaign promises back in 1992 by giving him an opportunity to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. We all know what happened with that opportunity that he had. He chose to veto that legislation and prevent those working Americans who, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut is absolutely right, saw their taxes keep going up, prevent them from having the chance, the chance to have a reduction.

Mr. DREIER. That is absolutely right. Those people who argue that their taxes keep going up are the ones who keep increasing their taxes as opposed to those of us who want to reduce that burden. The other thing that I found to be preposterous is that my friend from California proceeded to say that we now see the minimum wage at the lowest level in 40 years. Assuming that you are a strong supporter of increasing the minimum wage, the last time the minimum wage was increased was in 1989, and it was increased to $4.25 an hour. Mr. Speaker, now we know that the Democrats controlled this institution and the other body during the entire first 2 years of the Clinton administration. They had the opportunity, if they believed in increasing the minimum wage, to bring it up and it would sail right through this institution. But why did they not do it? They did not do it for several important reasons. Top advisors within that administration have made it very clear that they oppose increasing the minimum wage. Mr. Stiglitz, this was written up in the Wall Street Journal and has been said on several occasions, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors said a higher minimum wage does not seem to be a particularly useful way to help the poor. That is President Clinton's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. The President, who is one of the founders of the Democratic Leadership Council, regularly associates himself with them when he is trying to be on the sort of moderate to conservative side. They said increasing the minimum wage is the wrong strategy to promote the goals of helping people work their way out of poverty and raising living standards and in reducing inequality. So the fact of the matter is, while they say that we are responsible for not bringing this up and doing it in the way that they want, when they had the opportunity to deal with what they said has been the lowest wage in four decades, they clearly had that chance in the 103d Congress, they ignored it. And only a few months before this election, when they think that it is politically appealing, do they choose to come forward and say that this is a critical item when we know it is going to cost jobs. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the majority whip for his fine efforts in trying to address this issue responsibly and soberly so that we can look at it and debate it, unlike our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule. Committee on Agriculture, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Committee on International Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Resources, Committee on Science, Committee on Small Business, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the statement that was made eloquently by my friend from Cleveland about the issue of the environmental commitment of the 104th Congress. I come from a State which is very sensitive to environmental concerns. In fact, the district which I represent has had the highest number of first stage smog alerts in the Nation. We have very serious groundwater contamination problems. The fact of the matter is, this Congress is committed to moving in the next several weeks with very important legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act, which continues to be a top priority. And as my friend said, this concept of one-size-fits-all regulations emanating from right here in Washington has failed. In fact, we have seen improved environmental quality in spite of, not because of, the bureaucracy that has existed here. Every shred of evidence demonstrates that we will, in fact, be able to enhance environmental quality in this country and in my State of California if we are able to give the States the kind of authority that is desperately needed. That is the commitment that we have.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and, of course, congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. We are going to miss him greatly. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that we have gotten to the point where we have to rely on the line-item veto to turn the corner on the profligate spending that we have seen go on for decades. We have seen it successful in 38 States. I would simply like the Record to show that in our State of California, Governor Wilson has used the line-item veto 354 times, saving our State's taxpayers nearly $800 million. I hope very much that we can proceed with passage of this very important measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, to close debate on the fair, balanced, and equitable, even for Florida, Dreier amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are about to embark upon 10 minutes of action-packed debate on a very important issue. The amendment I offer today seeks to provide for fair distribution of targeted refugee assistance. The Targeted Refugee Assistance Program [TRAP] provides aid to counties with high concentrations of refugees that suffer from high welfare dependency rates. This Federal assistance is needed to help those refugees achieve economic independence. Congress appropriates nearly $50 million annually for this program. However, currently over 40 percent of this aid goes to just one county with only about 7 percent of all those eligible refugees. This concentration of resources means that every other participating county nationwide must pick up the added cost of training refugees to get them into the work force or providing them social services. Mr. Chairman, the existing earmark dates back over a decade and was intended to ease the resettlement of refugees who arrived in 1980. Advocates of the current distribution may argue that certain areas of the country are dealing with communities that remain especially difficult to make self sufficient. But the parameters of the TRAP program set this as a requirement for every county that participates. The regulations governing the award of assistance state that the services funded are required to focus primarily on those refugees who, and I quote, ``because of their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing employment continue to need services beyond the initial years of resettlement.'' 2030 Mr. Chairman, no qualifying county, regardless of the community served, can claim to be more deserving of this aid than any other county in the Nation. My amendment would maintain the existing 10 percent discretionary set-aside for counties that are heavily impacted by refugees but do not otherwise qualify for formula TRAP assistance. Apart for this, aid would have to be distributed on an equal per-refugee basis. Let me say that again. Under this amendment, aid would have to be distributed on a per-refugee basis. This amendment requires the Federal Government to pay for its refugee policy. It recognizes that all counties with significant refugee populations deserved equal assistance in helping them become self- sufficient. Failure to enact a fair formula for distribution of TRAP aid is tantamount to another unfunded mandate on State and local governments. I am going to urge my colleagues to support this, Mr. Chairman. It is a very fair and balanced amendment. I believe it will address the concerns of the entire country. Mr. Chairman, I included for the Record the following letter. The City of New York, Washington Office, Washington, DC, March 20, 1996. Re refugee assistance amendment H.R. 2202, Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995. To: Members of the New York Delegation From: Alice Tetelman, Director I am contacting you to inform you of the City's support for an amendment on the Refugee Targeted Assistance Program that will be offered by Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) during consideration of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995. The Refugee Targeted Assistance Program, which is administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services, provides grants (through states) to counties and local entities that are heavily impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high welfare dependency rates. This funding is intended to facilitate refugee self-employment and achievement of self- sufficiency. This includes training, job skills, language and acclimating to the American workplace. Under the current Targeted Assistance Program, New York City's refugee population, which is the largest in the nation, does not receive their fair share of assistance because the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have traditionally earmarked a disproportionate share of these funds for Cuban and Haitian entrants. For example, of the $50 million allocated for targeted assistance nationally in FY 1995, the state of Florida received $18 million, with a per capita rate as high as $497 in some areas. In contrast, New York State received only $4.1 million of the FY 1995 funding, with only $30 available for each refugee residing in New York. The national average is $35 per refugee among non- Florida recipients. The Dreier amendment would ensure that all qualifying counties would receive the same amount of targeted assistance per refugee. Thus, all refugees who have been in the U.S. under five years would receive the same level of assistance as others under this program. Enactment of the Dreier amendment will restore fairness and equity to a very worthy program and the City urges you to support its passage. Please do not hesitate to contact Tom Cowan (624-5909) in the City's Washington office if you or your staff should have any questions or need additional information on this amendment. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, because it is a pro-small-business amendment. If we look at our State of California, California's Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of this. Many of the people who are opposing this amendment claim that they understand the small business sector of our economy. The author of the amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], has been, throughout his entire lifetime, adult lifetime, a small-business man, up until he joined this distinguished body a decade ago. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in businesses myself before I came here, and I still am. Quite frankly, I believe if we look at the issue of employer sanctions, which my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts was just discussing, there were many of us who opposed the employer sanctions provision, believing that we should not force those employers to be responsible for what clearly is a Federal issue. They should welcome the prospect of having this process of verification, which is easier than going and expending $10 at a K-Mart store. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we should join in a bipartisan way supporting the Gallegly amendment. I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close debate as the author of the amendment?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very dear friend from Texas for yielding me this time. I would like to again extend hearty congratulations to him for a job well done. He has been working 12 hours a day on this issue for many, many months. We are all grateful to finally see this issue coming forward. Let me address the question that we have right now. Clearly the system that we have today has a very simple and basic message. It says, ``Please go buy false identification papers before you get a job.'' That is what we have that exists today. What we are proposing is clearly the least intrusive way to deal with this. Many arguments have been made that this is going to create a problem for business. Quite frankly, this will be very helpful to the business community. Why? Because they will not have any liability once they have utilized this 1-800 number to make the call and make the determination as to whether or not the verification is true and has taken place. I think that as we look at this question, it is key for us to do everything that we possibly can to step up to the plate and encourage people to determine whether or not someone is, in fact, qualified for employment. 1600 This is a pilot program and it is based on a very successful test that has been utilized in my State of California. Participating employers actually liked it. They found that it was helpful because it eases government regulation, and workers liked it because it eliminated possible discrimination and it allowed quick and very easy hiring. So this is a very, very responsible move, the committee's position. I hope that we can move ahead at least with this, and I urge opposition to the amendment that is before us.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gallegly amendment. I want to congratulate him for his hard work as chairman of the Speaker's task force on illegal immigration. Mr. Chairman, there are many arguments that have been made very eloquently by a number of my colleagues in opposition to this. One of the points that has been made consistently by those who would oppose this amendment out in California is that as we look at people who have come into this country illegally, we have a choice of having them on the streets committing crime or in the classrooms; which would we rather have? Well, of course we do not want to have people on the streets committing crime. One of the major reasons that we are dealing with this legislation is to comprehensively reform, reform our law as it relates to illegal immigration. We have amendments that I am pleased to say have passed and will go a long way toward dealing with that, but quite frankly, we need to recognize that this is not a mean-spirited amendment. This is an amendment that simply follows down the road that we have been pursuing over the past 15 months; that is, trying to allow State and local governments to have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. Clearly, the Plyler decision that was made in 1982 was a bad decision. I believe that as we look at this question, the cost that has been imposed by way of this unfunded Federal mandate on States has been overwhelming. The Urban Institute did a study for this administration. They found in looking at only seven States that the cost was over $3 billion. We obviously want to have the best educated people. I suspect there will be more than a few States who, when this amendment passes and becomes law, will make the decision that they want to continue to provide education to those who have come into this country illegally, but we should not be forcing them, through an unfunded Federal mandate, to do that. Unfortunately, that is what the Plyler decision has done. Fortunately, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], has been courageous enough to step forward and say that we need to make some kind of modification. If we look at where we are headed, we are trying to decrease the magnet which draws people illegally into this country. There are a wide range of reasons they come in. Seeking family members, I remember the President of Mexico told me at one point, was the No. 1 reason; job opportunities, obviously, another very important reason. But the tremendous flow of government services is obviously another magnet which draws people illegally into this country. We need to do what we can to encourage economic improvement, following President Kennedy's great line that a rising tide lifts all ships. We need to improve the economies of countries throughout this hemisphere, not through foreign aid but by engaging with them more through trade and other opportunities, so their economies will improve and people will not be encouraged to come across the border illegally. But if we continue to provide this magnet of more and more government service, we will be in a position where they will continue to flow. Strongly, strongly support the Gallegly amendment. I hope my colleagues will jointly, in a bipartisan way, do it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, [Mr. Solomon] chairman of the Committee on Rules.