David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my hardworking colleague, the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren).

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to congratulate President Obama for what I believe were the most important words that came from his press conference that he delivered yesterday when he said we all need to get into the boat together. Now, he was referring, of course, to the challenge of entitlement spending. I listened to my California colleague talk about her priorities when it comes to dealing with budget issues. We are in the midst of a debate right now that will take place later today, and obviously it went into early this morning, on the continuing resolution and the challenges we face there. We are looking at making cuts that are important and need to take place. But, Mr. Speaker, they pale in comparison to the challenge that we face of dealing with entitlement spending. When the President said we all need to get into that boat together, what he meant was, it was very clear, we need to work together in a bipartisan way. And there are all kinds of challenges that have been put before us and horror stories as it relates to entitlement spending. And there is a tendency on both sides of the aisle, when it comes to dealing with the issue of entitlement spending, to point the finger of blame at the other party. That's why I was particularly pleased that just recently the former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, our colleague Pete Domenici, along with the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin, have been meeting with leaders of both political parties, talking about the imperative of dealing with the issue of entitlement reform. As we look at the debate that's taking place right now, Mr. Speaker, on the discretionary spending that is before us and juxtapose that to the massive, massive spending as we look as far as the eye can see when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement spending, I believe that if we can deal with entitlement spending, we will be able to have resources to address priorities that I know my California colleague and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle share. So that's why I think that it's important for both the left and the right to come together and recognize that the problems that exist with entitlement spending need to be addressed in a bipartisan way. They can be addressed in a bipartisan way. And in so doing, we will be ensuring that future generations are not going to face this tremendous debt burden. We'll be addressing the issue that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said is our number one national security threat, and that is the looming national debt. I believe that we will be able to let the American people know that we do have, as a priority, a desire to work together to resolve the very important problems that lie ahead.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last month, The Economist exhorted Western Leaders to more openly and consistently criticize Russia for its sham democracy, its brutal treatment of human rights activists and political dissidents, and its utter disregard for the rule of law. It was a challenge that should be taken seriously. Our approach to Russia has been characterized, paradoxically, by a failure to be both sufficiently pragmatic and sufficiently idealistic at the same time. Russia is a key international player with whom we must engage. That's undeniable. It is a permanent member of the Security Council. It is a key actor in any united international effort to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. It exerts great influence in regions, such as Central Asia, with implications for our struggle against violent extremism in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Keeping our engagement with Russia as constructive and effective as possible is essential to pursuing our vital national security interests. But this reality cannot preclude our commitment to promote democracy around the globe and condemn those who brutally suppress it. We must stand up for human rights and the rule of law, even when--especially when--they are undermined by major international players. We cannot remain silent when journalists and activists are killed or savagely beaten with impunity, while political prisoners face years of jail time. The new guilty verdict imposed on Mikhail Khodorkovsky late last year makes it appear that the only crime that's actually punishable in the Russian Federation is opposition to Putin. Days after the verdict was handed flown, opposition leader and former Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov was arrested for participating in a peaceful rally. He had committed the grave offense of expressing support for the protection of constitutional rights and condemning the sham Khodorkovsky verdict. Hostility to the rule of law extends beyond Russia's own borders, as we saw in the August 2008 invasion of our democratic ally Georgia. Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity remains under threat today. In our relationship with Moscow, we must learn to balance the twin imperatives of effective engagement and criticism of gross miscarriages of justice. This will only become more essential in the context of the coming debate on Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. Russia has moved closer than ever to acceding to the WTO. We are likely to face this prospect in the coming year and the resulting vote on whether to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations. We will need to have a full and robust debate on this issue. We will need to ensure that PNTR is not granted until we have confirmed that Russia has fulfilled the basic obligations that WTO membership demands. If those obligations are met, my view is that WTO accession would be a very positive step forward. Bringing Russia into a rules-based trading system would bind Moscow to the rule of law. It would create consequences and enforcement mechanisms for failure to live by its commitments. WTO membership is by no means a panacea, particularly for systems as deeply flawed as Russia's. But it would be a significant step in the right direction. Not only would it impose the rule of law in Russia's trading relationships. It would demonstrate that even Moscow recognizes the value of international rules of fairness. This should serve as a reminder that their presumed indifference to our criticism is no excuse for failing to voice that criticism. We need to engage with Russia, but Russia also needs to engage to with us. We cannot shy away from taking a public stand against increasingly brutal repression at the hands of those with whom we have important negotiations. Neither can we lose sight of the fact that supporting the rule of law is not just about promoting American ideals. One of the most important lessons of the last decade it that democracy strengthening is as firmly grounded in realpolitik as it is steeped in lofty, high-minded ideals. If our moral clarity helps to strengthen democracy advocates in Russia, we will further our strategic goals in the long run. A less corrupt, less autocratic regime in Moscow will result in a better international partner. As Vladimir Kara Murza has written in World Affairs, defending the rule of law is not just our right but our duty. Last week Vladimir wrote that statutes of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to which both the U.S. and Russia are party, make this clear. The statutes state ``issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, and the rule of law are of international concern, as respect for these rights and freedoms constitutes one of the foundations of the international order'' and ``commitments undertaken in the field of the human dimension are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States.'' As a member of key international bodies and an aspirant to the WTO, Russia has subjected itself to international norms. The U.S. and its Western allies must take seriously the responsibility to hold Russia accountable for its commitments and its actions. The Russian people have a long and tremendous history. Their government has very tragically tried to return this great people to a dark chapter of that history. But if we refuse to stay silent in the face of egregious human rights violations while constructively engaging in key negotiations, I believe we can effectively encourage positive change in Russia.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting my friend. He has an amazing honor. He is able to make history here. We've not been able to find a time that a continuing resolution has been brought to the floor under a modified open rule, and he has done a suburb job in managing it. I didn't really hear my friend from Worcester say much of anything, so I suspect he did a reasonable job in recognizing that we are making history and that we are going to, for the first time, allow any Democrat or Republican to stand up on this floor and offer an amendment to the appropriations bill that is going to be before us, the continuing resolution. I think that, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that it's not only a new day when it comes to the process in this House for us to consider appropriations bills, but it's a new day in that we have stepped forward and recognized that if we don't get our fiscal house in order and bring about dramatic spending cuts, our future is very much in question. And I say that because people used comparisons to crazy places like Greece and California when they talk about the potential problems that the United States of America faces. And I've got to say that, if we don't bring about these kinds of spending cuts, we are going to be passing on to future generations a responsibility that they do not deserve to have. That's why it's up to us to do our job and make sure we get our fiscal house in order. I mean, as the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Rogers, has said so well, the cuts in this bill that are going to be before us are larger than the gross domestic product of 126 countries, and that's why we've got a monumental responsibility and a chance for Democrats and Republicans together to work on this thing. And I'm so pleased to see my friend Norm Dicks, the distinguished ranking member, already working on his great product that's going to be coming forward as we seek to have the two of us come together as political parties to resolve our Nation's challenges.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 45 seconds. And I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Gold River to respond to the question I propounded earlier.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And I would just say, first of all, I appreciate the bipartisan support for the effort led by our friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, which I think is terrific. The question that I would propound to my friend is, if we look at the February 25 passage of this measure by a vote of 315-97 and the 1-year period of time, I know that the gentlewoman, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, certainly would have wanted to have hearings or support the notion of hearings. I wonder why there weren't hearings held during that 1-year period of time.

Mr. DREIER. I appreciate that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The point is, February 25 of 2010 there was an entire session of Congress. It was when the Democrats were in the majority. During that period of time, through the entire 1-year extension, there was not a single hearing held; and I know that my friend, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee, would have been a strong proponent of holding those hearings. And that's why it just surprises me that, assuming that she did insist on them, that she was unsuccessful, Mr. Speaker, in the quest to get those hearings. And I should add that the organization for the 112th Congress is just under way today, in fact, due to the fact that the minority has refused to allow the organization to take place. So there has been a year period of time. And I wish very much, Mr. Speaker, that there had, in fact, been hearings over the last year. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Tyler, Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the vice chairman of Mr. Sensenbrenner's Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that I think it's very important to note that, as those hearings proceed, issues that relate to civil liberties will clearly be part of the hearing process and part of the debate. Am I correct in concluding that? I yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I am talking about February 25 of last year. Last year was when this was passed, a year ago.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the only way for us to guarantee the rights of every American and to ensure that we will be going down the road to be a safe nation is to pass this extension so that these very able gentleman can proceed with the kinds of hearings that are necessary so that we assure that all the rights we need are protected and that we are a safe and secure country. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I would like to inquire of both my friends what kind of commitment they are prepared to make in dealing with this, in light of the fact that we have gone for an entire year following the 315-97 vote passage of this measure without a single hearing being held. First, I yield to my friend from Menomonee Falls, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new Member of this body, my friend from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Boulder (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, 18 days from now, three key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire, leaving a gap in our national security framework. Today's underlying legislation would temporarily-- and I underscore the word, Mr. Speaker--temporarily extend these provisions to allow for the development of a long-term solution, with the many questions that are out there. With strong bipartisan support, the previous Congress simply passed a blanket 1-year extension without addressing any of the underlying challenges, questions and controversies. I am the first to admit that there are challenges, questions and controversies that relate to the Patriot Act. Unfortunately--and again, it was by a vote of 315-97 on February 25 of last year, Mr. Speaker--we went through that entire year. But guess what. Not a single hearing was conducted subsequent to the passage of that extension. Not a single hearing over the past year has been held. I feel very confident that my colleagues who have joined me on the floor here from the Judiciary Committee--Mr. Lungren, who is here right now, Mr. Sensenbrenner, who chairs the Crime Subcommittee, and Mr. Gohmert--I mean, these gentlemen and I have just had a conversation, Mr. Speaker, in which they have made an absolute commitment that this Congress will not make the mistake that was made over the past year. Following this short-term extension, we will have a thorough oversight process in which the committees of jurisdiction will take a very close look at how we pursue the terrorists who threaten our homeland. Now, everybody acknowledges that this is not only controversial, not only filled with questions and not only filled with challenges, but that it is very, very complicated. The individuals and networks who seek to do harm to Americans change and adapt every single day. Mr. Lungren and I were just having a conversation in which we were looking at the situation that existed a decade ago, right after September 11. The threat is much different today than it was 10 years ago, and that's why we need to recognize that they are constantly changing and adapting their tactics to try and undo the United States of America and the free world. Staying one step ahead requires a tremendous amount of flexibility, ingenuity, coordination, and of course the right law enforcement tools. Just today, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said that the threat that exists today--and Mr. Gohmert just showed it to me on his iPad; it's on the front of one of the newspapers around here--is as great as it has been since September 11. Then when I said it to Mr. Lungren, he reminded me that it's a different threat, a different threat today than the one that we faced in the past. That's why flexibility, ingenuity, and coordination are absolutely essential if we are going to proceed. We need to ensure that we are taking all necessary steps while fully protecting the rights of all Americans. I want to underscore that this is one of the reasons that, going back 10 years, as we were legislating through the prism of September 11, I was very insistent that we have the ability to have oversight and to look and make sure that we are not undermining the rights of the American people. We need to ensure that that is a priority as we proceed. This process is going to be a lengthy process over the next 10 months. It is not a process that can be resolved in the 7 legislative days that exist between now and February 28 when this is scheduled to expire. In the immediate term, it is imperative that we temporarily extend the expiring provisions to ensure that we do not suddenly create glaring loopholes in our national security. It is imperative that we commit to a comprehensive and, yes, transparent process. I had a conversation downstairs with my California colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher. All the way to when this measure comes to the floor, we want to ensure that we have an open and transparent process when it comes to changes/ modifications to the Patriot Act, and we want amendments to be considered. We want there to be a free-flowing debate as we proceed. Mr. Speaker, the last piece of legislation, the resolution that we were just discussing, has to do with job creation and economic growth because we want to unleash the potential of American workers by freeing them from the onerous regulations that have been imposed on them. Some might ask, Is this in fact a jobs bill? Well, I think about what happened to our Nation's economy following September 11 of 2001. We all know the devastation that took place. The New York Stock Exchange had to close down for a week. We saw tremendous disruptions in our economy and the job force. This measure is designed to ensure our national security. Without national security, we won't have the potential to save and create jobs in this country. So as we are enjoying economic recovery today, I see this measure as being critical to our quest for sustained job creation and economic growth, and believe that they are so inextricably tied that it is essential that we put this extension in place so that, over the next 10 months, nothing will be done to undermine the security and the safety of our fellow Americans. The five most important words in the middle of the Preamble of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, are ``provide for the common defense.'' That is what priority number one is. Mr. Lungren and I were talking about this yesterday morning at the Republican Conference. It is absolutely essential that we recognize that as our number one priority because providing for the common defense and ensuring our security ensures that our economic security with the potential for job creation will be able to be sustained. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way--since we had a vote of 315-97 on February 25 of last year and with, again, strong bipartisan support from many, many, many Democrats who, unfortunately, chose to vote ``no'' when we had this under suspension of the rules, now we are considering it under a process. This is bipartisan, by the way. When a measure is not successful under suspension of the rules, Democrats and Republicans alike bring measures to the floor under this process that we are considering this measure today. So I urge my colleagues to support this so that we can proceed with the very important work that Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Lungren, Gohmert, and others will be pursuing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I will explain why it is that we have more than a 30-day extension. As I said, with the controversies, the challenge and the absolute humongous task that is faced, we know that the legislative process takes a while, and to have that 10 months' extension is essential for them to do their work.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 79 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my good friend from Georgia that no one is trying to ram anything through at this point. President Obama strongly supports this extension, I would say to my friend. He, in fact, wants it to go to December of 2013. We had a 1-year extension that was put into place, passed here by a vote of 315-97 on February 25, 2010. There was a commitment then, and certainly people inferred, that we would have hearings. There was not a single hearing held during that entire period of time, and we've made an absolute commitment. We've just heard from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). We are about to hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, that we are going to, in fact, have the process that my friend desires. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren), the chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. I would just like to say in response to my friend on the roving wiretap issue, it is fascinating. As I began my opening remarks, I was talking about the fact that Mr. Gohmert showed me his iPad, which had the headline on that iPad that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has indicated that the threat that exists today is greater than it has been at any time since September 11, 2001. That technology didn't exist back in 2001 or certainly back in 1980. The roving wiretap is designed to focus on the potential terrorist and not on some antiquated technology that we have. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.