David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 491 is a closed rule, which, as we all know, is customary under both Democrats and Republicans for a measure that has emerged from the Ways and Means Committee. But we have chosen in this rule to expand the debate time so that both Democrats and Republicans will have an opportunity to be heard. So we have expanded the debate from 60 to 90 minutes, a 50 percent increase in the amount of time, because of the gravity of this measure, because there are Members who want to be heard. We will have this hour debate on the rule itself, which clearly will get at the substance of the legislation, and then we will have an additional hour and a half, so a total of 2\1/2\ hours. Mr. Speaker, we all know what our job is here. Right now our job is jobs. Our job is jobs. We have a responsibility to put into place policies which will encourage job creation and economic growth, and that's exactly what this legislation is designed to do. Our fellow Americans across this country are hurting. Part of the area that I represent in southern California has a 14 percent unemployment rate, substantially larger than the national average. We have people in my State of California and across this Nation who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses. We, today, are dealing, very sadly, with a chronic unemployment rate. It has been sustained for a longer period of time than has been the case since the Great Depression. And it seems to me that, as we look at where we're going on this, we have to recognize what it is that gave us this positive number of a reduced unemployment rate from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. It was because, very sadly, hundreds of thousands of Americans decided to give up looking for work, and that's what allowed the unemployment rate to drop. But we know that it is not acceptable; and especially as we go into this holiday season, Mr. Speaker, to have so many Americans who are suffering is not acceptable. And that's why we are here today, to take steps to ensure that we, first and foremost, put into place job opportunities and, second, address the needs of middle-income working Americans and those who are struggling to make ends meet and don't have jobs. And that's why we have chosen to not only extend unemployment benefits--and we're doing so, I'm happy to say, with very important reforms, very important reforms that deal with things ranging from drug testing to encouraging people to qualify for their GEDs. It doesn't mandate it. It gives States an opportunity to in fact waive it if they choose, but it encourages people to move in the direction of seeking opportunities. Our goal, as we extend unemployment benefits, is to encourage reemployment of our fellow Americans who are having a difficult time trying to make ends meet. This measure also, as we know, Mr. Speaker, puts into place a policy that will allow for the extension of the so-called holiday for the payroll tax. Now, I will admit that I am a supply-side, growth-oriented guy. I came here over three decades ago with Ronald Reagan, believing very strongly that we need to put into place pro-growth economic policies. The extension of the payroll tax holiday, based on analyses from economists from both the left and the right, is that it's not necessarily a pro-growth measure. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we're headed today, during difficult times, it's important for us to realize that anyone who opposes what we are doing here today is standing in the way and preventing us from moving ahead with providing that payroll tax holiday for our fellow Americans. I know that there are a lot of people who will say--and as I look at my friend from Worcester, I recall last night in the Rules Committee when he said we've been doing everything under the sun here except for focusing on job creation and economic growth. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I think everyone knows, Democrats and Republicans alike, our fellow Americans know, there are 27 pieces of legislation that have passed the House of Representatives, which happens to be for the Republican majority. And at this moment, all 27 of those measures sit in the United States Senate, and they have not passed. And the Senate, of course, has a Democratic majority. Bipartisanship is what we want. That's what the American people want, and I'm happy to say that this measure is a bipartisan bill. One of the things that makes it a bipartisan measure, beyond extending unemployment benefits, beyond extending the payroll tax holiday, is this thrust towards creating jobs by proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that there has been some controversy around this earlier, but while we look at the imperative of expanding the payroll tax holiday and ensuring that the American people, who are struggling, have the benefits that they desperately need, we need to get at the root cause of the problem. And the root cause of the problem is that we have not put into place policies, we've not been able to pass out of both houses of Congress and get to the President's desk policies that can immediately jump-start and get our economy growing. I'm looking at my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) over here. He and I have talked on numerous occasions over the past several years about our shared goal of putting into place tax reform, reducing the top rate on job creators from 35 to 25 percent, while closing loopholes. I know my friend from Worcester regularly talks about subsidies and loopholes that exist for the oil industry and a wide range of other areas. We want to do this in the context of overall tax reform, and I hope very much that we can get to the point where, in a bipartisan way, we can do that. That's a policy that both President Obama and former President Clinton have talked about, this dealing, as Mr. Andrews and I have discussed in the past, with this tax issue. These are the kinds of policies that can enjoy bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans working together to ensure that we can get this economy growing. And I will say that this Keystone XL pipeline is one of those items, as we all know, that enjoys bipartisan support. It would immediately create jobs based on the projection of that construction. And while we look at our quest, I don't think we're going to gain total energy self- sufficiency in this global economy, but we would have greater energy self-sufficiency working very closely with one of our closest allies, our ally to the north, Canada, in ensuring that we can proceed with this. We know that the question mark over whether or not we're going to proceed with the pipeline has raised an understandable quest of the Canadians to deal with the Chinese. And so, Mr. Speaker, as we look at these challenges, this is a bipartisan measure. Let anyone stand up and start pointing the finger of blame at Republicans. But I will tell you that we have--90 percent of the items in this measure have enjoyed bipartisan support. Many of these are proposals that President Obama has made within his jobs package. So that's why we've got an opportunity to do this. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can do it. Unfortunately, we can't simply legislate full employment in the United States. Legislating full employment is not an option. I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle might like to figure that we could legislate full employment. If we could do that, we wouldn't be faced with the difficulty that we have today. What we can do is we can encourage America's innovators and entrepreneurs with pro-growth policies, and that's what we have repeatedly sent to the Senate. I hope that our colleagues in the other body will report those out. And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to support this very, very important, bipartisan legislation, get it to the other body so that our Senate colleagues can consider this, and get it to the President's desk so that the American people, who want to have a degree of confidence that they're not going to see a tax increase take place, and that they're going to, in fact, if they're struggling and don't have a job opportunity, have their benefits continue, and to ensure that we get at the root cause of the problem by putting into place opportunities for private sector jobs to be created. I urge an ``aye'' vote. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my colleague that he has performed just as I had expected, pointing the finger of blame when we're trying to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get this done. We want the doc fix. We want to ensure that people who can't make ends meet and are looking for work have access to those benefits. We want to extend the payroll tax holiday. We also feel it imperative that we get at the root cause of exactly what my friend just said, Mr. Speaker, and that is creating jobs. And everyone knows, Democrat and Republican alike, many leaders in organized labor focus on the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator and can go a long way towards doing exactly what my friend and I share in common as a goal. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new member of your class, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Lawrence, South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to ask a question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I'd be happy to yield to my dear California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, if she would want to respond to anything I'm about to say here as I was looking forward to getting to debate. First of all, my colleague from California began by saying that there was no opportunity for Democrats to have a proposal that is considered. Members of the minority, the Democrats, are entitled to a motion to recommit. That is provided in this measure, although we often were denied that when we were in the minority. Second, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) did, in fact, propose that we have a substitute made in order; but, Mr. Speaker, since last Friday, when this bill was made available, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the committee, never came forward with a substitute for us in the Rules Committee. We only received one just a few minutes ago. Then to the important point about the so-called ``poison pills'' that my California colleague mentioned, the distinguished minority leader: The idea of saying that we want to encourage those who are unemployed to move towards GED qualification does not seem to me to be a poison pill. Mr. Speaker, the idea of saying that we should have drug testing--and that's, again, optional drug testing--so that people who are receiving these unemployment benefits are not using those resources to purchase drugs is obviously not a poison pill. Then the idea of having millionaires benefit from the program, which we eliminate in this proposal, should not be a poison pill. So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another hardworking member of the freshman class, the gentleman from Bryan, Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would be happy to engage my friend if he'd like to. Let me make a couple of comments. First, I think that as we look at the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline, the notion of saying that somehow we're trying to appeal to our base when we know the most outspoken and enthusiastic supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline happen to be the labor unions, organized labor in this country. We know because they want to create jobs, and they are supportive of this so that we can create jobs. People throw around terms like ``poison pill,'' why are we using this issue. Because as we extend unemployment benefits to people who are unable to find jobs, and as we extend the payroll tax holiday, we feel that it's absolutely essential that we get at the root cause of the problem. We have protracted unemployment in this country. Very, very sadly. We know it has gone on for an extended period of time--the end of the last administration into this administration. We all know that we were promised that if we passed the stimulus bill that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Now it's at 8.6 percent. I'm gratified that it went from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. But why did it do that?

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker. Because hundreds of thousands of Americans have chosen to give up even looking for work. And so we're saying, yes, we will agree to extend unemployment benefits; yes, we will agree to extending for another year the payroll tax holiday. But let's get at the root cause of the problem. So that's why we see these as being very closely intertwined. It's true the President did say that he would reject this; but I believe if we can pass it through this House with bipartisan support, pass it through the United States Senate and get it to the President's desk, that extending unemployment benefits at this time of year especially, and that payroll tax holiday, with a measure that the President has indicated support for, dealing with the XL pipeline, that the President will, in fact, sign it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. DREIER. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Then, Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman does.

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation. There is a way to ensure that President Obama will sign this legislation. There is a way to ensure that he will sign this legislation, and that way is if we have Democrats join with Republicans in an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Now, the message that we've gotten is that they're poison pills-- ``hostage'' is the term that both the President and my colleague have just used in trying to move forward the important provisions of expanding the payroll tax so that working Americans can keep more of their own money, and the doc fix to ensure that doctors are reimbursed and that Medicare beneficiaries are able to have access to the health care that they need. And of course for those at this time of year who are struggling and need their unemployment benefits expanded, there is a way to get that done. Our goal is to get at the root cause of the problem. As I said in the opening, Mr. Speaker, right now our job is jobs. Our job is jobs. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. Tragically, tragically we are dealing with a protracted unemployment problem in this country. You know it's been going on for an extended period of time. The only reason that we saw the unemployment rate drop from 9 percent to 8.6 percent is that hundreds of thousands of Americans have given up looking for work. Now, as we listen to people say that at this time of year we need to make sure that we create jobs, we have to make sure that there are opportunities out there. My friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) was talking about the fact that there are four people looking for one job. Let's put into place the kinds of policies that will allow us to see the private sector create jobs. We cannot legislate full employment. We cannot legislate full employment, but what we can do is we can pass legislation that will lay the groundwork for America's entrepreneurs, for America's innovators to have success by creating job opportunities. There are 27 pieces of legislation that we have passed from this House that is in the Republican majority that are now sitting in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Those measures--increasing access to capital for small business men and women to create opportunities, making sure that we decrease the regulatory burden, which we all know has undermined job creation and economic growth in this country--these are the kinds of measures that are out there that we hope very much will be considered in the Senate. Now, as we look at the issue of so-called ``poison pills,'' which my California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, the distinguished minority leader, talked about--and I tried to engage in a discussion with her on the House floor. I yielded to her and she chose to walk off the floor rather than engaging in a discussion. I guess the reason is that it's sort of hard to claim that encouraging an individual to move towards GED qualification is a poison pill. Isn't it kind of hard to claim that saying that we should allow States to engage in drug testing for people who are on unemployment is a poison pill? Making sure we reimburse for overpayments to recapture those hard-earned tax dollars, how can that be a poison pill? These are commonsense proposals to deal with the fact that we have a $15 trillion national debt. And the American people know that Big Government is a problem. Just this morning I read the Gallup poll which shows that we are at near- record levels with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents being suspicious of Big Government. What we need to do is we need to unleash this potential that is out there, and this measure will do that. Now, we keep hearing that politics is being played with this. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've gotten the word today that the majority leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has chosen to prevent Members from signing the conference report for the absolutely essential spending bill that is out there, the minibus spending bill, because of this issue that's before us right now. If that isn't playing politics, I don't know what is. Right now we're faced with the threat of a government shutdown on Friday. If the Democrats don't sign that appropriations conference report--which has been negotiated in good faith again between both Democrats and Republicans with the House and the Senate--we're going to be faced with a government shutdown that Leader Reid will in fact have created by preventing Members from signing that conference report. We need to come together and do that, sign that conference report, get that work done. This measure, this measure, once again, Mr. Speaker, will get at the core problem that we face, and that is the lack of jobs that exist. The Keystone XL pipeline will create, as has been said, 20,000 to 25,000 jobs, if not more, immediately--immediately--and it will allow us to decrease our dependence on overseas oil. And it will allow us to work closely, as my friend Mr. Royce said, with our close ally to the north, Canada, rather than see them--understandably--engage in a stronger relationship with China. There are so many benefits to this, so many benefits all the way across the board that I believe that, since roughly 80 to 90 percent of the provisions in here have been proposed by President Obama--many of which were discussed in his jobs bill that 98 days ago he proposed here in his address to the Joint Session of Congress. We are bringing these items up. We keep being told, bring up the jobs bill, bring up the jobs bill. This measure does just that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with Republican colleagues so that we can do what the American people want us to do, especially at this time of year. As we go into the holiday season dealing with these issues, it would be a very important message to send around the United States of America and throughout the world. I began, as we were debating the point of order, by raising the famous quote of William Shakespeare, and I'll close with that, Mr. Speaker: ``In such business, action is eloquence.''

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to both of my friends from Florida who serve on the Rules Committee. This is a very, very important debate. It's a debate that we haven't had since January of 1995, which is the last time that the House of Representatives had a vote on the issue of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Back in 1995, when we had just won our majority, Mr. Speaker, I was one of the enthusiastic supporters, one of the two-thirds of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I felt very strongly at the time that as we looked at the fiscal challenges that we as a Nation faced that the only thing that we could do to achieve a balanced budget would be to have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would call for that. Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind. I have changed my mind, and I will be voting against the constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget. Now, this is not something that I have done lightly. My friend from Spring Hill was absolutely right when he said that looking at the tough challenge of amending the Constitution is something that needs to be addressed; but I will say that I agree with a number of the arguments that were put forward by my friend from Fort Lauderdale and with a lot of the arguments put forward by my friend from Spring Hill. At the end of the day, I concluded that we should not amend the U.S. Constitution in calling for a balanced budget. I said I've changed my mind, and I am reminded of a statement that was made by our former colleague, the mentor of our friend Jeb Hensarling, who is working tirelessly to ensure that we get our fiscal house in order with the work of the Joint Select Committee. His mentor was Phil Gramm--a Democrat, then a Republican--who served in the House and the Senate. Phil Gramm once said that ours is one job where you can never admit to having learned anything. Mr. Speaker, I believe that I've learned something, and I'd like to take just a few minutes to explain why it is that I've come to the conclusion that I have. I said at the outset that I believed when I cast that vote in January of 1995 in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that it was the only way that we would be able to achieve a balanced budget. I was wrong. Two short years later, we balanced the Federal budget. We balanced the Federal budget, and that went on for several years. It went on until 2001. My friend was talking about the fact that we had two wars. We've got to remember that it took literally billions and billions of dollars to deal with national security issues, like establishing the Department of Homeland Security and many other things that were very, very costly; but what I found, Mr. Speaker, is that we were able to balance the Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution. Now, James Madison in Federalist No. 58, I believe, gave the real description of the power that lies here in the House of Representatives. He said that the power over the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon that can empower any group of elected representatives of the people. We in this institution, Mr. Speaker, have the power of the purse. We have the power of the purse, and we proved in the late 1990s that we have the will to balance the Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution. Those were the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 58, that the power over the purse is the most complete and effectual weapon that elected representatives have. Now some people point to Thomas Jefferson who famously, in a letter to John Taylor written November 26, 1798, talked about how it was essential for us to have a single amendment to the Constitution that would call for a balanced budget. Well, I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Thomas Jefferson obviously learned something as well, because 5 short years later, in the third year of the first term of his Presidency, he embarked on the largest deficit expenditure to take place since the Revolutionary War. It was not a war expenditure. It was not any kind of emergency expenditure. It was the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. And that was a decision that Thomas Jefferson made that most of us inferred led to a change in his position from the November 1798 letter that he wrote to John Taylor. As we look at some of the other arguments--my friend from Fort Lauderdale went through the Fried, Barr, Archibald, Bork arguments on the court. I think it's important for us to look at not just that part of it, but we also need to look at the enumerated powers provision in the U.S. Constitution. I believe that not only could we create, as these brilliant jurists said, a real problem within the court structure, but what we create is a transfer of power from the first branch to the third branch of government, something that is completely contrary to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, where the power lies right here in the United States House of Representatives. Why? Because most have said that if we were to get into these protracted legal battles, this could end up in the court, and we could have, several years from now, a court deliberating over a budget that had passed, again, literally years before. So, as we look at these arguments, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to our commitment to get our fiscal house in order. I do happen to believe that our former colleague Jack Kemp was right when he said we shouldn't have to worship at the altar of a balanced budget; but we all know that with this $15 trillion figure that my friend from Spring Hill pointed to, we need to do everything we can to reduce that debt and our annual deficit. But it's important for us to focus on economic growth. And that's why I congratulate those on the Joint Select Committee who are working on that, and I believe that that's something that we need to do. But having a balanced budget does not guarantee job creation and economic growth. Yes, of course having a degree of fiscal solvency goes a long way towards generating a climate that can make that happen; but we need to have pro-growth economic policies, and fiscal restraint is only one of those tools. That's why I believe that, as we look at the challenges that lie ahead, I don't want to say to the American people that I'm going to protect you from your future leaders that you are going to elect. The American people deserve the Congress that they elect. I personally think they deserve better than some of what we have had here over the past several years. Right now we all know we've got a 9 percent approval rating. But the American people cannot have Representatives who say, We are going to say to you that you can't have the leaders that you elect do what you think is right. Maybe there is another Louisiana Purchase out there, and that decision is something that should be made by leaders. I believe in very carefully amending the Constitution. And I will say that I have always been troubled by some who argue that the level of your commitment to a public policy issue is based only on your willingness to amend the Constitution to implement it. Well, I think that's silly. I think that's ridiculous. I think that someone can be passionately committed to an issue like saying we shouldn't burn the American flag and yet be willing to say it shouldn't be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. I feel the same way about the issue of a balanced budget. I'm proud to have voted to bring about these kinds of spending cuts. I'm proud to have done everything possible to try to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. I do think that a lot of work has to be done. And my friend from Spring Hill, again, correctly pointed to the fact that both sides have responsibility for increases in spending. But I think we can come together. I think we can have the will to do this. Even if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we all know very well we're not going to balance the budget overnight with a $15 trillion debt and now multitrillion-dollar deficits. We're not going to do it overnight. But we have to get ourselves on that road, and I'm convinced that we can. And I don't think that amending the Constitution is going to do anything to help us get there. So I do support the rule, and I think the rule--by the way, I should say to my friend--is one that was used when the Equal Rights Amendment passed the House of Representatives. The argument was made that somehow having this done under suspension of the rules is not fair. There's going to be 5 hours of debate. There's going to be an opportunity to do this. I've had the opportunity to say my peace. I know that I'm in the minority in my party. I know that there's not a lot of enthusiastic support on my side. I know that there are many Democrats who are going to be supporting the amendment to this. So we are going to have a chance to discuss these as we move through today and tomorrow. I do support the rule and the work of the Rules Committee. We've worked long and hard on this. But at the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that I have. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? I don't want to get into any more trouble than I already have. So if the gentleman could withdraw his compliment, I would be very appreciative of that, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I would say to my friend who just yielded an additional 30 seconds, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by saying to the very distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, the gentleman from Dallas, that I appreciate his energy and effort on the Rules Committee. And I want to say that I think that he's very clearly made the case that we have, through this entire Congress, been focusing on the priority that the American people want us to focus on, and that is job creation and economic growth. Now, it's a very specious claim that has been made by many that somehow this institution has failed to address the issue of job creation and economic growth. And I appreciate the good words and thoughtful comments on capital formation made by the minority manager of this rule on the floor. My friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), who has taken on, and throughout his life has been focused on, the idea of the entrepreneur, taking the entrepreneurial spirit and generating jobs, he understands what it takes. Capital formation is a critical part of that. The two measures that are going to be made in order under this rule go a long way in this 21st century recognizing that for us to grow the economy and create jobs, we're going to need to ensure that decreasing the regulatory burden that undermines the ability for small businesses to have access to capital as they pursue innovative ideas is something that needs to be addressed. And that's exactly what we're going to be doing. And I say it's a specious claim, Mr. Speaker, that many people have made that this institution is not taking action. For that reason, I hope very much that with this bipartisan effort that we have here, a bipartisan effort, that we will bring to an end those kinds of statements, mischaracterizing, grossly mischaracterizing the work of the United States House of Representatives. I believe that it's been inappropriate to make those claims for a long period of time. Why? Because we have made many, many, many efforts over the past several months to put into place policies that can help create jobs. Have they all worked at this point? No. They're all obviously prospective. But if you look at what we've done in the area of encouraging domestic energy production, that's a critically important part of getting the economy going, increasing job opportunities and reducing energy costs for our fellow Americans. If we look at the notion of trying to ensure that we open up new markets around the world for union and nonunion workers here in the United States of America, we have just, in a bipartisan way, with the support of both Democrats and Republicans, passed measures that will open up markets for us in Colombia, in Panama and in South Korea. I was privileged yesterday to be with the Ambassador from Korea as we marked a celebration, a bipartisan celebration of that effort. Look at the measure that was passed, again, with huge bipartisan support, dealing with the 3 percent withholding for those contracting with Federal, State, and local governments that we are bringing that to an end. That's something that the President of the United States has asked of us. We passed it out of the House of Representatives. And I have to admit, it's a measure that should easily pass the United States Senate, and I hope that Majority Leader Reid does bring that measure up in the Senate. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened so far, but I do think it's something that should pass the Democratic-controlled Senate. It has passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support. Just this week we are continuing down that path towards putting into place a structure that will reduce the tax and regulatory burden to create jobs for our fellow Americans. I think it's also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that we need to do since we have seen an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending for the 4 years leading up to this year, it's important that we decrease the size, scope and reach of government so that those small businessmen and -women who are seeking to create job opportunities are in a climate where that can take place. That's why I say that virtually everything that we have been doing to reverse that course that we were on, with that 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, everything that we've been trying to do to pare this down, the work that's going on right now of our 12 colleagues who are part of the joint select committee charged with reducing by $1.2 trillion over the next decade the level of spending and we hope--we hope--beyond that $1.2 trillion level. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are geared to getting our economy growing so that our fellow Americans will have more job opportunities. And so the message is a clear one. The process that we have is a very good one. I'm happy to say that if you look at the number of amendments that have been considered on the House floor in the first 9 months of this year, we've had 842 amendments considered on the House floor. I'm very pleased that we've been able to have a greater degree of openness and transparency. We've made every single amendment in order. There were many more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments made in order on the two bills that are coming before us. We have seen, as I said, 842 amendments considered here on the floor in the first 9 months of this year. But, Mr. Speaker, in the entire 111th Congress, that's 2 years, two sessions of Congress, there were a grand total of 787 amendments considered on the House floor. And so I'm very pleased that we have, in a bipartisan way, been able to open up the floor so that Members, regardless of their political party, Democrats and Republicans alike, have been able to have their ideas considered. And that is exactly what is going to happen under this special rule which we are considering at this moment. So, Mr. Speaker, let me say again, job creation and economic growth is what this is about. The American people are hurting. The people of my State have an unemployment rate that is well in the double-digits. Part of the area I represent has a 15 percent-plus unemployment rate. We need to do everything that we can to get our economy moving. I would say to anyone out there, anyone out there who would try to make the claim that the United States Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, is not taking action to create jobs and get our economy growing is just plain wrong and that kind of mischaracterization has got to come to an end. I look forward, again, to bipartisan support for both this rule, which allows, again, every Democratic and Republican amendment that was submitted to us to be considered on the floor and also the very strong bipartisan support that I know that both of these measures will have as we proceed with debate.