Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act. I first joined this body nearly 10 years ago, about the time I began talking about the need for the Federal Government to bring badly needed reforms to our Nation's immigration laws. Unfortunately, for many of those years I felt like I was talking to myself. That is clearly no longer the case. Immigration reform is an issue on the minds of nearly all Americans, and nearly all express deep dissatisfaction with our current system and the strong desire for change. Today, we begin the historic debate that will deliver that change. I truly believe that the bill before us represents the most serious and comprehensive reform of our Nation's immigration law in modern times. It also closely follows the recommendations of both the Speaker's Task Force on Immigration Reform, which I chaired, and those of the Jordan Commission. Mr. Chairman, the primary responsibilities of any sovereign nation are the protection of its borders and the enforcement of its laws. For too long, in the area of immigration policy, we in the Federal Government have shirked both duties. It may have taken a while, but policymakers in Washington finally seem ready to acknowledge the devastating effects of illegal immigration on our cities and towns. Mr. Chairman, America is at its core a nation of immigrants. I firmly believe that this bill celebrates legal immigration by attacking illegal immigration. It restores some sense and reason to the laws that govern both legal and illegal immigration and ensures that those laws will be enforced. Finally, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Lamar Smith, who chairs the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, for putting his heart and soul into this legislation. I would also like to thank him for his spirit of cooperation, and for welcoming the input of myself and the other members of the task force in crafting this bill.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1341.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1341) to provide for the transfer of certain lands to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the city of Scottsdale, Arizona, and for other purposes.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1341, the proposed Saddleback Mountain-Arizona Settlement Act of 1995, ratifies a land settlement agreement between the Resolution Trust Corporation, the city of Scottsdale, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community. Seven hundred and one acres of land, currently held by the Resolution Trust Corporation, would be disposed of, pursuant to S. 1341, as follows: one 27-acre tract and one 98-acre tract would be purchased by the city of Scottsdale; and one 211-acre tract and one 365-acre tract would be purchased by the Salt River Tribe. Pending litigation between the parties would be dismissed. Each of the four tracts would be administered according to a detailed ownership, development, and use agreement. Finally, S. 1341 provides that the land purchased by the tribe will be taken into trust and become part of the Salt River Reservation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, over time, ``there would be no significant net budgetary impact'' if S. 1341 is enacted into law. The administration has testified that it ``strongly support[s] the enactment of S. 1341''. I would also like to commend Congressman J.D. Hayworth for his leadership and tenacity in moving this ahead in an expeditious manner. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I recommend a favorable vote on S. 1341. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I would like to reiterate my appreciation for the help of the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, the ranking member of the committee, and for the leadership that we had from our good friend from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2726) to make certain technical corrections in laws relating to Native Americans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2726 contains 19 sections which I will try to summarize briefly. The first 11 sections make various technical corrections to existing Indian-related statutes. Typographical errors are corrected, words are capitalized, and so forth. Section 12 modifies the service area of the Ponca Indian Tribe to include Indians living in certain counties near its reservation; Section 13 accepts the surrender of an unused tribal charter of incorporation; Section 14 extends the term of the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy; Section 15 grants authority to the Army Corps of Engineers to provide funding to the Department of the Interior for the operation and maintenance of certain in lieu fishing access sites which have been constructed; Section 16 provides authority to the Ponca Indian Tribe to utilize funds to acquire, develop, and maintain a transitional living facility for Indian adolescents; Section 17 provides authority to the Secretary of the Interior to reprogram certain funds, awarded to the Mescalero Apache Tribe, as requested by the Tribe; Section 18 provides to the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians authority to amend its base membership roll; and Section 19 amends the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide that participating tribes may elect to include, in Title III and Title IV Self-Governance compacts, any or all provisions of Title I, which deals with Public Law 93-638 contracts. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the other body has passed and sent to us legislation quite similar to H.R. 2726. The Committee on Resources marked up and reported H.R. 2726 to the floor by unanimous vote. I recommend a favorable vote on H.R. 2726. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, I would just like to again thank my good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. I think today is a real testimony on both of the bills we have brought to the floor as to how well we have worked together in a bipartisan way. In fact it appears that about the most controversial problems we have had is the way we pronounce each other's last name.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. Perhaps the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] and I should hold some seminars. Maybe this body would work a lot better. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Buyer- Skelton resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Buyer/Skelton resolution regarding the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Bosnia. I am concerned, however, that this resolution could provide a blank check for the further deployment of U.S. forces beyond the 20,000 we have been told are being sent. It should come as no surprise to you that I share the strong skepticism and opposition of many of my Colleagues with respect to the commitment of United States ground forces to Bosnia. I voted for the Dornan resolution because I felt that the most emphatic way to express my opposition to the President's decision was to deny any funding for sending our troops to Bosnia before they actually began arriving in that country. I believe the Buyer-Skelton resolution is acceptable because it does express our opposition to the President's decision while at the same time saying that the House will support the troops once they are deployed. Even the Hamilton resolution can be acceptable because it goes directly to the issue of supporting our troops whether we agreed with the President or his decision or not. I do not share our Commander in Chief's position. However, I do appreciate the dilemma he faces as a full partner in the NATO alliance and the responsibilities which come with that partnership. While I agree with the President's claim that we have an interest in the future of Bosnia, I see absolutely no vital national security interest, domestic or military, being served by sending American troops into this hostile and volatile place. Make no mistake, our troops, which will be heavily armed and expertly trained, are not going into Bosnia to keep the peace. They are going in to enforce the peace. And the act of enforcement often comes at a price. This deployment is especially dangerous because many Serbs will see our troops as being there, not as impartial arbiters, but as protectors of the Muslims. Mr. Speaker we are at the point where the deployment of U.S. ground forces is a fait accompli. Nevertheless, it is our duty to the citizens of this nation to express our views on this matter and my view is that we should not be sending our troops to Bosnia.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this bill.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I stand tonight in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of the resolution regarding the commitment of United States ground forces as a precondition to peace in Bosnia. Two weeks ago, Secretaries Perry and Christopher as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testified before the International Relations Committee as part of their effort to consult with the Congress on this difficult issue of Bosnia. Much to my surprise, all of the witnesses seemed to suggest that no peace agreement between the Serbs and the Moslems would be possible unless the United States agreed to send ground forces to the region. To me, this was nothing short of international political blackmail and suggested that the warring parties were more interested in guaranteeing that U.S. soldiers would be sent into harm's way than they were in securing a lasting peace agreement. It comes as no surprise that I share the strong skepticism and opposition of many of my colleagues in the Congress with respect to the commitment of United States ground forces to Bosnia. But to suggest that only the commitment of United States Forces to the area can guarantee a peace agreement is dubious at best. If we fail to send those forces will the Moslems and Serbs begin shooting again? While I do not share the administration's position and do support this resolution today, I do appreciate the dilemma the administration faces as a full partner in the NATO alliance and the responsibilities which come with that partnership. To me, however, there is absolutely no domestic political or military advantage to sending American troops into harm's way in Bosnia. Make no mistake, this is dangerous territory and lives could well be lost no matter what is written on the eventual peace agreement. If anyone thinks Bosnia will somehow be less dangerous if an agreement is reached they need only recall our experience in Somalia where the warlords were not nearly as organized or well armed. This resolution before us today is very simple. It says that a peace agreement between the Serbs and the Moslems should not be conditioned on whether the United States will send troops into the region or not. Peace in Bosnia must come because the two sides want to end the killing and to allow their citizens to resume a normal and risk free life. Peace should come to the region whether the forces helping to implement the agreement come from Britain, France, Germany, or the United States. I urge a yes vote on the resolution.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true legend, a man who has spent his life entertaining people around the world on radio, television, and the big screen--Eddie Dean. When I was a child growing up in southern California, Eddie Dean was one of my greatest heroes. The singing cowboy who wore the white hat and always saved the fair maiden, he represented everything that was fresh and new and good in America to a child in the 1950's. One of the five singing cowboys, a group that included the great Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, Rex Allen and Monte Hale, Eddie always represented the good side of people. There were many Saturday mornings growing up when I could be found sitting in front of a black-and-white television set watching Eddie ride and sing across the West. Well, over the years that hero became a friend and I had the privilege of spending a good deal of time with Eddie. Sometimes we'd sit and talk about his latest tour, about his golf game, about one of his old movies or just about the music, the ability to deliver a heartfelt song that has never left him. Mr. Speaker, a group of friends and fans will be presenting Eddie with some long-overdue recognition this weekend in Thousand Oaks, CA. At a time when we in America are searching for heroes and for entertainment that accentuates the positive side of life, this seems entirely appropriate. I always think of Eddie as the kind of guy who personified the heart and the worthy intentions that are inside all of us. I think it is amazing that he is still at it today--still touring--and still spreading the same positive message he has for more than 50 years. I wish him all the best today and far into the future.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995. Mr. Chairman, when the majority in the Congress first took up the challenge of a potentially bankrupt Medicare System as presented by the Board of Trustees, I wanted to ensure that any reforms we initiated achieved two goals: first, the reforms must make the trust fund solvent as far into the future as possible; and second, none of the reforms could result in any degradation of current health services now enjoyed by those covered by the Medicare System. In the days and weeks leading to today's vote on the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, literally thousands of constituents contacted me to discuss this legislation and to voice their specific questions/ concerns. As I began to research and consider the proposed reforms, their questions became my questions and I realized I could not in good faith cast my vote before I had all the answers. One of the things they wanted to know was whether the new plan would allow beneficiaries to remain in the traditional Medicare System. The answer, of course, is absolutely. Only Medicare beneficiaries who choose to participate in one of the new MedicarePlus options will change plans. Some were concerned by reports that the Republican plan was ``cutting'' Medicare benefits. Was this true? Were we cutting Medicare? The answer was absolutely not. The plan we adopted today significantly increases Medicare spending. Under the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, average spending per beneficiary in California goes from $5,821 to $8,139 over the next seven years--an increase of more than $2,300. Many of those who contacted me had been exposed to the false and inflammatory reports that the money we were saving by reforming Medicare would be used toward deficit reduction or tax cuts. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Any savings realized through our reform of Medicare must stay in Medicare. Period. A final concern many seniors expressed to me was whether the quality of the care they currently receive would decline under a reformed Medicare. Well, I can report that--at a bare minimum--seniors under this plan will be guaranteed the same benefits they have now, no matter what specific plan they choose. At the same time, many seniors will be able to select a plan that may offer something they do not currently receive, whether it be prescription drugs, eyeglasses, or better hospital care. The bottom line is that the quality of benefits in all cases will measure up to yesterday's Medicare and, in many cases, will improve. These were the kinds of things I needed to know before casting my vote today in favor of the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995. Like many of my constituents--and colleagues--I was concerned about the rhetoric and misinformation swirling around this issue prior to the vote. However, once I had the facts at my disposal I saw only one appropriate course. That course was supporting a reformed Medicare System which increases benefits, expands the options to beneficiaries, and is structured in such a way that it will survive far into the future. H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, accomplishes all of these goals while retaining the essential elements of traditional Medicare. I truly believe that we have done the right thing today in adopting these reforms. We have taken a program that was failing, a program on track to consume itself and we have given it new life. We rose above the scare tactics and sound bites aimed at preventing us from having the courage to do the right thing and we did the right thing. I am proud to have had a hand in bringing about these badly needed reforms, and I look forward to celebrating the positive impact our action today will have on current and future Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, last week, on October 10, the Chinese people on Taiwan celebrated the anniversary of the Revolution of 1911 in which the last imperial dynasty in China was overthrown and the Republic of China, under the leadership of Dr. Sun Yat-sen was born. Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is a strong world economic leader and a growing and vibrant democracy which deserves our continued support. As the President prepares to meet with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, we need to reaffirm the importance of peace and mutual understanding among all interests in the Asian region. Now that Harry Wu has been returned to his home and the Chinese ambassador has been sent back to Washington, we hopefully anticipate a more normal relationship with Beijing. However, it must be made clear by the President that our support for the freedom and democracy of Taiwan cannot be compromised and that continued attempts by Beijing to intimidate Taiwan or to undermine the political stability in Taipei, through the use of missile and artillery firings off the coast of Taiwan are unacceptable. I hope that the Chinese leadership in Beijing has realized that it cannot undermine our support for the people of Taiwan by either holding a temper tantrum against us or by bullying Taiwan with military exercises. Taiwan has been a long and steady friend to the United States. They are our sixth largest trading partner. They are a strong democracy committed to the freedoms enjoyed and promoted by the United States and other democracies throughout the world. The President must communicate to President Zemin in an unequivocal manner as possible that Beijing should not attempt to test our resolve over Taiwan and that the United States will not sacrifice Taiwan's friendship, democracy, and status in the world as a way to normalize our relations with Beijing.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, President Clinton and HUD Secretary Cisneros announced on new program to help thousands of families realize the American dream of homeownership. Calling on all national housing-related organizations to form a partnership for this national homeownership strategy, the President set a goal of creating 8 million additional American homeowners over the next 5 years. The accomplishment of this goal will have dramatic effects on those young families setting out on the quest for the American dream, will stimulate the real estate and home building industries, and will strengthen the economy through the ripple effect on the secondary and tertiary industries which rely on homebuilding and resale. One of the industries which can play a major role in the achievement of the President's goal is the manufactured housing industry. Last year, more than 300,000 homes sold in the United States were manufactured homes. As younger families come into the market for a home, and as the population in this Nation ages, and shifts to retirement communities, manufactured housing will become the preferred housing for thousands of citizens looking for quality housing at an affordable price. The ability of the manufactured housing industry to continue to provide quality, affordable housing will depend most directly on the industries ability to loosen the regulatory stranglehold currently imposed by the Department of HUD. Over the last 20 years, the manufactured housing industry has evolved from one providing a temporary, mobile dwelling to a sophisticated, highly efficient producer of permanent housing. Unfortunately, the regulatory apparatus ensconced within HUD has not kept up with the changing industry on a timely basis. It is time for a change. As the Congress contemplates the overall future of HUD, certain small steps could be taken now to reinvent the oversight of Federal housing programs. Since the manufactured housing industry received no Federal funds, the issue is how to recreate a regulatory body which would regulate and enforce manufactured housing codes and regulations while maintaining some oversight by HUD or whatever new housing agency would be created. Three years ago, the Congress created a Commission which was tasked to look into the industry and make recommendations. The Commission did propose that a new consensus committee or office be created which would oversee the industry in a more efficient, less bureaucratic manner. I believe it is time to create such an entity. A new manufactured housing committee or office created outside of HUD, would be comprised mostly of representatives of the industry, but could include local authorities and a consumer watchdog. The Secretary or Housing Administrator, could appoint one committee member to serve as his liaison who would shuttle regulatory recommendations back and forth between the Housing Administrator and the industry. Current Federal uniform building codes and its enforcement program would be maintained but the committee would be empowered to contract with a private organization to be its code enforcement authority and it would continue the current practice of imposing fees on the industry membership in order to fund the committee's operation and its outside contracts. Finally, any legislation creating such a new system should remove unnecessary restrictions, such as the permanent chassis requirement, which would help lower the cost of producing these homes. In fact, recent action taken by the California State Assembly called on the Congress to take just such action on the chassis issue. I am enclosing a copy of the joint resolution passed by the State legislature. Assembly Joint Resolution No. 7--Relative to Manufactured Housing legislative counsel's digest AJR 7, Hauser. Manufactured housing. This measure would memorialize the President and the Congress of the United States to amend the definition of ``manufactured home'' in federal law to allow these homes to be designed to accommodate a removable chassis, so long as the home is intended to be permanently sited on a foundation and so long as the floor system is designed to accommodate appropriate design loads. Whereas, Manufactured homes constructed pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act provided an important source of nonsubsidized affordable housing to Californians; and Whereas, The State of California is a national leader in efforts to encourage and expand the use of manufactured housing by eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers and by developing and encouraging innovative land use and financing policies; and Whereas, The State of California has deemed manufactured homes a permitted use in all residential zoning districts, subject to the same development standards applicable to other dwellings in that zoning district; and Whereas, Construction and safety standards for manufactured homes are established in federal law and regulation and all such standards preempt local and state codes; and Whereas, The federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards have been determined by the State of California to meet or exceed performance standards established for other dwellings; and Whereas, Federal law requires every federally certified manufactured home to be constructed on a chassis which must remain a permanent feature of the home's substructure; and Whereas, The chassis is not necessary for the home's structural integrity if the home is sited on a permanent foundation and the home's floor system is designed to accommodate appropriate design loads; and Whereas, This mandatory feature represents an unnecessary regulatory barrier to greater design flexibility for manufactured homes; and Whereas, This regulatory barrier prevents innovative uses of manufactured homes to meet the demand for affordable housing in California; and Whereas, This regulatory barrier prevents manufactured home producers from developing a recycling program for chassis systems which could save consumers between $1,000 and $2,000 per home; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the President and the Congress of the United States to amend the definition of ``manufactured home'' in federal law to allow such homes to be designed to accommodate a removable chassis, so long as the home is intended to be permanently sited on a foundation and so long as the floor system is designed to accommodate appropriate design loads; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to each member of the House Committee on Banking, Housing, and Financial Services, the Senate Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs, and the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees on HUD/VA and independent agencies. Mr. Speaker, if we as a Nation are going to succeed in this new strategy to help thousands a Americans realize their dream of homeownership, the manufactured housing industry must play an important role in providing quality homes at an affordable price. To start this process, the industry must be removed from the regulatory burdens placed on its operation by a Federal bureaucracy which cares little for the industry and shows no interest in an efficient system of regulation and enforcement.