David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me say, yes, this only addresses the measure, the short-term continuing resolution, that we are considering this evening.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, the gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I would say that the groundwork that was laid earlier this week by my very good friend from Seattle has, I know, played an integral role in getting us to this very important point.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, for her superb management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, we are here with a couple of very important priorities: Number one, we want to ensure that the government doesn't shut down, and that's why we have come forward with this continuing resolution that will provide funding to keep the government open for another week and, first and foremost, to ensure that our men and women in uniform have what they need and their families are not going to be victimized by what has taken place over the past several months. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend from New Jersey talk about this, I don't like to engage in finger-pointing. I really don't. But I think it's very key--and the reason I don't like to engage in finger- pointing, as my friend from Worcester laughs at that, is the moment you point your finger at someone, I was always taught that there are three pointing right back at you. And I think it's important for us to not point fingers, but I think it's instructive for us to look at what it is that got us here. I suspect that my friend from Grandfather Community probably explained the fact that for the first time in our Nation's history since the Budget Act has existed, we went through a Congress without a budget having been passed. That's what happened last year. And for the first time ever, we had no appropriations bills passed. Now, I'm not pointing fingers, but I will say that there was not a Republican in the White House, there was not a Republican Senate, and there certainly was not a Republican United States House of Representatives. So this was dumped onto the laps of the new majority here in the House of Representatives, which, as we all know, if we look at the challenges that are ahead of us, we still have a Democrat in the White House and we still have a Democrat-controlled United States Senate. So of the three levers of power legislatively, we have control of only one-third of those. And in light of that, we're trying to do the best that we can under somewhat challenging circumstances. Now, last November 2, the American people sent a very strong and powerful message to Washington, D.C. My party happened to see the largest gain in nearly three-quarters of a century; 1938 was the last time we saw the kind of change in favor of the Republican Party that we did last November 2. So in light of that, there is a powerful message, and I'm happy to say that that message has been heard by both Democrats and Republicans. Why? Because with the 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we saw under Speaker Pelosi, the American people said we need to bring an end to that nonsense. And guess what? We have Democrats and Republicans alike talking about the need for spending. Since we've passed H.R. 1, we have had $2 billion in spending cuts every single week. But it is a drop in the bucket. It is a drop in the bucket. Over the last 2 days, I have had the chance to meet with a very bright, dynamic, new member of the British Parliament, a man called Matthew Hancock. I've just had a chance to meet with ``Facebook girl,'' who was one of the leaders of the tremendous, tremendous change and revolution that has taken place in Egypt. I'm going to be meeting in just a few minutes with leaders from Mongolia. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to say the world is looking at us as we deal with this terrible situation today, and it's critical for us to step up to the plate and provide strong leadership. Now, what has happened is we have, as my friend from New Jersey underscored, come forward with a budget. It was just unveiled this week. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is going to be bringing it to the Rules Committee, and we will consider it next week. And it is absolutely horrifying to hear the characterizations that have been provided. Mr. Speaker, obviously encouraged by fear tactics, my constituents in California have been saying, Please, please, please don't support the Republican budget, which will abolish Medicare. That message over and over again has been coming: Don't support the Republican budget, which will abolish Medicare. And, Mr. Speaker, the thing that's so disturbing is that there are senior citizens, elderly Americans, who are out there and they are very emotionally distraught over the fact that people are telling them from the other side of the aisle, and it's very close to the remarks that my friend from New Jersey just offered, that we are going to abolish Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for the American people to understand that we are seeking to save Medicare. Saving Medicare is what this is all about. We all know, if you look at the history of Medicare, it was established in 1965. In 1970, Mr. Speaker, the cost of Medicare was $7 billion. In 1970 it was $7 billion. Four decades later, last year, 2010, the cost of Medicare was $528 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, in light of that, there is realization that since we've seen Medicare expand to address the needs of the disabled and so many other areas, there needs to be reform so that future generations will be able, since they're compelled to pay their FICA tax, to receive the benefits they deserve from Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, the idea of frightening senior citizens today by leading them to believe that our budget is going to abolish Medicare is outrageous. And I believe that the American people are smart enough, smart enough, to understand that these fear tactics can't stand. We have a responsibility, I believe now, an obligation, to counter the lies that are being put out there claiming that we're trying to abolish Medicare. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that's important for us to note is that the American people are hurting all the way across the board. We have an unemployment rate, which we're all encouraged by the fact that it has dropped by a full percentage point, down to 8.8 percent, but it is still unacceptably high. And that's why we need to focus on job creation and economic growth. Mr. Speaker, if we had 2 percent more GDP growth in this country, we would be in a position where we would, in fact, not be having to anguish over the kind of spending that we see right now. Obviously, it's important for us to recognize that the role of government has become way too big and needs to be dramatically reduced, not only because of spending but because of the encroachment on individual liberty that exists. But we need to realize that government does have things that it needs to do, and we need to generate an increase in the net flow of revenues. A $1.6 trillion national deficit, which is in the President's budget, coupled with $14 trillion in accumulated debt is unacceptable. That's why our goal is to focus on job creation, economic growth. Our colleague Dave Camp of the Ways and Means Committee is focusing on reducing that rate on job creators in this country, the highest of any nation on the face of the Earth, now that Japan has reduced their rate, and that top rate on individuals. Doing that, coupled with reducing the regulatory constraints that it has imposed, will address the needs of the poor. Now, my friend from Worcester last night in the Rules Committee was talking about the fact that no one is focused on the plight of the poor in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is our priority, to make sure that we have opportunity so that people who are truly in need have their needs met, but also to ensure that we have opportunity. Creating jobs for individuals is what we need to do. And so, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to keeping the government open, supporting our troops, and bringing about, with this continuing resolution, a $12 billion reduction in spending. It's something that, if we can pass it here, the Senate should pass it. Everyone is saying they know the Senate isn't going to pass it. The fact of the matter is the Senate should pass it. But we hope that it's not necessary. We hope that Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, and President Obama are able to come up with an agreement that will ensure that we don't go through what would be a very difficult thing, that is, shutting down the government. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say, I mentioned the 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. If we look at the increases that have taken place in WIC, LIHEAP, and a wide range of other areas, the notion of slightly paring that back will in no way jeopardize the needs that need to be addressed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my friend from Lawrenceville for not only managing this rule but as one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation. I hate the fact that we are doing this bill. I don't like it at all, Madam Speaker. But I like even less the prospect of a government shutdown. We are determined to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we don't shut down the government and potentially create a scenario whereby our men and women in uniform are not compensated and all the other things that we have talked about that would be serious problems that we would face if a government shutdown would take place. We want to prevent that. That's the reason that we are here dealing with this very, very unpleasant situation. Now why is it, Madam Speaker, that we are here today? We are here today because for the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act, we saw a United States Congress fail to pass a budget. That's what happened last year. We also for the first time saw the failure to pass appropriations bills. There was an attempt to do it under a closed process, and we know we're in the process of changing that, but the bills weren't passed. And so the last Congress dumped in our laps, in December, a continuing resolution which extended the operations of the Federal Government to March 4 of this year. Well, Madam Speaker, we know that there was a new Congress elected on November 2 of last year. I am very happy about that. Mr. Woodall, Mr. Canseco, other new Members are here. There are 87 new Republicans, nine new Democrats who have joined the 112th Congress. For my party, it's the largest gain that we have had in nearly three-quarters of a century, since 1938. And it's not simply a gain for my party, Madam Speaker. It was a message that was sent by the American people. All across this country, the American people said, We've had it. We're up to here. We need to create jobs, get our economy growing, and we need to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. We constantly hear this argument from our friends on the other side of the aisle that we are not creating jobs, that we are not taking action to create jobs. Well, Madam Speaker, as we know, the Joint Economic Committee has just come out with a study looking at nations around the world. And it's very clear: everything we do to reduce government spending has, based on empirical evidence that we have, worked to grow economies and create jobs; and that's exactly what we are going to be able to do here. Now the other thing that's very sad is that 41 days ago, we passed the measure that we are debating here. Forty-one days ago, we had, as my friend from Lawrenceville said, a virtually unprecedented debate of 90 hours. Democrats and Republicans, for the first time in decades, had an opportunity on a continuing resolution to debate and pass their amendments. Members on both sides of the aisle had amendments that succeeded during those 90 hours of debate, which was a challenge for all of us, but we went through it. That's the work product that we have before us. This House worked its will, and that's what we were able to achieve. Forty-one days ago, we did that, Madam Speaker. And the other body, our colleagues in the Senate, have done absolutely nothing, other than defeat two measures--this one, H.R. 1, and they defeated their Democratic proposal. So no action has been taken. Speaker Boehner has consistently been saying not only where are the jobs--and we're all gratified that the positive signs of our getting our fiscal house in order has played a big role in creating 216,000 nonfarm payroll jobs last month and brought the unemployment rate from 8.9 down to 8.8 percent, positive indications that have come about because we're starting to get our fiscal house in order. But, Madam Speaker, our friends in the other body have failed to act on dealing with this issue. So that's why we are here today as we look, April Fool's Day, everyone has been talking about that. But 1 week from today, it's not going to be a joke at all if we face the prospect of a government shutdown, and we do, 1 week from today. And that's why we feel that it's very important for us to pass this measure again, remind our colleagues--some of whom may have become a little forgetful. They may not know that it was 41 days ago that we sent this measure over to them. So, Madam Speaker, we want to do that again. And I hope very much that we'll be able to do it. Again, I don't like a lot of what's in here. I don't like the fact that we're here. But it's because of this crisis that we're here. Now we're dealing with very serious international challenges around the world. Madam Speaker, I am particularly proud that the House Democracy Partnership, which my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and I have the privilege of leading, has had a group of newly elected parliamentarians from Indonesia, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Iraq visiting us this week, observing this institution. And I heard an interview this morning with one of our colleagues in the other body who said, What kind of signal does it send to people who are working to develop democratic institutions, political pluralism, the rural rule of law, self-determination in their countries? What kind of signal does that send when the United States of America can't even come together and keep the Federal Government going? Now many of those people happen to be here right now with us, Madam Speaker, and they are observing what is taking place. We need to show them that we can get our work done. And we need to show the American people that the message that was sent to us last November 2 is one that has been heard. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and in favor of the underlying legislation so that we will be able to take an unpleasant situation, ensure that the government doesn't shut down a week from today, and ensure that we can get back to the work that we're supposed to be doing this year, not cleaning up last year's work. And we should do that as expeditiously as possible. I thank my friend, again, for his thoughtful leadership on this very important issue and his management of the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have listened to my friend from Worcester keep throwing out this term ``open rule,'' ``open rule,'' that we've had all these chances for open rules and we haven't passed a single open rule. First, let me say, based on the definition that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle had, we've had open rules. Bills considered under what we correctly describe as a modified open rule were described by our friends when they were in the majority as an open rule. Now, having said that, what we repeatedly said was that since in the entire 4 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership of this House, we had one measure in 4 years considered under an open rule, we said in our Pledge to America that we wanted to make sure that the appropriations process is done under an open amendment process. And we're going to do our doggonedest to make sure that we have an open amendment process for consideration of that. And I think it's important to note that if you look at, as Mr. Webster said so well--and I want to congratulate him on his management of his first rule here in the House--making 33 amendments in order has not in any way predetermined the outcome of the measure when we had all of these extensions that went on for FAA. And my friend Mr. Mica, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is here. We know that we've had these constant renewals without a single amendment being offered. So we're going to have 33 amendments. So our commitment to a more open process has, in fact, been met and exceeded in the eyes of many. And I will tell you the praise that we've gotten from Members in the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle for having gone through all of the amendments that we did--it was virtually unprecedented--on H.R. 1, the measure that allowed us to work overnight and have a modified open rule, meaning any Member could offer a germane amendment. It was, as I said, virtually unprecedented. So I am very proud at what we've done, certainly juxtaposed to what we've seen in the last 4 years. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that by virtue of our doing this, we're allowing the people of this country to have a chance to be heard. That has not been there for quite a long period of time. I again thank my friend for his superb management.

Mr. DREIER. I never said that we're going to limit an open amendment process, open rules, to the appropriations process. What I said was and the commitment that we made was that, since we had the appropriations process completely shut down in the last two sessions of Congress, we wanted to now have this done in an open amendment process. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. We should say we have four of them here, in fact, this week.

Mr. DREIER. Lebanon.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I would like to join the gentleman from North Carolina in extending our hearty congratulations to Dan Mulhollan for his extraordinary service to this institution and, in particular, for the work that he has done to ensure that the House Democracy Partnership has been able to succeed. I want to thank my friend for taking out this very important time, and I thank him for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, first, let me thank my friend for his superb management of this rule and to say that I have the utmost respect for my colleague from the District of Columbia. Since I reside here in the District of Columbia, she represents me here in this institution. And when I'm here--of course I'm a Californian, first and foremost--but when I'm here, I get her newsletters in the mail. She and I have served on a commission together, focused on reform of this Congress in the 1990s, and I do have the utmost respect for her. That is one of the main reasons that we chose, when she offered the one amendment to this measure, to make it in order, because there's been a commitment that Speaker Boehner and I and others have made that we want to have a free-flowing debate. And I think that the notion of concluding that somehow this is a cut-and-dried issue was really wrong. I have to say that I felt, as I sat in the Rules Committee last night and listened to my good friend and I listened to Mr. McGovern, I was really saying, my gosh, maybe there is no support for this measure at all. Especially when Mr. McGovern, the second ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, said every city council member in the District of Columbia is opposed to this measure. In fact, he said it not once but two, maybe even three, times. And then I was handed a list. And I have just been told that Mr. Bishop raised at the beginning that there are going to be lists on either side. But the notion, to conclude, Madam Speaker, that we somehow are imposing the will of the majority on the people of the District of Columbia, that there's no support for this whatsoever, which is what I inferred from what was offered in the Rules Committee last night, is just plain wrong. I don't often cite the editorial work of The Washington Post, but The Washington Post has editorialized strongly in support of this notion. Why? Because they're committed, as I believe we all are, Democrats and Republicans alike, I believe that all of my colleagues are committed to improving educational opportunities for our fellow Americans. I think that what we need to recognize is that educational choice is an important thing, and that's why The Washington Post has editorialized in support of this. And then when one looks at the list of D.C. leaders, some currently holding office, some formerly having held elective office here in the District of Columbia, the notion that there's only one voice that's elected by the people of the District of Columbia is an inaccurate one. The fact is, the chairman of the city council, chairman-at-large, Kwame Brown, is a supporter of this measure. The former mayor, Adrian Fenty. I recognize that he did not win reelection. I don't know that this was the sole determinant in the outcome of that election. But Adrian Fenty, in fact, is a supporter of this measure. The mayor before that, Anthony Williams, is a supporter of this measure. Marion Barry, the former mayor; Kevin Chavous, former chairman of the D.C. City Council Education Committee; Patrick Mara, the D.C. school board member; and, of course, the often-cited Michelle Rhee, the former D.C. school chancellor, they all happen to be supporters of this measure. And so that's why, some elected, some not elected, some hold office today, some formerly held office, but I believe, Madam Speaker, that every single one of these people, along with the editorial pages, as I said, of The Post, The Journal, a number of other publications, lots of organizations are very, very committed to ensuring the quality of education is improved in the District of Columbia, and, Madam Speaker, they are very, very committed to ensuring that we see the quality of education improved across this country. It is very important for us to do that. And that is why I find it very interesting that the previous question battle that we are dealing with here is one that is designed to focus on the issue of international trade and creating jobs here in the United States. I can understand there is a great deal of concern about the fact that jobs have fled overseas. That has happened because of the policies of the United States of America. The fact that we have the highest tax rate on job creators of any country in the world, the fact that we have chosen over the last few years to stick our heads in the sand when it has come to market opening opportunities through trade agreements which have been signed by our past administration and the leaders of other countries, is an indication that we have chosen to ignore great job- creating opportunities. And I am speaking about these trade agreements, the ones that President Obama said that he would like to see us pass here in the House. First, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which he talked about. And I am grateful that he talked about the importance of Colombia and Panama, two agreements that were actually signed before the completion of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Now, Madam Speaker, if we were to focus attention on those items, plus reducing that top rate on job creators from 35 percent to 25 percent, that would do more to create job opportunities than almost anything we could do. And then we get back to the core issue here, and that is education. We need to make sure that the United States of America, as we seek to remain competitive in this global economy, that we have the best educated young people. That is why educational choice, I believe, is critically important. We are going to have an opportunity for debate. The Rules Committee has chosen to make in order and give 40 minutes of debate to my friend from the District of Columbia so we will be able to continue this exchange. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of the previous question, and in so doing, we will be able to pursue tremendous items like the pending three free trade agreements and reducing the top rate on corporate income, those on job creators, so that we can generate more job opportunities in this country. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the rule. I believe that the underlying legislation will dramatically enhance the opportunity for young people in the District of Columbia to have educational opportunities that they otherwise would not have.

Mr. DREIER. I just said that Mr. McGovern in the debate last night in the Rules Committee said that every city council member, and then I was given this list. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending congratulations to my very good friend, the gentleman from Spring Hill, a former sheriff, Mr. Nugent, for his maiden voyage in managing this rule. He has done a superb job in taking on this issue. Let me say at the outset, having listened to the debate from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, every single thing that we have been doing on the floor of the House of Representatives is focused on job creation and economic growth. Virtually everything that we have done is focused on job creation and economic growth. Now, some say, Why is it you are talking about National Public Radio now? What does that have to do with creating jobs? Well, the fact of the matter is, if we don't take on the $14 trillion national debt that we have in this country and the $1.6 trillion annual deficits that we have as far as the eye can see, we are not going to be implementing pro-growth economic policies. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle might argue that bringing about some kind of reduction in funding for National Public Radio will cost jobs. The disparity is that my friends on the other side of the aisle tend to focus on government-created jobs, and we want to focus on what it is the American people desperately want and need, which is long-term, good private sector jobs. And so everything that we do to try to reduce the size and scope and reach of government is focused on getting, as my friend from Vermont has just said, getting our fiscal house in order so that we can create jobs. Yesterday up in the Rules Committee, my California colleague Ms. Eshoo referred to National Public Radio as a ``national treasure.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a fan of National Public Radio. I think that the term ``national treasure'' may just be a little bit of a stretch. I have been proud to support three local stations, two in Los Angeles, KPCC and KCRW; here in Washington, D.C., WAMU. I have been proud to participate in pledge drives for all these stations. I have done it for public television. I believe in voluntary contributions. Now, yesterday Ms. Eshoo said that every American pays 77 cents for the benefit of National Public Radio. And while I am a proud listener of National Public Radio, I will say that I reckon that there are probably half the American people--that's just a wild guess on my part--maybe half the American people who have never even heard of, much less even listened to, National Public Radio. And the notion of taking 77 cents from them for National Public Radio is, to me, anathema to the whole concept of what it is that we are trying to do as a Nation. Now, my friend from Rochester, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the former chairman of the Rules Committee, referred to National Public Radio as--and this is not the exact word that was used--but sort of a paragon of virtue. Rather than bloviating on cable television, we have this great, great model of National Public Radio up there, something to which we can all bow and listen to as the one truth before us. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that I've heard some inaccurate things on National Public Radio before, not just things with which I disagree, but there have been inaccuracies. And so, with all of the choices out there, I believe that National Public Radio should be one of them; but they are only one of the choices that people have. And since National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting came into existence, we all know that we've experienced this explosion of information from all kinds of sources. So that's why, Mr. Speaker, while this measure doesn't obliterate funding for National Public Radio, what it does is it puts us, as my friend from Spring Hill has said so well, on a glide path towards recognizing that since National Public Radio receives a very small amount of its funding that they utilize totally from the Federal Government, this puts them on a glide path towards something that I believe will dramatically enhance the quality of coverage and the credibility of National Public Radio, and that is to have voluntary support. And I will say right here that when we are successful, when we are successful at weaning National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting away from compulsory taxpayer dollars used to fund them, I personally will increase my level of contributions, my level of contributions to those local stations and to other aspects. We need to look at ways in which this shortfall that will exist is addressed, and I believe that we can do that. And I have to say that, procedurally, it's very interesting to listen to people talk about the characterization of this rule that has come down before us. It's simply because less than 48 hours was provided for the announcement of simply the Rules Committee meeting, not the fact that we're here on the floor. And my distinguished friend from Rochester had, on nearly 70 occasions, when she was chairman of the Rules Committee, including the several scenic river studies that were put into place, and other legislation like that called emergency meetings of the House Rules Committee. And so I think that to characterize this procedure as it's been is not quite as appropriate as it should be. And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, I wish this could have been handled a little differently. We all know that we passed H.R. 1 as it is, that, in fact, does defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But this measure, in and of itself, focuses on a problem that is out there. It needs to be addressed. And I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, back in 1979, after I had narrowly lost my first election to Congress, I came to Washington, and I went to The Washington Post and I had the opportunity to meet David Broder, the dean of the Washington press corps. Mr. Broder very kindly took me on a tour of The Washington Post newsroom, spent about a half hour with me, and that meeting left an indelible impression on me. I read the words of the writer and commentator Mark Shields, who the other day said that David Broder, who, as we all know, passed away last week, never fell victim to the disease of self-importance. I heard that he spent a great deal of time with young reporters, but here I was a young defeated congressional candidate, and he spent time with me. When I had the chance to go on to the Rules Committee, he said, Well, it's a great opportunity you'll find, but remember that committee up there is very small by design. It's to keep us and the press corps out. Well, I have to say that Mr. Broder, over the years, provided me with friendship and a lot of great advice. His performances before the gridiron were legendary, and I know that he's someone who will be missed all the way across the board. Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the Broder family. And the press corps is a lesser place for his passing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, March 15, at 3 p.m., to grant a rule, which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act of 2011, and H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment to either bill must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and description via the committee's Web site. Members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log-in form to the Rules Committee in room H-312, upstairs, of the Capitol by 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 15. Both electronic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bills as ordered reported by the Committee on Financial Services, which are available on the Rules Committee Web site. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members should also check with the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Committee on the Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House and the Congressional Budget Act. If Members have any questions, please contact me or the Rules Committee staff.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to prolong the colloquy, but I have to say that both my friends, Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Cantor, were talking about the imperative for job creation and economic growth. There is a bipartisan consensus in this institution; we all want to see private sector jobs created. We have an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan way to do something that President Obama addressed in his State of the Union message here in this Chamber. He talked about the need for us to pass first the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement; and he also included, I am happy to say, the Colombia and Panama agreements. All of those agreements have been pending. The Colombia and Panama agreements actually preceded the Korean agreement; and we know if we were to pass all three of these pending trade agreements, we could create good union and nonunion jobs here in this country in the manufacturing sectors of our economy. If you look at companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, Whirlpool, other manufacturing companies right here in the United States, creating an opportunity for those union and non-working union members to sell their products into Latin America is very important. Let's create jobs; let's pass all three of these agreements.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman to ask me a question.