David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my friend this is not a committee that is empowered to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is a committee, a joint select committee, that is empowered, for the first time, to submit to both Houses of Congress recommendations that we will have an up-or-down vote on. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield for just one second, Mr. Speaker? I would just like to ask the gentleman if he might cite where that is from, the quote of that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to the next Governor of Indiana, the gentleman from Columbus, Mr. Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me say it's the sequestrations in this bill. Obviously, a bipartisan commission that comes forward----

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. And will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this House likes the fact that we are here today and that we're facing the issue that is before us. As we've found throughout this debate, 75 times since 1962 the United States Congress has been in a position where it's had to increase the debt ceiling. And here we are again today, dealing with a very unpopular increase in the debt ceiling because it has to be done. Democrat and Republican alike recognize that we can't let our Nation go into default. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known, and we can't follow the trend that we have seen in Europe of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and other countries. But, Mr. Speaker, we're getting close. We're getting close. The President of the United States has requested that we have an increase in the debt ceiling so that our Nation doesn't default. When that request was made of Speaker Boehner, he chose to work together in a bipartisan way, recognizing that the President of the United States is a Democrat, the United States Senate is controlled by Democrats, the United States House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans. The most recent message that was sent by the American people came last November. Last November we saw a net gain of 63 seats for the Republican Party. It had been decades and decades and decades, in fact, three-quarters of a century since we'd seen that kind of gain for the Republican Party here in the House of Representatives. So, Mr. Speaker, the message was overwhelming. The message was, create jobs, get our economy growing, and get our fiscal house in order. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. So as we are faced with this 76th increase in the national debt since 1962, Speaker Boehner has said we're not going to do it as it's been done the last 75 times. We are going to insist that we bring about dramatic spending cuts. In fact, we want to see spending cuts that actually exceed the level of the debt ceiling increase. Now, it was on July 12, as we've said, that President Obama said if we don't have this increase in the debt ceiling, he couldn't, on August 3, guarantee that Social Security checks would go out. And so we have this measure before us, Mr. Speaker. We've heard that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the rotunda are planning to simply table this measure if it passes the House of Representatives. Now, we all learned in school how a bill becomes a law, and we know very well that one House passes a measure and the other House is to address it. Now, we saw Cut, Cap and Balance pass the House of Representatives, and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol chose to table it. And now the word comes that if we pass this today that they're going to choose to table it. Well, this is the plan that is before us. It is a plan that was worked on in good faith by Speaker Boehner and the Democratic leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid. Now, I know that Senator Reid no longer supports this plan, but last weekend he did. And I believe that we have a responsibility to step up to the plate, take action, increase the debt ceiling, but do so by addressing the long-term challenges and get at the root cause of why it is we have to increase the debt ceiling. And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and then the underlying legislation which will allow us to have the debt ceiling increased and ensure that our Nation does not go into default. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I just wanted to say it's 74 times.

Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the consideration of this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 375 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me join on behalf of my Republican colleagues from California and across the country in extending a hearty congratulations to our new colleague, filling the great shoes--they're not huge shoes of course-- but succeeding our good friend Jane Harman. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that Janice Hahn comes from a family that has had a great, great, long tenure of public service. Her father, Kenneth Hahn, served as a supervisor in the County of Los Angeles--a huge job. They represent about three times as many people as we, Mr. Speaker; and her brother, of course, a judge, has served as the mayor of the city of Los Angeles. Our new colleague has come here at certainly an extraordinarily crucial time in our Nation's history, and will face many challenges ahead; but I also want to say that our thoughts and prayers go to our new colleague. Not everyone knows that, literally on the eve of the election, her mother, Ramona, passed away suddenly. I know that she, as are all the members of the Hahn Family, would be extraordinarily proud of this moment. We extend a hearty congratulations.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today I will cast my vote in support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011, despite having concerns about it. With the August 2 deadline for reaching a solution on our debt crisis fast approaching, I believe this measure is necessary in order to move the process forward. However, I remain opposed to key provisions in H.R. 2560 and will continue to work vigorously for better solutions. My primary concern with this legislation is the requirement for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. In 1995, I voted in favor of a balanced budget amendment. That effort ultimately failed in the Senate by a single vote. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that that was the right outcome. Just two short years later, we proved that we could balance the budget without altering our most inspired founding document. What's more, the State of California has proved the futility of balanced budget amendments for years. Despite a constitutional mandate for balanced budgets, California persistently fails to live within its means and spend the taxpayers' money prudently and effectively. Exercising our Article 1, Section 7 power of the purse with responsibility and discipline doesn't take a constitutional amendment. It simply takes the will to do the right thing. We have already accomplished something that seemed impossible just a few months ago: we have fundamentally altered the conversation here in Washington. While the last two Congresses presided over an 82% increase in non- defense discretionary spending, we have already halted and reversed the growth in spending. Now we are on the brink of enacting trillions--that's trillions with a ``T''--in spending cuts. While a final deal remains elusive, we have forged consensus on the central, fundamental point that no rise in the debt ceiling can be enacted without trillions in spending cuts. That is a tremendous achievement that seemed barely conceivable a short time ago. It is a testament to what can be achieved when we have the will and resolve to confront the great challenges we face. We must now put that will and resolve toward a final deal that will not only make trillions in spending cuts, but also enact meaningful reforms that put us on the path to eliminating the deficit, paying down our debt and fostering growth and opportunity. These solutions are within reach. They are closer than they've been in years. The only question is whether we have the will to achieve them. I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to come together. To rise to the enormous challenges we confront and forge a deal that not only restores the vitality and solvency of our economy for ourselves, but for generations to come.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Lawrenceville for his typical stellar management of this very important rule; but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it saddens me greatly that we are here on the House floor, dealing with this. We have been in the midst of what has been a celebration, a celebration as described as the Arab Spring. We saw a few months ago a young merchant in a small town in Tunisia very, very distraught over the fact that a government official came and took his scale away from him and took it to the government office. He went back and asked for it, and when he made that request, he was denied it. He basically said he'd had enough, and so this young man chose to set himself afire in the middle of the town square in this tiny town in Tunisia. Now, as we all know, that launched what has become known as the Arab Spring. The Economist magazine very appropriately said that one of the great developments that the Arab Spring has wrought is that we have now seen those so-called ``barbarians'' in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, move towards self-determination. Many people in the West and in other parts of the world very arrogantly said there's no way in the world that those people could possibly make great strides towards political pluralism and development of the rule of law, self- determination, but, in fact, we saw--beginning with this one very sad act--people throughout the Arab world in not only Tunisia, but Egypt, Bahrain and, yes, in Libya, demonstrate their frustration over authoritarian dictatorships that were actually undermining the potential of the people of each of these countries. So that's why, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that we are here today doing what it is that we're doing. Why? Because we should be in the midst of a celebration, a celebration of these very bold and dynamic steps that are being taken throughout the Arab world. And why is it that we're here? We're here because of what has been described by Members on both sides of the aisle--and I just heard my friend from New York describe the actions of this Presidency--as being the act of a monarch. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for us to look at recent history. If we go back to the 2006 election, the Republicans lost the majority in large part because of the war in Iraq. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that. There's an important distinction that needs to be made. If one goes back and looks at the action that was taken by President Bush, he chose to come to this Congress. He wanted the support of the American people through their elected Representatives and Senators to be behind his effort. We all know that he reached out to the United Nations, built a coalition, and there was lots of controversy. There, to this day, continues to be controversy. But the Congress was involved in that process, as has been the case in many instances in the past, not every instance, but many instances in the past. We know, as my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, just said, that President Obama when he was a candidate, United States Senator, was very critical of President Bush. We know that his campaign for the Presidency in large part centered around this notion of bringing home the troops, and we had his speech the before night last on dealing with Afghanistan and his notion that we were going to bring these efforts to an end. I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that as we, I said, should be in the midst of celebrating the Arab Spring, we probably would have had, when one thinks about the actions that took place in Libya, we probably would have had, Mr. Speaker, pretty broad support here in the Congress for the action that was taken by the President if there had been an early authorization of this. Now, it is, as I said, very sad that we are here now because I think Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that this has been very, very poorly handled. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's any more time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that as we look at this, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that there are other very troubled spots in the world. We just, today, have gotten word of thousands of Syrians who are fleeing to Turkey because of the barbaric acts that have taken place there. So I think that as we look at the great positive steps that have been taken in the Arab world, we need to make sure that the United States Congress and the President of the United States are in this together. There should be consultation and authorization to deal with this. Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that as we look at this rule itself, I really am absolutely stunned, absolutely stunned at the kinds of things that I've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now, Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), knows, as we began debate on this, we had complete compliance with the 3-day layover requirement, and we had these measures before us. I would say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. Speaker, there was not a single amendment offered in the Committee on Rules to deal with this, not a single amendment offered, and, in fact, one of these measures is offered by a Republican, gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney); the other is offered by a Democrat, the other gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). And so when I think about 3 o'clock in the morning on June 25 of 2009, we began the debate on this horrible idea of cap-and-trade, and it was 3 o'clock in the morning and I was sitting upstairs with my Rules Committee colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and dropped in my lap, still hot because it had just come off of the copying machine, was 300 pages of an amendment that we reported out.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, at 3 o'clock in the morning we were handed this measure. Now, what we have before us has, again, complied with the 3-day layover requirement, not a single amendment was offered, and there's a proposal offered by a Democrat and a proposal offered by a Republican. So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I believe that this rule is one that does allow for a free-flowing debate. It allows for an opportunity to consider this, and it's not as if we haven't been engaged in this discussion for a long period of time. My friend from Cleveland is here and he has played a very, very constructive role in leading the charge on this over the past several weeks, as he often does, and I believe that our ability to continue this debate is an important one. But again, Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying it saddens me that at a time when we should be celebrating the fact there are people in the Arab world who are seeking the opportunity to enjoy the kinds of freedoms that we have here in the United States of America, that the President of the United States has chosen to go it alone without recognizing the very, very important responsibility of the first branch of the United States Government.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) made a point of order against consideration of the joint resolution for violating clause 11 of rule XXI asserting that the text of the measure had not been available for ``72-hours.'' Unfortunately, the gentleman misstated the actual wording of the rule. Clause 11 states in relevant part that ``It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day . . . on which such measure has been available.'' The rule clearly counts days, not hours. I would refer Members to the ruling of Speaker pro tempore Poe on March 17, 2011 where he affirmed that under clause 11 of rule 21, an unreported measure may not be considered until the ``third working day'' on which it has been available to Members. While the Chair was correct in his response that the rule provides a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution, I also want to point my colleagues to House Report 111-114 which accompanied the rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 68 and H.R. 2278. Under the heading ``Explanation of Waivers,'' the Committee states that it is not aware of points of order against consideration or the provisions contained in either measure and that the waivers are merely ``prophylactic.'' This means that no waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI or any other point of order was necessary. That is because H.J. Res. 68 is being considered on the fourth calendar day after it was made available and H.R. 2278 is being considered on the third such day, fully in compliance with the rules of the House. I hope that in the future my colleagues will pay closer attention to the wording of the rules in making points of order.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I asked my staff about this, and they were unaware of exactly where this $1.1 billion figure came from. And so in light of that, it seems to me that we are in a position where we need to proceed with this very important work, and we're trying our doggonedest to make it happen. We're going to allow proposals from Messrs. Rohrabacher, Conyers, and Polis and others to be considered, and that's why it's important that we pass this rule. If we don't pass this rule, we won't have the opportunity for the Rohrabacher, Conyers, and Polis ideas to be considered here on the House floor. And so let me thank my friend for yielding. I know he has other speakers. And with that, I'm going to urge support of the rule.

Mr. DREIER. I reclaim my time. Let me say, I asked my staff where this $1.1 billion figure came from. My staff members are right here on the floor, and they said they don't know where the basis of this $1.1 billion figure comes from. Mr. Speaker, what happened in the Judiciary Committee was unfortunate. It was an unfortunate development that took place because the Judiciary Committee proceeded to do something that they should not do, which is they began appropriating. All we are doing with this provision that we have in place is simply saying that the power should, in fact, lie with the House Appropriations Committee and that it should not be mandatory spending that does not provide the first branch of government, the legislative branch, with the adequate oversight. Now, as I walked into the Chamber, my friend from Kentucky was saying that this bill is not focused on job creation and economic growth when, in fact, we know that encouraging creativity and innovation is about our creating good jobs right here in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. They realize that if we were to take our time and energy and focus on job creation and economic growth we would be able to improve the standard of living and quality of life for the American people. Unfortunately, we've not been vigorously pursuing those. I think that one of the most important things that we can do is to open up new markets around the world for U.S. goods and services and for our kind of innovation that is developing. We at this moment are waiting for three trade agreements that have been languishing over the past 4 years. Unfortunately, this House in the last 4 years has failed to consider them. They would create good union and nonunion jobs for the American worker. Good jobs for union and nonunion members would be created if we were to pursue that kind of policy. Now, those agreements are pending. We've gotten a positive indication that the administration is going to be sending those to us. We need to move on those as quickly as possible. As we look at those market- opening opportunities, having the kind of innovative ideas that will be able to take place, creating new products is going to be wonderful because we'll have new markets for those products around the world. And so that's why, again, Mr. Speaker, here we are under a process that allowed an amendment by my friend from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to be made in order; my friend from Colorado from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), I'm very happy that we were able to make his amendment in order. Ms. Jackson Lee was here just a few minutes ago. She withdrew an amendment that she offered before the Rules Committee, and a similar amendment was offered by my colleague from California (Ms. Eshoo). We chose to make that amendment in order, which is virtually identical to the one that my friend from Houston offered. And so as my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia, my Rules Committee colleague, said, Mr. Speaker, here we are. We've made 15 amendments in order for considering allowing virtually every idea to be considered. My friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has his amendment made in order. And so the idea of somehow criticizing the Rules Committee and the action that we've taken is just way off base. There were 15 amendments that are made in order under this bill; 10 amendments have been made in order for the Energy and Commerce legislation that's come before us.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in August of 2008, Russia and the Republic of Georgia engaged in what author Ronald Asmus called ``A Little War That Shook the World.'' And, Mr. Speaker, it did shake the world. For all of post-Soviet Russia's anti-democratic crackdowns, its aggressive and bellicose actions toward former Soviet states, it was still a shock to see Russian tanks roll across the border of a sovereign, democratic country. The military conflict lasted 5 days; and a shaken world moved on, soon forgetting the shock and outrage of what happened. But for the people of the Republic of Georgia, this conflict goes on nearly 3 years later. They live with the tragic consequences that follow any armed conflict, including thousands of displaced persons and significant economic hardships. Beyond the human cost, they face a long-term strategic challenge of an occupying force in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia where Russia continues to violate the terms of the ceasefire to which it agreed. As occupiers, they violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent democratic state, one that has chosen a path toward integration with Euro-Atlantic institutions and, more important, one that has chosen integration with Euro-Atlantic values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Russia's recalcitrance has left the region in a bitter stalemate as it flouts international norms and its own commitments. Within the context of this stalemate, the temperature has seemed to cool, with bitter hardship and frustrations supplanting heated military conflict. But that cooling temperature is perhaps a very dangerous illusion. While the fear of overt military action may be waning, more subversive--but just as potentially deadly--action is taking place. Since 2009, the Republic of Georgia has experienced 12 acts or attempted acts of terrorism within its borders, which the Georgians believe are linked to Russian forces. One such bombing, on September 22, 2010, took place right near the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi. Two thwarted attacks took place just this month. One improvised explosive device was intercepted on June 2, two days before several colleagues and I arrived in Tbilisi. Another was intercepted on June 6 while we were still there. We had the opportunity to discuss with President Saakashvili at length the nature of these attacks and attempted attacks. He and his administration are increasingly concerned about what they perceive to be a systematic effort to target the Georgian people and undermine their progress toward a peaceful, stable, democratic and independent nation. The intended targets of recent bombing attempts seem to suggest an increased focus on civilian casualties, which is particularly troubling. As investigations proceed to determine the exact origin and intent of these bombings, it is more important than ever that we stand with our Georgian friends; that we stand with their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity; that we stand with their efforts to build a stronger democracy. In fact, the purpose of my recent trip to Tbilisi was to continue the work of the House Democracy Partnership, which has a longstanding program with the Georgian legislature. My co-chairman, David Price, and I have led a number of delegations to Tbilisi and hosted many Georgian legislators in Washington in order to provide training and support as they build their legislative institutions. It is important to work with new and reemerging democracies as they grow and develop, but it is all the more essential for us to support those who are under attack for the very reason that they have chosen their democratic path. The Obama administration has attempted to reset relations with Russia for a number of pragmatic and strategic reasons. I believe they were right to do so. But it is important to differentiate those relationships which are important for inescapable geopolitical considerations, and those which are based on shared values and goals. As a major international player and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we must engage constructively with Russia, but that does not mean we must turn a blind eye to its tactics or strategic aims towards the former Soviet sphere. To the contrary, we must engage with eyes wide open. Georgia is not the only state to have emerged from the Soviet orbit with democratic intentions, only to face deliberate, significant pressures and obstacles from Moscow. The nature of our engagement with Russia will get more scrutiny than ever as Moscow moves toward entry into the World Trade Organization. Bringing them into a rules-based trading system will help us deal with the challenges that we face, but we cannot lose our resolve to address these challenges, or lose sight of the fact that the fate of democracy in the post-Soviet world is one of them. Those who are working diligently against great odds to build democratic institutions must know that the American people stand with them.