David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this issue is one that many have said is the most controversial of the six crime measures that we are scheduled to consider and I have a difficult time understanding why this is the most controversial of the measures that have been considered, and I say that for several reasons. We have had this ongoing discussion here about the issue of local control, and the role that people will play at the local level in making determinations as to how the resources through this block grant program will be expended. It seems to me that everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, needs to recognize that at the local level people who are on the front line dealing with issues of crime are much better equipped than we are here in Washington, DC, to deal with that. Last year we had an extraordinarily vigorous debate on the President's crime bill which came forward. We all know that there was at the very end a compromise that was struck and some Republicans supported it, and during that time last fall as we were proceeding with this and the President stood regularly with cadres of police officers behind him at press conferences, I received calls from local elected officials in the Los Angeles area urging me to support the President's crime bill. The main reason they did was that there was a guarantee as far as they were concerned that they would get 100,000 police officers on the street, who would dramatically turn the corner on the very serious crime problems that we face in our communities. One of those city officials happened to be the city manager of the city of Monrovia which is in the San Gabriel Valley part of the area I am pleased to represent. He is a registered Democrat. He and I engaged in a very spirited discussion on the issue of the crime bill and he told me that the only responsible thing that I could do was support that crime bill last year. Well, I did not for a number of reasons, I think the most important of which was that we all concluded that we would not get 100,000 police officers on the street. I got a letter that came just a couple of days ago, the end of last week from Rod Gould who is city manager of Monrovia, again a registered Democrat and one who wanted me to support that crime bill last year, and we had debated it. I will include this entire letter in the Record. But I would like to share one paragraph from this letter Mr. Speaker. It says, ``You and I have had several talks about the merits/demerits of the 1994 crime bill.'' He finally came to the conclusion we were right and he said, ``You correctly pointed out that this $30 billion bill would not put nearly 100,000 police officers on the streets of America.'' He said, ``The City of Monrovia strongly supports the idea of combining the major portions of the bill into block grants for cities to allocate as they see fit to officers, equipment, training, jails or social services. This approach has worked well for years in the area of community development, and it would be welcomed by municipalities across the country.'' Mr. Speaker, I include that entire letter at this point in the Record. The letter referred to is as follows: City of Monrovia, Office of the City Manager, Monrovia, CA, February 6, 1995. Hon. David Dreier, Covina, CA. Dear Congressman Dreier: I have been meaning to write and add my congratulations to you on your remarkable rise in authority and responsibility since last November. I have had the pleasure of tracking your progress in the papers and on CSPAN. You are to be commended for your tireless effort to streamline Congressional operations. Your leadership of the House debate on unfunded mandates made us all cheer. You have given your district in the San Gabriel Valley a powerful voice on the hill, and all Americans benefit from your undaunting attempts to reduce fraud and waste in government. The Monrovia City Council is firmly on record as opposing further federal and state unfunded mandates. We are currently grappling with the open-ended stormwater requirements under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Any assistance you could give us in ratcheting this regulation back a few notches would be most appreciated by all cities. You and I have had several talks about the merits/demerits of the 1994 Crime Bill. You correctly pointed out that this $30 billion bill would not put nearly 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. The City of Monrovia strongly supports the idea of combining the major portions of the bill into block grants for cities to allocate as they see fit to officers, equipment, training, jails, or social services. This approach has worked well for years in the area of community development, and it would be welcome by municipalities across the country. Thanks again for your ongoing concern and interest in local matters as you shape national policy and the federal governing structure. Sincerely, Rod Gould, City Manager. That is the reason that I find it difficult to believe that this is the most controversial crime measure of the six that we are considering, because across this country we are finding a strong level of support from local officials.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. is recognized for 10 minutes. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include therein extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. I would like to make some closing remarks myself.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend whether he has any remaining speakers?

Mr. DREIER. I think my friend knows it is a new day and I suspect the local elected officials will not be doing that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply like to rise and congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for underscoring the fact that public-policy questions that in the past have only been dealt with by waiving the rules of the House can in fact be addressed by looking head-on at creative ways to comply with the standing rules of the House and actually solve those problems. That is exactly what we were able to do, and that is exactly what this rule does once again, so we can in fact meet the needs of the American people, the issues that the American people want us to address, and we can do it under the rules that the Founders put in place for this institution. Again I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is 36 days ago the 104th Congress convened, and on opening day we passed nine major reforms. We turned around the way this place does business by eliminating committees and making this place more accountable and deliberative in many ways. We passed the Congressional Accountability Act. In the last 4 weeks we have passed legislation that makes it much tougher to impose unfunded mandates on States, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, line item veto authority for the President, which is what he has asked for, and we are now in the midst of working on a wide range of legislation which has been discussed for years that will finally focus a little more attention on the victim than the perpetrator. It seems to me that, if we look at what is talking place over the past few weeks, we clearly have been able to proceed effectively in a bipartisan way, gaining support from Democrats for these Republican initiatives in the Contract With America, and I would simply like to extend congratulations to those who have worked so hard to make it happen.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to rise not only wearing my hat as a member of the Committee on Rules, but also as chairman of the task force to which my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], referred. The issue of unfunded mandates is one we addressed earlier. Quite frankly, I would say to my friend, with whom I am working very closely on this issue, along with our Governor, along with a wide range of Republicans and Democrats in this House, I have to say that this problem was created under the watch of the majority, the former majority, which had a pattern of saying to State and local governments that they have the responsibility of financially shouldering what is clearly, clearly a Federal issue and should be a Federal responsibility. Speaker Gingrich, in appointing this task force when he asked me to chair this, said obviously the issue of illegal immigration is going to be one of the priority items we are going to address. I would say to my friend, as we begin the second month of the 104th Congress, we have, in fact, Mr. Speaker, proceeded with dealing with this issue in a very responsible way. We are dealing with it in a responsible way, because we reported out of the Committee on Rules by a unanimous vote last night a rule which does not waive the Budget Act. One of the things that has been very frustrating for many has been this pattern of waiving the Budget Act, and it seems to me that as we look at our attempt to deal with this, there are going to be amendments offered which will address that responsibility in which States like California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Illinois, those priority States that are shouldering the responsibility which should be Federal are facing, and it seems to me that as we look at this question, we are doing it in a fair way under the standing rules of the House. Now, my friend, the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], said that if we would have had a rule like this when they were in the majority we would have called this a gag rule, we would have called it a rule that was restrictive, a closed rule. I would challenge my very dear friend to find a time when a rule came down allowing for the 5-minute rule, whereby Members were able to stand up, offer amendments that were printed in the Record and amendments that were not printed in the Record, where we would call it a gag rule, restrictive rule, a closed rule. I have not done the research on it, but I cannot imagine that gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], or the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], or the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], or any of our Members would have called a rule that allowed for the 5-minute rule would have been considered restrictive or closed or gag. What we are trying to do here is we are trying to work in a bipartisan way. While I was here in the chair last night when this rule was reported out, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has told me it was handled unanimously upstairs, and what that means is that we worked in a bipartisan way, or the committee worked in a bipartisan to come to some kind of consensus and as well as possible to comply with the standing rules of the House. So it is a new day. There is a new Committee on Rules. We are going to be able to address the issue of reimbursement on the incarceration of illegals. We are going to be able to address a wide range of provisions as we move ahead with this very responsible bill, and I hope very much that we will be able to pass this rule, proceed with this legislation which has been discussed for years and years and years, and we are finally moving ahead with what the American people want and what I am happy to say a new majority of this institution would like.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would like to rise in strong support of the McCollum-Gallegly amendment and state that the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] is chairman of a new task force that was put together by the Speaker, charged with looking at this issue of illegal immigration. As he says, this is not the sole solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Quite frankly, we believe very sincerely that if we take this step, it is one of several which will turn the corner on the problem of illegal immigration so that as we look at the end of this decade, we will, we hope, in a large way have actually brought about a solution to the problem of illegal immigration so this funding, which is going to be provided through this amendment, which is going to be provided through this amendment, will not be necessary in the out years. Now, as we look at this challenge, there are some who might conclude that this is simply a border State issue. We have got people form California and Texas and Florida and others that are impacted. But quite frankly, the issue of illegal immigration is a nationwide problem, and it is a nationwide problem that must be addressed by the Federal Government. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] said, the coauthor of the amendment, this is an issue of the Federal Government not policing its borders. The magnet which has drawn people across those lines into California, into Texas, into Arizona, and into Illinois, and to New York and other States is a problem which has been created by the Government services which we have had as the magnet and our inability to provide this kind of policing on the border. Governor Wilson has worked diligently on this, but he has joined with other Governors from throughout the country who recognize the need to have the Federal Government tackle this. That is why all we are doing here is not providing relief, necessarily, to States. We are simply meeting our obligation. Our obligation is very clear and forthright, and I hope very much that the McCollum-Gallegly amendment will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan level of support, which can once again state that we are going what we should do.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will my friend from the Central Valley yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to say that it is very appropriate having here the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Rules, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Because as we look at the issue of dealing with this problem, we are doing it under the standing rules of the House. We are not establishing a new entitlement program as was just said in a colloquy between the author of the amendment and the chairman of the Committee on Rules. What we are doing now is we are coming together with funds that are appropriated and we are simply saying that it is a priority responsibility of the Federal Government regardless of what State you come from to meet that Federal obligation. I know we have a wide range of support that has come from the Speaker of the House and others to deal with this in a responsible way. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for realizing that we can, in fact, deal with serious issues like this without imposing waivers of the budget act and other provisions. I believe that the McCollum-Gallegly amendment will go a long way toward addressing----

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend from Sacramento that he is right on target when he refers to the fact that the contract was put into place so that we could allow, through the standing rules of the House, to work our will on legislation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, that is what we said on September 27 when we stood on the West Front of the Capitol and made that argument, so I appreciate the gentleman's support of the goals of the Contract With America.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield one more time, I would like to underscore again something that the Speaker of the House has said. That is, that as we look in a comprehensive way, and it was just reiterated by my friend the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray] a few minutes ago, as we look in a comprehensive way in the out years to deal with this issue of illegal immigration, I am convinced that this responsibility will not be nearly as great for those States which are shouldering it at this point because we plan to have tough laws, toughening up the border patrol to ensure that we do not have that magnet through unfunded mandates drawing people illegally across the border from other countries into this country. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution. I would very simply say that I am very pleased that there is a lot more focus on elephants today than has been the case in the past.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. That is true, too.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely not because it is a completely different structure.

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

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under the open amendment process we did not announce here on the floor for Members to come upstairs, the reason being that we planned to have a completely open process. Two amendments were filed with the Record here, so there were amendments the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] offered, and we, in fact, have wanted to have free and fair debate and an open process. We are not simply trying to run up the number of open rules we have, which tragically was the case in the 103d Congress, and so the Suspension Calendar actually does restrict Members from having the opportunity to participate----

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I would like to congratulate him on his management of the rule. It is really quite easy to manage an open rule. It has always been somewhat of a challenge to take on what is known as a restrictive rule. My friend from Woodland Hills raised some very valid questions about the exclusionary rule, and I think that as we look at this legislation, it is going to be considered under a process that will allow amendments to be offered and debated. We will be able to discuss it openly here, as was the case in the Committee on the Judiciary and as were the case when we heard testimony from the chairman and the ranking minority member of that committee. So basically the institution will be able to work its will on this legislation. Some will vote for it, some will vote against it, and I hope very much we will be able to see the House overwhelmingly pass this open rule and move ahead with this critically important legislation.