David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the previous question. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, then I will yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very, very sad debate. It has been a sad debate because of the lack of deliberation and the lack of the consideration. The issue is, at best, controversial. I listened to the remarks of my very good friend, who, as I just told her, spends more time representing me now that we have this 5-day workweek than I do myself as a Californian because we spend so much time in the District of Columbia. Her remarks go right to the point of concern that we have raised about this process and why we are where we are at this juncture. As I look at the other Delegates, and we have just heard from the Resident Commissioner, we obviously have the utmost respect for them, their service, and the great representation that they provide. And, over and above that, the issue that everyone has mentioned since the focal point of the State of the Union address delivered here by the President last night is that, as we prosecute this global war on terror, it is essential that we respect and revere every single life that has been lost in that struggle. And we know that there are many people who have come from the District of Columbia and from the other territories who have paid the ultimate price, and we are in debt to them for that. But, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is very troubling to me is that we are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, Mr. McGovern, when we were considering this rule upstairs, did make a good- faith effort in trying to offer a proposed compromise to this rule, and unfortunately he was denied the chance to do that. As we look at the issue before us, many of us are troubled about the constitutionality of this, and our friends have basically just on the other side of the aisle discussed the court decision on this issue, Mr. Speaker, by saying what was stated by the circuit court. They used the word ``meaningless'' to describe this vote, and it was true, as I said, legerdemain, legislative sleight of hand, that they were able to at this juncture move through those two courts as they did with this measure. But, Mr. Speaker, my plea to my very good friends and colleagues in the majority is simply let us go through the process of deliberation. Let us go through committee hearings. Let us hear from those very thoughtful scholars who so often testified before the Rules Committee in the past on a wide range of issues that we considered, and then after we go through that deliberative process, this process of democracy which we all hold near and dear, then I believe we could have a proposal that we could bring to the floor, if possible, to consider this measure. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am very, very, very disappointed at the way this whole issue has been handled, and frankly, as my friend from Marietta said earlier, all of the closed rules that we have had on these measures that were brought before us, we were told that when we got beyond the Six for 2006, that things were going to be much different. A professor at my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College, wrote in the Orange County Register yesterday that that is like saying, I will respect you in the morning. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a continuation of a clamp-down of deliberative democracy, and what we are faced with here at this moment, offer of a substitute aside, has denied the deliberation that this very important issue deserves. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and if by chance the rule does pass, I urge strong opposition to the underlying resolution. 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. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the gentleman's party is in charge now, and the process of beginning that move is really in your court. It is one that we will be very, very interested to engage in and look at and consider. I think that it would be an absolutely fascinating debate.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a very hardworking Member from Pittsburgh (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the time and for his effort in getting us to the point where we are. But, Mr. Speaker, I do rise in very, very strong opposition to not only this rule, but the underlying legislation, H. Res. 78, as well, which, as the gentleman has said very clearly, will authorize the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote on legislation that is on the House floor. I must confess that I am broadly disappointed in how we have arrived here. I am disappointed that we are here again debating a proposal which is, I truly believe, at its heart, unconstitutional. While I have the utmost respect for my colleagues from the territories, and from the District of Columbia, if they want to vote in this body, Mr. Speaker, they should begin the statehood process, plain and simple. They should pursue that with great vigor and enthusiasm. And those who are the strongest supporters of it now have a majority in this House, which, I believe, should allow them to proceed with that effort if they so choose. Now, Mr. Speaker, reasonable people can disagree as to the merits of this proposal. We are going to hear an awful lot this morning. However, I am also disappointed that we find ourselves in a situation where my colleagues at the Rules Committee have, once again, rolled back the transparency that I was very proud to work so diligently on behalf of when I had the privilege to serve as chairman of the committee. First, it was the ability to enforce the rules regarding putting record votes in committee reports. Thrown out the window. Next, rather than following the example that I was privileged to set in the 109th Congress of conducting actual hearings and markups of rule changes, we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, without the benefit of hearings with outside witnesses, without a committee report explaining the committee's thinking, without any opportunity for the minority to have its views published as part of the legislative history. And I understand full well, Mr. Speaker, this, for the average American, is seen as inside baseball stuff. But deliberative democracy is something that is very near and dear to the founding of this country, the very basis on which our Nation was founded. And last night we had a great speech from the President of the United States that was delivered here in which he talked about our goal of working together. But more than that, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed about how my colleagues are approaching the most basic tasks of the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is the all-important committee of the House, the traffic cop through which every major piece of legislation must go before it is considered here on the House floor. With the exception of privileged resolutions and items that we consider under suspension of the rules, what we really do here, and the appropriations process, we have tremendous responsibility. I argue that the Rules Committee is the single most important committee that exists in this institution because of the very, very unique role that we play. I am so disappointed in how I have seen the basic handling of this committee. Any of you who have had the honor to serve as Chairs of committees know the challenges of crafting an agenda, of building support and moving that support forward. But as chairmen, we have a basic responsibility to maintain those very basic workings of the committee to ensure that Members have the documents that they need to discuss and debate matters that are before them. Now, I don't want to belabor this, Mr. Speaker, by going through the particulars of yesterday's meeting, but I have to say it is very, very disappointing. Let me just say that my colleagues failed, the majority failed, at the most basic responsibilities, which disappoints me even more. The last time this body considered, Mr. Speaker, the issue of Delegate voting, it was as part of an opening day rules package. The rule was changed, despite bipartisan opposition. That rule change led the then minority leader, our friend Mr. Michel, to file a lawsuit against the House to stop Delegates from voting on the House floor. Well, the courts upheld the rule. They did so only because of the parliamentary sleight of hand which makes the right conferred on our colleagues illusory, illusory at the very best. Mr. Speaker, 14 years later, this body is made up of 299 Members, 299 Members who were not here, never had a chance to vote on this issue before. And as I said, even back then there has never been a hearing, never been a process for us to hear from the scholars who clearly, clearly would spend a great deal of time and energy considering whether or not we should proceed with allowing the people who are not Representatives from States to have a chance to vote on the House floor. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very bad rule. It is a bad, bad, bad process. And what we witnessed last night in the Rules Committee was one of, if not the greatest, disservice to this institution that I have ever seen, it clearly is up there as one of the most pathetic and sad and disappointing things that I have ever seen. As I said before, if my colleagues want the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to enjoy the benefits conferred upon Representatives of the several States, they should encourage efforts to achieve statehood. There is nothing, nothing, Mr. Speaker, to be served by moving this unconstitutional rule any further in the process. And to the point that was offered by my friend from Massachusetts on this notion of a substitute provided, I was taught very early on when I came to this institution more than a quarter of a century ago that you do not amend a bad bill. There is nothing that can be done in the amendment process that could make this constitutional. And this notion that we have gone the entire route, the United States Supreme Court has not considered this, Mr. Speaker. I believe that what we are going to do here today, if it in fact succeeds, what we are going to do is we are going to embark on another legal struggle just as we did 14 years ago. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. And if the rule does prevail, I urge them to vote against the underlying resolution, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. I completely understand.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman goes through this litany of arguments, I would ask my friend if we ever, ever denied the wishes of a Member who asked that an amendment be withdrawn and gone ahead and made that amendment in order.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, has just read the appellate court decision on this issue and has spent a great deal of time and effort, and I yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking Member of Congress, our friend from Georgia, Dr. Price. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Resolution 78, which will allow the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote on the House floor. My colleagues who support this measure will talk about how the vote granted under this change in the House rules is merely symbolic and the votes cast don't count. But, Madam Speaker, that analysis says that the value of a vote is worth little more than its ability to be used in a press release or a letter to a constituent. I value my vote. I consider it to be an extraordinary honor to serve here, and I believe that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners should and would desire to value their votes as well. Those who advocate granting the right in the Committee of the Whole have apparently forgotten the full name of that committee. Madam Speaker, we are in the House right now, but when we are in the Committee of the Whole, it is called the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. I underscore the word ``Union.'' We need to remember that. The Union is made up of the several States, and only Representatives from those States may vote here on the House floor. That is what the U.S. Constitution says. Yes, the Committee of the Whole finds its roots in the British Parliament, but the modern House of Representatives and the 17th century British Parliament used the Committee of the Whole for two vastly different purposes. We use the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the purpose of allowing the House of Representatives to expedite the amendment process and to allow for a more free-flowing debate. We do not, and I underscore this, Madam Speaker, we do not use it to say that we are no longer the House of Representatives, and therefore allow us to close deliberations to emissaries of the Queen. That is not what going into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is about. Madam Speaker, my colleagues from the territories and the District of Columbia feel disenfranchised, and I understand why. They enjoy many of the benefits granted to the citizens of the several States. However, with the exception of the District of Columbia, their representatives are different. For instance, some pay income taxes differently; some not at all. Some are subject to the recently increased minimum wage; others are not subjected to the recently increased minimum wage. This change in the House rules is an end run around the United States Constitution. The court said so when it upheld the rule. Because the Constitution limits who can wield legislative power, in order to pass muster the rule had to make it appear that Delegates and Resident Commissioners had none. It is the ultimate in illusions, Madam Speaker. When your vote counts, it doesn't count; and when it doesn't count, it counts. I will say that again. When your vote counts, it doesn't count; and when it doesn't count, it counts. That is really what we are doing here. But we all know that Member voting behavior is far more subtle than my colleagues have led on. A recent academic study of voting patterns in the 103rd Congress showed that while the Delegate voting rule was in place, there was a drastic increase in the number of votes retaken in the House. While there were only three automatic revotes pursuant to the Delegate voting rule, there were a total of 75 votes taken in the Committee of the Whole that were retaken in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, on those revotes, the study shows there was an average of 31 switches per vote, and that out of the 435 Members, 403 switched their vote at least once, and that there was an average of 3.9 switches per Member. While the Democrats will argue that the Delegate voting rule had no effect on the switching, there is no doubt that the rule change drastically increased the number of revotes here in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, if we want to grant the Delegates the right to vote, we have, I clearly believe, two options: Either they need to start the path towards statehood, or we need to change the United States Constitution. I know full well, Madam Speaker, that both of them are long, difficult paths, but they are clearly preferable to this parlor trick of a rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows I have the highest regard for him. I was simply quoting an academic study underscoring the fact that we very much need to have a greater opportunity for deliberation on this issue, rather than moving without any hearings whatsoever. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, during this afternoon's colloquy between the Republican Whip and the Democratic Leader, I was in a bipartisan meeting of the leadership of the California delegation. However, I understand that the distinguished Majority Leader indicated that I had objected to consideration of the member pension bill today. While I am flattered that my colleagues believe that I still wield that level of influence now that I am the Ranking Republican of the Rules Committee, I simply want to clarify that at no time did the Republicans object, but simply pointed out to the new majority that a meeting to consider a rule would need to be an ``emergency'' meeting under the committee rules.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I obviously join my colleagues, rising in strong opposition to this closed rule, which did not allow for any kind of deliberation whatsoever. I have to begin by saying that I am somewhat troubled at the fact that we continue to see this pattern of name calling from the other side of the aisle. We recognize that we have begun a new Congress. I am very proud, as a Californian, that we have the first Californian and the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am very proud of that fact and I think it is a great thing. I am proud that our State has been able to do that. And she is the first Italian American Speaker of the House of Representative, and she always likes to state that, and I congratulate her for that. I believe we need to, as members of the minority, give the benefit of the doubt to this new majority. It has been 12 years since they have been in the majority, and I think we should provide an opportunity for people to understand their new roles in this institution. But I have to say that while we have continued to have name calling--and the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee has just said that for the last 12 years the Rules Committee was dishonest. I don't know exactly what that means. I am very proud of the record that we have had the last 12 years in the majority in the Rules Committee, and I am proud of the fact that we have been able to put together strong policies to encourage economic growth in this country, we have been able to ensure that we have not had an attack on our soil since September 11. These kinds of policies have come from committees in the Congress, through the Rules Committee to the floor, and I am proud of that fact. So I don't know exactly what it means to simply say the Rules Committee has been dishonest for the last 12 years. We all know that there has been a lot of name calling that has come from the other side of the aisle. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are at a point right now where it is important for us to recognize that it is not about what we did, it is about what the new majority promised they were going to do. Now, the distinguished Republican leader stood here and talked about the fact that we have, over the past several days, gone through this process right now; it has been under a closed rule. Yes, Speaker Pelosi announced there would be no opportunity for debate and discussion through the regular order process. So that was an announcement that was made. As the Republican leader said, the Chair of the Rules Committee announced before the process even began that we were going to have closed rules on both the education bill and on this energy bill. I have to say that it is a troubling indication because it is 180 degrees from what was promised by the new majority when they were in the midst of their campaign. I have to also say, Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts get up and congratulate our friend from Miami for having supported a couple of the items. I am proud that I have supported a number of these items. I think something important to note is that at least half of the items in the Six for `06 were voted on and passed by the Republican Congress. Stem cell research, in a bipartisan way, passed. It would not have come to the floor had the Republican leadership not seen fit to bring it to the floor. On the issue of the minimum wage, we brought to the House floor, Mr. Speaker, the issue of increasing the minimum wage. We simply said that we should recognize that those who create jobs might want to have the wherewithal to pay those people the minimum wage. And so we had a vote on that. Earmark reform. We are very proud of the fact that last fall we passed very broad-sweeping earmark reform that enjoyed bipartisan support here. So what we are doing in many ways on this Six for `06, Mr. Speaker, is simply voting again on initiatives that passed in a Republican Congress. I also have to say that we passed lots of energy legislation in the past, and we have been able to see a reduction in oil costs. Oil prices are dropping right now. We continue to see that, and that is because of the fact that we want to encourage alternative sources and attaining domestic energy self-sufficiency. Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important for us to take a moment to look at this issue of fairness and balance and recognize that we do want to work in a bipartisan way, but the issue of this name calling I think should come to an end, and let's try to look to the future rather than the past. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and the underlying legislation, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I am a firm believer that Congress should do everything possible to address the Nation's energy needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil while still protecting the environment and maintaining reasonable energy prices. I believe, however, that this bill falls short of fulfilling this responsibility. Not only that, the Democrats have shut out any hope of fixing the bill's problems by reporting a closed rule for H.R. 6. The basis of this bill is very simple--it raises taxes on domestic oil producers and then turns around and spends that money to subsidize ethanol, solar energy, and windmills. In the process, Democrats also want to tell the market how to work. Common sense would tell us that if you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you are ensuring that U.S. imports of foreign oil will rise and domestic production will fall. These are basic market principles. Consumers want affordable gas prices, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately this bill does nothing to lower them. Raising taxes on firms in the oil and gas industries does nothing to lower the price of a barrel of oil. We all know that numerous factors affect gas prices--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and OPEC members in the Middle East, for example. These are complex domestic and international market factors that are hard if not impossible to control. The Democrats are apparently oblivious to this reality. We also understand that this bill would raise $5 to $6 billion in revenue by removing the tax breaks provided to the oil companies in the 2005 energy bill. But in fact, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was an increase in taxes to the oil and gas industry by some $300 million. So how will removing this provision help raise revenues? Furthermore, as Members of Congress, we want to enable companies to take every step forward in the exploration of domestic sources of oil and natural gas. It is counterintuitive to take away incentives for companies to participate in this exploration. The Democrats talk about keeping America competitive, yet this legislation would impact a domestic company's eligibility to remain competitive with foreign manufacturers by repealing a 2004 tax provision that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32 percent from 35 percent. Why would we deliberately put American producers at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors? Included in this piece of legislation, which, I will remind my colleagues, did not receive any committee consideration in the 110th Congress, are provisions for a trust fund for alternative fuels. The Democrats say this trust fund money, created by funneling the revenue from abolishing crucial tax incentives and the tightening of royalty regulations, will accelerate the use of clean energy resources and alternative fuels and promote the research and development of renewable energy technologies. This trust fund is an idea that's been heralded by Members on both sides of the aisle. And the objectives that I just mentioned are surely noble ones. However, this bill creates a trust fund and then ends there. There is no mention in the bill as to how this new revenue is to be spent, just suggestions. In this respect, this is a bill with good intentions but no teeth. Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing that more time and money deserves to be spent on the development of alternative energy. It should. In fact, studies have shown that between 2004 and 2006, investment in alternative energy doubled to $63 billion. And the market is responding. Venture capital funding of green-energy technologies has quadrupled since 1998. Members of Congress have submitted numerous amendments to H.R. 6 mirroring these efforts. The Rules Committee received almost 20 amendments with thoughtful suggestions as to how to direct trust fund money, and other productive approaches to solving our energy needs. Not one amendment, Mr. Speaker, was made in order. In fact, even before the Rules Committee had heard testimony from any of the amendment sponsors, Chairwoman Slaughter announced that she would be granting a closed rule. The Democrats had already made up their minds and closed their ears before they even heard the first amendment. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 was referred to four committees. In another instance in denying the due process and minority rights that Democrats promised the American people, those committees never once met on the bill at hand. Members on both sides of the aisle never had the chance to draft, review or amend the bill. The Democrats campaigned on honesty and openness, and heralded a new era in minority rights, but again have failed to live up to their promises. Again, they completely ignored regular order and pushed this bill to the front of the line, and the deficiencies in the bill are evident because of it. Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have missed yet another opportunity today to craft comprehensive legislation that would address issues that are important to the energy debate. During the 109th Congress, we worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on legislation that increased refinery capacity. This legislation received strong bipartisan support, and yet is noticeably absent from this legislation we have before us today. This bill is just like Proposition 87--the 2006 ballot initiative that would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to subsidize ``green technology'' alternatives. Thankfully those in my home state were smart enough to defeat Proposition 87, knowing full well it would have damaged California's home oil and gas industry, increased foreign oil consumption, and raised the energy bills of the state's residents. Mr. Speaker, this bill raises taxes and raises prices at the pump. And all the American people are getting in return is a promise that we'll actually do something down the road. The new majority is well on its way to fulfilling another empty promise and at the expense of the American consumer. Let's vote down this rule, and force the majority to take this bill through committee where we can have a real energy bill with real solutions.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding, and I appreciate his fine management of this rule. I rise in opposition to the rule, and I do so as we all share a very strong and passionate commitment to doing everything we possibly can to increase access and affordability for young people in this country who want to have an opportunity to gain the best education possible. As I listened to my friend from Sacramento respond to Mr. Sessions, she was talking about the fact that tax cuts for the rich had in fact played a role in creating this huge deficit that we have today and that we need to focus on education rather than giving tax cuts to the rich; that we have this sea of red ink. Mr. Speaker, I just can't comprehend what it is that is being argued by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Today, we have seen a reduction of $71 billion in the Federal deficit over what it was a year ago. The deficit is on a downward slope. Why is that? It is the fact we put into place growth-oriented tax cuts. Now, a few years ago, the American people were decrying the fact if we graduated students, there wouldn't be jobs out there, there wouldn't be an opportunity for students once they graduated. And guess what has happened? Since we have put into place these tax cuts, we not only have reduced the deficit, we have created 7.2 million new jobs, many of which are being filled by young people who are graduating. Now, we all recognize that it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we can, everything within our power, to make sure that young men and women have an opportunity to get into the best college possible and are able to afford their education. The tragedy is, as I listened to my colleague from Ohio, the new member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton, she very, very eloquently argued on behalf of what we all aspire to, and that is making sure that we can be competitive, making sure that we have the best students possible, and that they graduate to the best jobs. This bill, unfortunately, is very flawed. We had this campaign promise that was made; that we were going to cut all student loan interest rates in half so that we wouldn't see this huge burden imposed on the young people in our country. Well, unfortunately, this bill now is just making a very, very modest, minuscule step towards that goal of ensuring we bring about this massive reduction in interest rates. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I think is very important for us to point out is that there will not be a single student who will have an opportunity to go to college because of this bill, and there will not be a single student who will see their tuition reduced because of this bill. And I believe that what we need to do is, we need to recognize that there is much work that needs to be done. We want to make sure that we lower those costs and do everything that we can to put into place greater transparency and disclosure. This rule, unfortunately, denied us the opportunity to propose a very thoughtful amendment that was bipartisan. I know the Democrats would have joined in this if there had been an opportunity, because Democrats and Republicans both were denied an opportunity to participate in this process that would have allowed for disclosure of tuitions, and it would have incentivized institutions in this country to do everything possible to try and work to get those tuition rates down. We need to make sure we have the best students possible. We need to make sure we have the best education possible. We need to focus on that. The real problem in this country is on K-through-12 education. That is where we need to focus our attention so that we can make sure we have people trained at an early point in life, so that they can then be poised to get into higher education. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very flawed bill itself. The rule is an absolute outrage, the fact it denies any Democrat or Republican an opportunity to participate, and I urge opposition to it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the remarks of the gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) when she inferred that the vote on the motion to recommit was not a substantive or amendatory vote. This is simply not the case. The motion to recommit has been held as the opposition's, traditionally the Minority's, last opportunity to perfect the bill prior to its adoption. The motion to recommit was often denied the Republicans when they were in the Minority prior to 1995. When the Republicans took the majority in the 104th Congress we had promised to protect the Minority's right to offer the motion to recommit and we kept our promise by instituting a rules change which prohibited the Rules Committee from denying that motion. And to simply make the point more clear that a motion to recommit is a substantive amendatory vote, I would like to refer the gentlelady to page H210 of the Congressional Record dated January 9, 2007. There she will find a series of parliamentary inquiries directed to the Chair by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling. In one of the inquiries the gentleman from Texas specifically asks the Chair, Does the special order provide for the consideration of any amendments? To which the Speaker replied, ``By way of the motion to recommit.'' So, unless the gentlelady would like to overturn the ruling of the Chair, clearly the motion to recommit is amendatory and therefore highly substantive.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly about the issue that my good friend from Burbank, Mr. Schiff, did, and that is the issue of minimum wage. I am well aware of the fact that 80 percent of the American people believe we should increase the minimum wage, and I am for everyone's wage being increased. I want those who are struggling to get on the first rung of the economic ladder to have every opportunity possible. That is why I think it is very important that as we prepare to embark on this debate on the minimum wage, that we focus on the most important item that we face and that was raised by Mr. Schiff, that being the issue of our being the richest economy in the world. Mr. Speaker, that is not by accident. It is because of policies that we have put into place that are doing everything we can to ensure economic growth. So that is why as we look at this issue of making sure that people who are dealing with economic challenges, we need to make sure that job creation is priority number one. And that is why focusing on reducing the tax and regulatory burden on those who are creating jobs should be priority number one.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Under what authority are we considering this resolution, Madam Speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. Did the order of the House which is allowing for consideration of this resolution specify a specific resolution by number in that order?

Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Are there other resolutions that have been introduced with the title ``To enhance intelligence oversight authority''?