David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to join with my colleague from Santa Barbara in saying that we are absolutely committed to doing every that we possibly can to ensure that there is no case of discrimination when it comes to the issue of equal pay for equal work. Obviously we want to do everything possible to make sure that someone like Ms. Ledbetter, who I believe was wronged, does not face this kind of difficulty in the future. That is exactly what Ms. Ledbetter said she wants to have happen. The problem is this bill has been so poorly put together it creates the potential to actually impinge on the ability of people to bring cases forward. While my friend from Worcester talked about the issue of the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and the lack of an increase in cases, if you look at the mere fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that 60 percent of their cases do not warrant even moving forward, and that is why this creates the potential for even more of these horrible cases, based on the arguments that have been brought forward. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), my hardworking colleague on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I am really confused with the argument that has just been propounded because the gentleman says every time there is a concern, we bring up the issue of frivolous lawsuits, and the gentleman has just talked about one of the worst cases of a frivolous lawsuit, the $57 million case that was brought against a small business owner. That is a problem.

Mr. DREIER. I have just one more speaker, and actually with that, then I'll just plan to wrap up.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by saying that, obviously, we feel very strongly about the issue of discrimination, and we feel that cases like this need to be addressed in the future. I am going to be exchanging, engaging in a colloquy with my friend from Albuquerque. I was just talking with her about the rule and the underlying legislation. She said to me, as we get ready to talk about our quest to address the previous question issue, that she wanted to offer some thoughts. And so I would like to at this moment yield such time as she may consume to my colleague from Albuquerque for some remarks.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining on his side.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. The reason I am pursuing this, Mr. Speaker, is that we feel very strongly about the need to take action. And the gentlewoman, in her statement, has just talked about the imperative for us to act. Now, we for months, because there has been no legislation forward, we have been working on this notion of saying that on virtually every rule that we bring to the floor, we are seeking to defeat the previous question so that we can finally take some action to ensure that we are going to be able to intercept conversations not taking place in the United States of America but among foreigners in foreign countries who want to kill us. Am I correct in assuming that?

Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would further yield, Mr. Speaker, I know that the goal that Mr. Sessions has just put forward here is the one that managers in the minority in the past have, and that is we are urging all of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will be able to take the very thoughtful piece of legislation that the gentlewoman from New Mexico has introduced and make that in order. After delaying for months and months and months, after these warnings that have come not only from Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, but from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, who has talked about the fact that the chatter level is unusually high, and we all know that he said that rather famously in an interview before the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, so we have continued to receive these warnings; yet because of the fact that this Congress has failed to act on our need to update that nearly 30-year-old law when we have seen such dramatic changes take place in technology over the past three decades, we have been forced to this position where we have to continually try to urge our colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can make this legislation in order.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I would like to ask her, if, in fact, Mr. McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has used words like we are ``blind'' and ``deaf'' when it comes to our need to try to interdict these communications, and, in fact, we are in a position today where, tragically, because of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the fact that it is so antiquated, we are allowing information to slip through and not be, in fact, monitored. Am I correct in concluding that?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the previous question. Let me just say that as I listened to my friend from California talk about the fact that he looks forward, at the end of this debate when he is successful, to telling his constituents in California that the impossible has been achieved, I have to say that he may or may not be right at that point. But I will tell you something that has been achieved with this, Mr. Speaker, and that is an end to bipartisanship when it has come to dealing with this issue of our farm policy. And to me, that's a very, very sad statement when you look at people who've been very committed to this bill, like Bob Goodlatte, the former chairman of the committee, now the ranking member who's going to be speaking in just a few minutes, and you look at so many others who because of the way this issue has been mishandled and because, in fact, there is in excess of a $10 billion tax increase. Now, my friend in his opening remarks said, don't be fooled, don't let them claim that this is a tax increase. Well, I know that we are dealing with so-called tax loopholes. That's the way it's described. But the fact of the matter is, if you look at those, Mr. Speaker, who are impacted by this, great tax ``cheats'' out there like Toyota, Daimler Chrysler, Honda, the Bayer Corporation that makes the baby aspirin that's provided, these are people who are ensuring that our consumers have access to great products, and they obviously are complying with the law. And now we somehow are demonizing all of these people, calling it closing tax loopholes when, in fact, what we're doing is we're putting into place a dramatic tax increase, not just to deal with the farm issue, Mr. Speaker, but to deal with a wide range of programs that are not related to farmers whatsoever. In fact, one person gave me a figure that only 11 cents of every dollar is actually being expended to help our farmers. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that in the 109th Congress, Mr. Lewis and I joined together to offer an amendment to the Violence Against Women Act which actually authorized a level of $950 million for the reimbursement to the States for the incarceration of illegal immigrant felons. At that time, Madam Speaker, 414 Members of this House voted in support of that bill. Just yesterday, 338 Members voted in favor of the amendment that we offered which had an increase to a level of $460 million total for the issue of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. It is literally a drop in the bucket. Even with this new level, State and local governments will, Madam Speaker, only receive 10 cents on the dollar that they expend for the incarceration of people who are in this country illegally and commit crimes. I believe that it is absolutely essential, if we're going to allow State and local governments to work on the very, very important crime problem that they have, that we should step up to the plate and take on the responsibility that only the Federal Government can address, and that is the security of our Nation's borders. Madam Speaker, any Member who votes against this motion to recommit is, in fact, voting to not provide reimbursement to State and local governments for this onerous responsibility which we have thrust upon them by virtue of the fact that we are not securing our Nation's borders. Vote to support the motion to recommit that Mr. Lewis is offering here so that we will have a chance to provide that very, very important support for State and local governments and the security for the constituents who we represent.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Pasco for yielding to me. And I thank him for his management of this rule, as well as my new friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri). I have to say that I'm glad that there is bipartisan concern voiced about security, and I appreciate the remarks that my friend from New York has just made, Mr. Speaker, about the issue of ensuring that we provide security for our children and for anyone who possibly could face the challenge of being a victim of crime in this country. The fact of the matter is I am very, very supportive of the notion that Mr. Hastings is putting forward here that we need to do everything that we can to prevent those who want to, en masse, kill us, as Americans, from being able to do that. Now, it was 1978, Mr. Speaker, during the Cold War, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put into place. It was designed to deal with what today is very, very antiquated technology. I mean, I remember when we had this debate before about the notion of being able to follow one single telephone line that is out there. Well, when all we had were hard lines and one telephone line, courts would get a warrant to follow that one phone line because that's the only way people could communicate. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the world, when it comes to telecommunications, certainly is a heck of a lot different than it was 30 years ago, 29 years ago, 1978. And what is it that we're saying? Mr. Hastings is saying that, in recognition of the statements that were made most recently by the Secretary of Homeland Security Mr. Chertoff, that there is a higher level of chatter, and we need to do what we can to monitor it; coupled with statements made by the Director of National Intelligence, Director McConnell, who's made it very, very clear that we are today blind and deaf when it comes to the ability to monitor not people here in the United States, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about people who are foreigners and who are trying to do us in. And so Mr. Hastings is simply saying that what we need to do is defeat the previous question so that we can make in order a chance for us to deal with the issue of modernization of that three-decade-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which today hamstrings us when it comes to the need for us to try and prevent terrorists from killing Americans. It's just that simple. And that kind of modification, that kind of modernization, that kind of reform is absolutely essential if we're going to have the tools necessary to successfully prosecute the war on terror. And so I believe that every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, who's concerned about our need to ensure that people who are overseas and want to do us in, and that we cannot monitor, we should be able to do just that. And I think most thinking Americans believe that having the capability to monitor those in Iran, in Syria and in other countries who would want to do us in, that they should, in fact, be monitored, and we should get that information. Now, this bill itself does, as my friend from Pasco has said, have a number of good things in it. It has some very, very important items that will help us deal with the challenge of crime that exists in this country, and obviously it provides very important funding for a high priority that I have, and that is NASA funding. The jet propulsion laboratory in La Canada Flint Ridge, California, is a very important facility which has made great strides with its Mars program and a wide range of other programs that they're involved in. Mr. Speaker, this program also has funding for something that I believe is essential for us to realize, and it's on an issue that this place has debated time and time again, and it's one that we're still struggling over, and that is the issue of border security and the problem of illegal immigration. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be offering an amendment when this bill proceeds which will allow us to actually increase the funding for what is known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. Now, one of the things we found, we put this program into place in the mid-1990s, and we found that State and local governments are, in fact, shouldering the responsibility, the financial burden, of the incarceration of people who are in this country illegally and commit crimes. In my county alone of Los Angeles, the cost is $150 million a year, according to my friend who's the sheriff of Los Angeles County. He's said that to me repeatedly; $150 million a year to incarcerate people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes against our citizenry. It's not the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles or the State of California to shoulder that financial burden. The protection of international borders lies with the Federal Government, Washington, D.C., and that's why we have the SCAAP program. We need to secure our borders. We need to take the responsibility for securing our borders. And because we have not done that yet, and I still am optimistic about our chance to do that, we need to make sure that we reimburse the States and counties and cities that are, in fact, responsible for the financial burden today of incarceration of those people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes against us. And so I will be offering that amendment. We'll be transferring monies, Mr. Speaker, out of the administrative expenses of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice, and I hope that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support. I will say I'm very proud that our California delegation has, in years past, come together, Republicans and Democrats, working together to increase the level of funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Last year I was proud to have offered an amendment that had a $50 million increase for the SCAAP funding level that brought it to the $405 million level where it is today, and we had Democrats and Republicans joining in support of the amendment that I offered. I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that once again this year we'll have Democrats and Republicans who will join in support of the amendment that I will be offering that will have that increase in the funding level for SCAAP, so that we will be able to say to State and local governments that you are not going to be totally responsible for shouldering that burden. So I thank my friend for yielding. I want to join, again, in urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can make this very important amendment in order for FISA reform. And I hope that when we do get to consideration of the bill itself, that we'll have strong bipartisan support for the very important amendment that I'm going to be offering to increase funding for SCAAP.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would like to first express my appreciation first to Chairman Mollohan and to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and to the members of the Appropriations Committee for increasing the level of funding within the committee. My colleague Mr. Carter, who is a coauthor of this amendment and was involved in this, in the work of the Appropriations Committee, I have to finally say we brought the level of the committee funding to exactly $405 million, which is where we actually had it last year. I would say I was very pleased in working with then-chairman Jerry Lewis and other members of the Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress to add an additional $50 million to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We got to that $405 million level. This year we are at the same level thanks to the work of Messrs. Mollohan, Frelinghuysen, Carter, and others who have been involved in this. This was an issue that actually came to the forefront in 1994 when a number of us felt very strongly about the fact that cities, counties and States are not responsible for protecting international borders. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It saddens me greatly that here we are, 13 years later, still struggling with the issue of securing our borders. Ms. Zoe Lofgren, the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, has spent a great deal of time reaching out to me and others working on our effort to try to deal with this issue of border security and bringing an end to illegal immigration. I will say that we haven't gotten there yet, as we found from the actions or lack of actions so far in the other body, and, frankly, in this House as well, on the issue. What we do know is it is still the responsibility of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. That is why we should not, as a Federal Government, be imposing on cities, townships, counties or States the responsibility for incarcerating those who have come into this country illegally and have committed crimes against our fellow Americans. I happen to live in Los Angeles County, and our county alone, the cost for incarcerating people who are in this country illegally and have committed crimes is in excess of $150 million a year. The level of funding in this program is $405 million right now. If we are successful, which I suspect we will be, with passage of this amendment, we will add $55 million taken from accounts which I know concern the distinguished ranking member and I suspect the chairman as well, deal with the $5 million from the construction fund for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the administrative funds in both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, we feel very strongly that as we look at the challenge of securing our borders, of ending illegal immigration, and of creating, creating a degree of equity when we look at the costs inflicted on local and State taxpayers, we need to pass this amendment. We know that as we look at the challenges ahead, the costs are going to continue to be very, very high, as I said, with my county alone at $150 million. And the total program will end up, assuming passage of this amendment, to be $460 million for the entire country. We still have a ways to go. I was very pleased, Mr. Chairman, in the 109th Congress, as I said, to have offered this amendment. I was hoping in the 109th Congress to have built the kind of bipartisan support that we enjoy for this amendment. I was saddened that we weren't able to do that, but we were nevertheless able to succeed in passing that and at the end of the day actually have that funding level increased. But as the problem continues, it is essential that we step up to the plate and take on our responsibility for dealing with this issue. So once again, Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to all involved. The lead author of this amendment, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, has worked, as I said, on the immigration issue for a long period of time, and I believe that she is going a long way towards addressing this question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield time to my friend from Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee who has worked very, very hard on this, Judge Carter.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas and, again, congratulate him on the hard work that he has put in this effort. His judicial experience is such that he understands this problem as well as any Member of this body. And I will join again of my California colleagues, Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Zoe Lofgren, that I do believe that recognition now that we can do this in a bipartisan way is a very, very, very important achievement for this institution.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, I will again state my great appreciation to the distinguished chairman from West Virginia and the gentleman from New Jersey. And the gentleman from New Jersey has just bragged on the States of Texas and California, and I will reciprocate by bragging on both New Jersey and West Virginia and saying that they're both great and very important States. And I suspect that in West Virginia and New Jersey, the challenge of trying to deal with the cost of the incarceration of people who are in this country illegally and have committed crimes is a very serious and important one, and I recognize the sensitivity. I personally am not a huge proponent, as I said earlier in response to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee's comments on the Legal Services Corporation when he was testifying before our Rules Committee. And as I look at the numbers for both of these accounts, and I know that my friend from New Jersey, when the chairman and the ranking member were testifying before the Rules Committee, argued for a slightly, he said that he believed that the level overall could be slightly lower. And I looked at the level of funding, and the gentleman is absolutely right. I am a huge proponent of trade, breaking down barriers, and I want to do everything that I possibly can to expand export opportunities for the United States around the world. But as I look at the level of funding, Mr. Chairman, for both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce actually has a 7 percent increase over the President's request, 6 percent of the level of funding last year. That's $468 million more than has been requested by the President, and that's in the case of the Commerce Department. In the case of the Department of Justice, it's $1.7 billion more than the President has requested. Now, in both of these areas we know that the President is absolutely committed to dealing with the crime problem, which is a very serious one, and obviously with the issue of expanding trade opportunities. And the overall level of funding in both of these areas is significantly higher than what was expended last year and what the President's request level is. And I think that as we look at establishing priorities, it, from my perspective, is relatively, relatively, and I'll say that a third time, relatively easy. And I know how tough it is for the two gentlemen who manage this area to find that State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding is, in fact, a very high priority for both Democrats and Republicans, as I said, for people in both West Virginia and New Jersey, as well as California and Texas and, frankly, all across the country. And so I would hope that as we move ahead with this process, that we'll see support in this House for this amendment. And I know that as the two gentlemen head to working with our colleagues in the other body and ultimately with the administration, I hope that we will be able to keep this issue on the forefront as a very important priority.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely laughable to listen to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, after having berated us for the longest period of time, use us as a model for the procedure around which we are considering this legislation. This is a bill, not a resolution, which is what we brought up in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman, a former member of the Rules Committee, from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).