David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee how many speakers are remaining on the other side.

Mr. DREIER. I would encourage the gentleman to sit down so he can listen to my eloquence, and then I will look forward to hearing his. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the Civil War, that great philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which think nothing worth a war is worse.'' No one likes this war that we are in. As I said earlier, the President stood here just weeks ago, and in his State of the Union message he said, I wish very much that this war were over and that we had won. That is the goal. The goal is victory. We need to make sure that our men and women in uniform, many of whom are paying the ultimate price every single day, as we look at the tragic loss of life, we need to make sure that they have everything necessary so that we can, as my constituent Ed Blecksmith, a father of a man who was killed 2 years ago last November in the battle of Fallujah, said, so that we can complete our mission. Mr. Speaker, I believe very fervently that you cannot support our troops without supporting their mission. This resolution that is before us unfortunately undermines the ability of our troops to complete their mission. We have had some very thoughtful proposals that have come forward. We just had Mr. Wolf stand here and talk about the opportunity that was denied him to have a vote on the very important bipartisan work of that Iraq Study Group. Much of what the Iraq Study Group has done has been already implemented by this administration, but there is more that needs to be done. Mr. Wolf was tragically denied an opportunity to even have a vote on whether or not we should support that bipartisan effort of the Iraq Study Group. We also had testimony last night, Mr. Speaker, from a man who just yesterday marked the 34th anniversary from being freed after 7 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, our colleague from Dallas, Texas, Mr. Johnson. He was denied a chance to have a substitute that would simply say that we are not going to cut off funding for our troops. Now, there are many who have argued, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution that we are going to consider in the next few days is simply a first step. It is a first step towards ultimately cutting off funding, and, Mr. Speaker, I think that would be wrong, and that is why I am urging defeat of the previous question. When we do that, we will be making in order, when we defeat the previous question, an opportunity for us to say that we will not cut off funding for our men and women in uniform. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against the previous question; and if by chance we fail on that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying resolution which does, in fact, undermine the goal of completing our mission and bringing our men and women home. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. 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. DREIER. Or you are prepared to close now?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor of yielding 5 minutes to my very distinguished colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DREIER. Here I am.

Mr. DREIER. I would like to close the debate on our side just before you close the debate on your side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules. And I appreciate having the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying resolution. This rule lays out a bad process, and the underlying legislation lays out bad policy. This rule silences any meaningful debate on the floor by denying both Republicans and Democrats the right to offer any amendments or any substitute whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership has attempted to mask this denial of real debate by providing us with 36 hours of floor time. But this nearly unprecedented amount of time is really little more than a joke; 36 hours of debate, without any opportunity whatsoever to voice dissent with a substitute, amounts to nothing more than 36 hours of talk. The American people want and deserve a real and meaningful debate, not empty gestures that show utter disregard for an honest and open discussion on this issue. Why can't we have a discussion that explores real options and real solutions? The reason is very clear, Mr. Speaker. Our Democratic colleagues have none. It was bad enough when we addressed issues like stem cell research and minimum wage without any transparency or openness whatsoever. We have dealt with several important issues in a complete vacuum. But now, our Democratic colleagues are running roughshod over our national security, what is clearly the number one priority that we as a Federal Government, as federally elected officials, address. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the war on terror and policy in Iraq is very clearly the single most important issue that will be addressed by the 110th Congress. It clearly ranked very high on the list of issues voters cared about most in last November's election. The American people are concerned about this war, and they want to know that their elected officials are developing a sound and effective policy. So what have the Democrats offered us? What is the substance of their proposal in a nonbinding resolution that denies the troops the numbers that they need to succeed? In other words, their proposal is, in fact, meaningless as legislation, and it is disastrous as a policy. Mr. Speaker, it is an admission of defeat. And it is a vote of no confidence in our troops. Like it or not, it is a vote of no confidence in our troops. Why? Because it does not provide our troops what they need to succeed. Mr. Speaker, we are all opposed to the status quo in Iraq. And the President stood right here when he delivered his State of the Union message and made it very clear. He wants this war to be over, and he wants it to be won. We all know about the tremendous challenges that our men and women are facing over in Iraq. We all know that. We hear it regularly from our constituents, the families, and we hear it directly from the men and women who are serving. We all feel very deeply about the enormity of the sacrifice that so many have made in service to their country. And we know that they look to their Commander in Chief for a strategy for victory. The President has put forth his strategy, Mr. Speaker. With the advice and close consultation of our generals in the field, he has called for a surge in troop levels in order to give our Armed Forces the support that they need. Why, again is he doing this? So that he can give our men and women in uniform, our troops, the support that they need so that they can succeed. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is our role as a Congress to thoroughly vet the President's proposal to ensure that we develop an effective policy for moving forward. With this resolution, the Democrats have ignored our constitutional role. They have not held a single hearing on this resolution. They have called not one expert witness to testify for the record on the merits of this resolution. All that they offer is a knee- jerk reaction against anything that the President says. Again, anything that the President says is wrong in the eyes of so many of our colleagues. Obviously, we, Mr. Speaker, cannot be a rubber stamp for the executive branch, the second branch of government. But neither can we afford, neither can we forfeit our duty as a deliberative body to fully explore the plan that has been put forward and to craft sound public policy as it relates to this. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any deliberation, the Democrats have concocted a resolution that simply does, as I say, concede defeat. To the American people, it admits the Democratic leadership is devoid of ideas. And to the troops, it admits that they have no faith in their mission, no faith in the troops' mission whatsoever, because they need this sound strategy that has been put into effect so that we can, in fact, attain victory and they can be successful. What is worse, it tries to shroud their lack of faith in our military with platitudes about supporting our troops. You can't claim support for our troops without supporting their mission, Mr. Speaker. Again, you cannot claim to support our troops without supporting their mission. It is an outrage that they would deny our men and women in harm's way the traditional and additional support that they need to succeed. Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I had an opportunity to talk with one of my constituents, a former marine called Ed Blecksmith. Very tragically, 2 years ago this past November, his son, J.P. was killed in one of the most famous battles in the war in Iraq, the battle of Fallujah. Mr. Blecksmith implored me to support a policy of victory. He said that his son's death will have been in vain if we do not complete our mission. He made that very clear to me. Again, we got into this battle to win, and victory is, in fact, the only option. That is from the father of a man who was tragically killed in Iraq. And I know that we are going to hear a wide range of views over the next 36 hours that have come forward from different families. And, of course, our hearts go out to them. But I will say that this proud former marine does not want his son to have died in vain, and he is insistent that we do all that we can to ensure that we complete this mission. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq, like all wars, has been very long, very difficult and very painful. It has come at a very high price, and we all know that it has taken its toll on the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, we go to war to win. We go to war with a mission, and we dishonor the lives of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, if we, in fact, abandon that mission. Mr. Speaker, this resolution offers no hope to the troops, and it offers no hope to the people of this country who want to see the conflict in Iraq resolved so that our troops can come home to their families. Mr. Speaker, they deserve better. We have a duty to offer them something better. We have a duty to pursue nothing less than victory. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this resolution, and, instead, work together to fulfill our constitutional responsibility as effective legislators. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to a hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to our colleague the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions). (Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. One remaining speaker, then your close?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, who is the progenitor of the Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

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

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to our very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, my friend from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise to express my appreciation to my friend from Hartland, Vermont, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I congratulate Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph Hall on their efforts; and I applaud my colleague, the Rules Committee Chair, Ms. Slaughter. I extend my congratulations to my colleague, Ms. Slaughter, for granting such a fair and judicious rule. I am very proud to stand here extending that congratulations to my friend and colleague. Mr. Speaker, in his January 24, 2007, State of the Union address, President Bush called for the increased use of renewable and alternative motor fuels. As the 110th Congress begins, alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles have already received a good deal of attention, especially in discussions over U.S. energy security. The rising cost of oil, the country's dependence on foreign oil, the debate over global warming, and the concern with air emissions have led to a heightened interest in developing clean and alternative energy sources and facilitating their use by the American consumer. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Congress is in the forefront of this research and our effort to look for alternative energy sources. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 547 is a good bill that authorizes $10 million for the Environmental Protection Agency to launch a research and development program aimed at making alternative fuels more compatible with the Nation's existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure. It also directs the EPA to develop portable, inexpensive, and accurate methods for fuel suppliers to test the sulfur content of diesel fuels. While biofuels such as ethanol are regarded as clean- burning alternatives to fossil fuels, it is clear that they can corrode or compromise pipes and storage tanks designed for petroleum products. Now, unfortunately, retailers themselves often bear the cost of solving this problem and revitalizing the old infrastructure. This bill tasks the EPA with testing additive and other technologies to ease such problems. With new findings we will be able to mobilize the infrastructure necessary to distribute and dispense alternative fuels. With so much emphasis being placed on the development of these alternative fuels, it is only fitting that we develop the infrastructure that is necessary for us to handle those new alternative sources of energy. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to point out that in the 109th Congress legislation that is virtually identical to this, H.R. 547, was introduced to help facilitate the marketing of alternative fuels to consumers. In fact, the provisions of H.R. 547 are, as I said, virtually identical to section 15 of H.R. 6203, which was introduced last year. Now, H.R. 6203, the Alternative Research and Energy Research and Development Act, was sponsored by our colleague from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that that legislation which is virtually identical to this was passed under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. It was passed unanimously. Democrats and Republicans in the last Congress came together on the 29th of September, clearly a time where there was a lot of division, and yet we came together on this very important piece of legislation designed to help us find ways in which we can deal with the infrastructure challenges of putting new alternative sources of energy into the hands of consumers in this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I applaud this open rule. I commend Chairwoman Slaughter for her first attempt at beginning to open up this legislative process to all Members. Frankly, I was wondering exactly when it would happen. However, I feel it is necessary to point out, as I have said before, that this almost exact same bill did pass under what is know as suspension of the rules. I know that that is an inside baseball, an inside baseball issue here, Mr. Speaker. Suspension of the rules means that there is little or no controversy to an issue. It is required to have a two-thirds supermajority vote with 20 minutes of debate on each side. So that is the way this legislation passed the last time. I mean, I think it is very safe to say that consideration of this measure, H.R. 547, could have been very appropriately provided for under suspension of the rules, or even as was requested by the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Mr. Hall. In his discussion with Chairman Gordon, the discussion was, why do we not bring this under unanimous consent? I made the same proposal yesterday in the Rules Committee. I understand that the new majority does in fact want to have an opportunity to point out that we are going to be considering an issue under an open rule. I commend them for that. I am just saying that it is very, very easy to bring a noncontroversial issue that will likely have unanimous support at the end of the day under an open rule. Now, while I think that the research and development of clean alternative energy sources is highly critical to our Nation, I hope that in the future, in the future that we can save productive, yet noncontroversial, bills for consideration under the provision known as suspension of the rules, or under unanimous consent agreements which we easily could have propounded. I hope that we can grant open rules. I hope that we can grant open rules to pieces of legislation that are very crucial and frankly where there is disagreement, where we can see what James Madison envisioned as that clash of ideas, because that is really when the open amendment process is very, very worthwhile and we can engage in extensive and vigorous debate. I know we are going to have amendments that are going to be considered on the floor today. I suspect that most of them will be passed, and I suspect that there will be bipartisan passage of those amendments. And so when I am talking about the future and open rules, I hope that when we do deal with that Madisonian clash of ideas, we are able to do it under an open amendment process. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Rules Committee there were seven amendments that were offered by Members, which did require protection, point-of-order protection, which, as we all know, is something that the Rules Committee can do. One amendment would have doubled the tax credit for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease. Now this is an issue that came forward by Dr. Mike Burgess from Texas, and I know my colleague on the Rules Committee from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, is going to be talking about this amendment. This is a very, very creative way which will help us address this issue of alternative sources, and it is being done privately. And the notion of providing a tax incentive to deal with the utilization of restaurant grease for biodiesel is, as I said, a very, very interesting and innovative concept, and we could have allowed it to be considered during the debate here on the floor. But to my disappointment, these amendments were not made in order. As I said, the Rules Committee does have the power to do this. And I would say that as we look at this new-found openness and opportunity for debate, I hope very much that when we have creative amendments like this that could be considered, the Rules Committee would do what the Rules Committee often has done in the past, and can do, and that is waive points of order so that a creative idea like this can come forward. Mr. Speaker, I am overjoyed to be here in strong support of this open rule. And as I said, I look forward to many, many more open rules as we deal with controversial questions that the American people want us to address in the future. The Democrats pledged regular order and a transparent and fair legislative process, and I am very glad, I am very happy and very grateful to see it beginning at this point. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate my colleague Mr. Cardoza on his very thoughtful statement and want to say that I am very pleased that he and my other California colleague, Ms. Eshoo, are looking forward, through this open amendment process, to offering their proposal. He stated very correctly that neither of them serve as members of the Science Committee, but by virtue of having an open amendment process, they will have an opportunity to participate. So I join him in stating that I hope very much that as we look at issues where we see great controversy in the future that we will be able to have Members participate in a way that Members will be able participate today on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am just going to close the debate on this spectacular open rule myself; so I reserve the balance of my time at this juncture.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my new friend from Hartland is prepared to close debate, I will do the same on our side. I do so to simply say that I do rise in strong support of this open amendment process. I congratulate Mr. Gordon, I congratulate Mr. Hall, and the other Democrats and Republicans who have come together to do what we did in the last Congress, to pass this very important legislation which is designed to allow us to focus on the infrastructure challenges that we as a Nation will have to deal with as we pursue ethanol, biodiesel, all of the multifarious forms that are alternative ways of our dealing with the energy needs of this country. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the Los Angeles Basin, part of it, along with other great colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle. We have very serious environmental challenges there; air quality problems are very great, and doing what we can to encourage these alternative sources has been a priority for my Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and for Republicans and Democrats alike. One of the things that we like to argue is that Republicans and Democrats and Independents, everyone likes to breathe clean air. Everyone wants to have an opportunity to deal with the challenges that are out there, whether it is global warming or just the overall concern about environmental quality. It is very, very important for us to do that. I believe that this is legislation that is going to pass, probably unanimously. I can't imagine anyone voting against it. I know that there are some thoughtful amendments that will come forward on this. But I do want to also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a new day. It a new day because we have seen a change, a change from what we have seen in the first several weeks of this Congress. Now, I know that a number of people talked about the fact that we have had a vigorous discussion and debate over the issues that my friend from Massachusetts mentioned, the issues of college loans, stem cell research, the minimum wage increase. But we know that those are issues that enjoy broad bipartisan support among the American people. I was proud to have supported the stem cell research legislation, identical to what I voted for in the last Congress. There would have been no reason for me to oppose it. But, frankly, I will say that as I looked at the other issues that were included in that 6 for '06 package, Mr. Speaker, I opposed them because they didn't allow for the kind of opportunity to improve the legislation that we are going to see today. Now, again, it is hardly necessary, because this could have been done under suspension of the rules; and my challenge to my very distinguished colleagues is, as Mr. Hall said so eloquently, we don't need to simply have an open rule for the sake of an open rule on an issue that everyone agrees over. There is complete agreement on this issue. What we need to have is an open and vigorous debate when we have disagreement and, again, a clash of ideas, as James Madison envisaged it when he talked about the establishment of this great institution. So, Mr. Speaker, I praise my colleagues for putting together this effort. I congratulate once again my colleague from New York, Ms. Slaughter, the distinguished new Chair, the first woman to chair the Rules Committee. I congratulate Mr. McGovern, who so ably is carrying on his responsibility in the new majority on the Rules Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we pursue our goals of making sure that we do the best thing for the American people, and that is to come together to address the very crucial public policy questions that confront us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.