David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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, 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. 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. 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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI, I submit the rules of the Committee on Rules for printing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution and his dedication to the Reagan cause. As we think about where we are today, I said at the library the other night that I was privileged to be part of the Reagan revolution, having been elected with President Reagan in 1980. But thanks to the 87 newly elected Members who have joined us, I said what a privilege it is to be a part of the Reagan revolution, because I think that it does continue. If we look at just foreign policy, again, the fact is that Ronald Reagan, in a very famous speech that he delivered in the early 1980s at Westminster talked about the need to develop the infrastructure, foster the infrastructure of democracy around the world. And he established the National Endowment for Democracy, which has made great strides in expanding the rule of law, political pluralism, the development of self-determination of democratic institutions around the world. And this is a war of ideas that will continue to this very day. It is a war of ideas that consists of that struggle. It's peace and prosperity through freedom and democracy versus oppression and poverty bred of violence and hatred. And I believe that we can, in fact, win this war of ideas if we do get back to the core principles of Ronald Reagan. And, as I said, Mr. Speaker, the museum has reopened, and I want to encourage our colleagues to take the opportunity to visit this amazing, amazing facility, which I know will bring back memories for every single American who was alive during the Reagan years, and it clearly will be a model for future generations. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend very much for his thoughtful remarks. I want to assure him that it didn't begin or end this evening, but we are in an entire year's celebration. In fact, tomorrow evening, our colleague who represents the Ronald Reagan Library, Elton Gallegly, is going to be taking an hour out and talking about him as well. To close out this evening, we are very pleased to have the newest Member who is here on the House floor, who has already become a veteran, one of the great champions of the conservative cause in our State of California, my good friend, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful comments. And let me say before yielding to whichever of my colleagues gets to their feet next, Mr. Speaker, I think that when one thinks of some of the great, great Reagan stories that are legendary, you can't help but recall that he had joy in sharing those stories with people. And I guess that had to have been his Irish blood that was flowing that brought that out. But all of those stories did provide so much encouragement. One of his great lines, to me--and my friend just referred to it--was when he would look to Americans, regardless of what their background was, and say, You're an American. And I am reminded of his famous line where he said, You know, if you immigrate to France, you don't become a Frenchman. If you immigrate to China, you don't become Chinese. The United States of America is the only country in the world where if you immigrate to the United States of America, you become an American which, again, underscores what a melting pot the United States of America is and e pluribus unum, ``out of many, one.'' That is what has made us as great as we are. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend from Huntington Beach, California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the famous, legendary speechwriter of Ronald Reagan. We first met in the decade of the 1980s. We joined with Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress to play a role in liberating the people of Afghanistan from the Soviet Union's horrendous control, and I'm sure he will seize this opportunity to get into that.

Mr. DREIER. One more Reagan story. We want to hear from our two colleagues.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would just say to my friend, obviously that kind of partisan debate takes place regularly. But I think that what Secretary Baker was talking about was, first, the issue of Social Security, where President Reagan did work with Tip O'Neill to try and bring about an effort to save Social Security. In 1986, President Reagan worked with the then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dan Rostenkowsi, on the 1986 Tax Reform Act. And so it's true. I mean, in fact, I thank my friend for raising this issue, because the sense that somehow everyone at the end of the day loved each other during that period of the 1980s is a mischaracterization of the way it existed. But President Reagan, as Secretary Baker pointed out, did at the end of the day, when it came to these important issues of economic growth dealing with Social Security, and even on the issue of foreign policy and dealing with both Afghanistan and Central America, while not all Democrats joined, there were more than a few who, with his encouragement, did this. Because remember, were it not for bipartisan support, these policies would not have been implemented because we had 192 Republicans in the House of Representatives and were, in fact, in the minority. So I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time out this evening so that my colleagues and I might have the opportunity to talk about what took place the day before yesterday and the century that led up to it. I am referring, as did my friend from Fullerton, Mr. Royce, to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Wilson Reagan. We know that Ronald Reagan is an individual who has provided inspiration to Democrats and Republicans alike, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that, while not everyone agreed with Ronald Reagan's policies, he was an individual who was able to provide encouragement; he was an individual who was able to provide inspiration; and I think most importantly, Mr. Speaker, he was an individual who was able to provide hope to so many people all over this country as well as across the globe. Mrs. Reagan did an interview this past week leading up to February 6 in which she was asked the question: What do you most want your husband to be remembered for? What she said was that she wanted him to be remembered for the fact that he instilled a sense of optimism for the American people. That great sense of optimism, which was not Pollyanna-like, because he was clearly very realistic, direct, had a great strength of character, an unwavering commitment to his principles, but at the same time, he was always able to encourage people to have hope for the future. In fact, one of the great things that the Ronald Reagan Foundation has done, as we all know, Mr. Speaker--and we see it on a regular basis right down this hallway into the great rotunda of the Capitol--is there, due in large part, to the now distinguished chair of the Committee on Administration, Mr. Lungren, who worked on this statue, and I was honored that he consulted me on a few occasions as he was working on it. To me, the thing that is the most important part of the statue is inscribed at the base. Unfortunately, it's on the back, so you have to go through a little effort to see it, Mr. Speaker. But at the base of that statue, it has three of the great statements that Ronald Reagan was known for. What were they? They were, of course: ``America's best days are yet to come.'' ``Our proudest moments are yet to be.'' ``Our most glorious achievements are just ahead.'' Now, if that doesn't instill optimism and encouragement, I don't know what does. Those three statements, I believe, define Ronald Reagan. He obviously was someone who enjoyed having a good time. In fact, Nancy said on Sunday, at the party, that her husband always enjoyed celebrating his birthday and that he would have loved the party that took place. And for those who may not have been there or seen it, you should know that the celebration continues. It actually began at the end of last year. I was privileged to give an address up at the library, during which I was talking about the challenges that exist today and the way that Ronald Reagan dealt with many of the similar problems that we face today. Then on New Year's Day, the Rose Parade featured a float marking the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth. Then again this past weekend, on February 5 and 6, there were great activities that took place at the library. I should say, the weekend before, there was a wonderful opportunity for us to have the Members of Congress who were elected in 1980, with Ronald Reagan, three decades ago, to convene for a class reunion that the Ronald Reagan Foundation helped us put together. At the same time, the Heritage Foundation hosted its meeting, which included many of the newly elected Members of Congress. It was basically a 2\1/2\-day gathering. Several Members have told me about the opportunity to have Members of that 97th class, the class of 1980 which came in with Ronald Reagan, share their experiences with the newly elected Members--87 strong, the largest turnover in three-quarters of a century. We were able to share those experiences, and Members have said that it was probably the highlight of that 2\1/2\-day gathering that we had at the Ronald Reagan Library. I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, that just yesterday we saw the opening of the new Ronald Reagan Museum, and that museum is an amazing facility. Now, remember, Air Force One, which is the aircraft that Ronald Reagan flew, including Marine One, are both there at the library. This museum, which has been renovated over the past year or so, was reopened. I said at one of the gatherings that anyone who had the opportunity to know Ronald Reagan, to work with Ronald Reagan would have had, clearly, at least one occasion as they went through the library to have a wonderful memory come back to the forefront--and even new experiences. In fact, I had a very moving experience when I went through the museum and saw something that I had not seen before. The father of one of my closest family friends passed away just before he was born--in fact, 4 months before he was born. He was an only son, and obviously never knew his father. As I walked through the Reagan Museum, I was struck because I saw on the wall the discharge papers that were signed by Captain Ronald Reagan. When I saw them, I took out my telephone, and called my friend, and said, Did you know that Ronald Reagan had signed your father's discharge papers? He said, no, he didn't know it, and was, needless to say, very emotional having just learned that at that moment as I went in. Well, this man is on March 20 going to mark his 50th birthday, and his name is John Clark Gable. His father was the legendary actor Clark Gable, who had had his discharge papers signed by Captain Ronald Reagan. As you look, there is the good and the bad, which are outlined in this museum, including the very tragic day in March of 1981 when an assassination attempt was launched against President Reagan, to lots of exciting and fun times that took place during that period of time. Of course we all know of Ronald Reagan's legendary, legendary sense of humor. One of my stories--and I'm happy my friend from Huntington Beach, whom I met when he was working for Ronald Reagan shortly after we came to Washington together in the early 1980s, my friend Mr. Rohrabacher, likes to take credit for many of President Reagan's funny lines. You know, there is a raging debate that he and I have on that on a regular basis. One story I know Ronald Reagan enjoyed but did not, in fact, get from Dana Rohrabacher, I should say for the record, Mr. Speaker, was when we were dealing with one of the most challenging economic times that the United States of America has gone through. It was in the early 1980s. I was invited on a Saturday afternoon to a small party in Los Angeles. There were about 20 people gathered, and the people gathered were commiserating over the fact that we had at that point an unemployment rate that was well into double digits. We had an inflation rate that was sky high, and interest rates were in excess of 15 percent, and so naturally everyone was focused on this. President Reagan stood up after lunch and said, The other day, somebody asked me how I was doing, and he said, I've never been better. Well, needless to say, everyone at that lunch looked around like how in the world could he say that. He said the reason I say that is I'm reminded of this huge caravan of farm animals being driven through a countryside, and there is a terrible accident, these animals strewn all over the highway. And the sheriff came roaring up, and he looked to the side of the road and saw a horse with two broken legs, frothing at the mouth. So the sheriff pulled out his gun, put it to the horse's head, and put him out of the misery. And then he looked over and saw a dog, just about the same thing. This dog was shaking like there was no tomorrow, and so he put his gun to the dog's head and put him out of his misery. And then he looked over and saw the driver of one of the vehicles. This driver had at least one leg broken, badly bloodied and banged up, and the sheriff looked at the driver and said, And how are you feeling? And the driver responded by saying, I've never been better. And that, in fact, Mr. Speaker, demonstrated that great sense of optimism and hope that was always there for Ronald Reagan. Now, his policies are something that are desperately needed today, and I'm so happy to see that as we have now won what would be a Reagan- like majority here in the House, that working together in a bipartisan way, which was a message that former Secretary of the Treasury, former Chief of Staff, former Secretary of State James Baker provided Sunday morning at the Reagan Library, working together in a bipartisan way to deal with our Nation's problems and the problems that we're dealing with around the globe is a very important thing. And that's why as we look at the economic challenges, it seems to me that following what I like to describe as the Kennedy-Reagan economic model would be a great prescription for us to create jobs and get our economy back on track. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at where it is that we're going, making sure that we have tax rates that encourage job creation and economic growth are important. Thanks to the fact that Japan has just reduced its top rate on job creators, the United States of America today has the highest tax rate on job creators of any country in the world. We have the highest tax rate of any country in the world when it comes to those businesses that are trying to create jobs. We continue to hear and decry the flight of jobs outside of the United States to other parts of the world, and people get into so many other issues. We need to look at our policies that encourage the flight of those jobs outside of the country. I will tell you that if Ronald Reagan were President of the United States, I have no doubt that he would be championing the notion of reducing that top corporate tax rate, and I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was very gratified right behind me just 10 days ago President Obama stood here and advocated a reduction of that top rate on those job creators. We know that he has recently, President Obama, read Lou Cannon's book on Ronald Reagan and understands how successful Ronald Reagan was. Now, I have lots of things that I want to say, but I'm privileged to be joined by four great Californians who are here right now, and so I think that the most appropriate thing for me to do would be to go by both age and seniority. And so I think that my friend Dan Lungren, who has been an inspiration to me as Ronald Reagan was, has joined us, and I mentioned him earlier. He's the distinguished chair of the Committee on House Administration, something that we were never able to do during the Reagan years, that being have the majority, and I know that Ronald Reagan would be very proud to see his friend Dan Lungren in the position that he is today. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I will tell you exactly what the vote was because I remember it so vividly. It was the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. And I further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend very much for his very thoughtful contributions. And his last two stories remind me very vividly of the fact that Ronald Reagan was in charge, whether it was ensuring that he penned the: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' or whether he jumped forward and said, Of course I'm going to meet with those young people. And it brought to mind that famous ``Saturday Night Live'' skit where you may recall where you saw Reagan come out. The perception of him was, as my friend said earlier, that he wasn't in charge and that he was scripted by everyone else but himself. What they did in the skit was he came out and he met with some young children and he shook hands with them and said, How are you doing? And was perceived as this guy who was a long way from being in charge. Then the moment they left, he went back and he said, Okay, fellas, let's get to work here now. So behind the curtain he was doing that. When, in fact, we do know that Ronald Reagan was in charge as he dealt with foreign policy and domestic policy as well. And I'm very happy that we are joined by my colleague who came to the Congress during the last 2 years of the Reagan administration. He came here in 1986 and I know was inspired by President Reagan. He is a very, very thoughtful, hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee and a subcommittee chairman. I am happy to recognize him at this time, my friend, Mr. Herger.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time and just interject one little story here as we have a discussion here. I'm reminded that one of his domestic policy advisors, Professor Roger Porter from Harvard, had told me that he remembered sitting in the Oval Office with President Reagan, and a group came in and began just maligning and ripping him up one side and down the other. And the President just sat there patiently-- and obviously he was on the opposite side of where they were--and they left. And Professor Porter looked to him and he said, Gosh. He said, Why in the world, Mr. President, would you not respond to those people? I mean, they were so horrible to you. And President Reagan looked to him and said, Well, you know, I can't control how other people act. I can only control how I act. And that was his response to that kind of attack. And I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that, one, the chair of each committee be permitted to submit their respective committee rules for publication in the Congressional Record; and, two, that the chair of the Committee on the Budget be permitted to submit material related to the budget process for publication in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Grandfather Community for doing her typically wonderful job of managing the rule. I also want to say to my friend from Fort Lauderdale that I appreciate his thoughtful remarks. I am somewhat dumbfounded, though, that for the first time since April 8, 2008--it has been 4 years, April 4, 2008, it was a beach bill that was being considered here--we had a modified open rule. We now are going to allow Members of this House to engage in a free-flowing debate. Our Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, came up to me last night right before the State of the Union message saying that he was looking forward to offering an amendment that he told me he submitted for the Record last night. So we are going to, for the first time in a long time, allow for free-flowing debate. So I can understand why my friend might want to oppose the underlying legislation. I disagree with him, but I can't understand why in the world they would conceive of opposing for the first time since April 8, 2008, having the kind of free-flowing debate that both Democrats and Republicans and the American people deserve to see their representatives have in this institution. And what is this legislation all about? This legislation is all about job creation and economic growth. Job creation and economic growth. And one might say, when you are talking about the Presidential checkoff, how is that about job creation and economic growth? Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Last night the President time and time again talked about the importance of creating jobs. And as I said during my 1-minute presentation here, the President made it very clear that we need to make sure that we live within our means. Now, what is it that living within our means will do? We need to send a message to those potential job creators out there that the United States Government is getting its fiscal house in order so that there can be a level of confidence for those businesses to create jobs. Right now, when you look at the fact that we have this $14 trillion debt, when you look at the fact that we have deficits as far as the eye can see, it's not sending a very positive signal for those people who want to create jobs. So you ask, Why is it we're taking on a new program like this? Well, the new estimate has it from $520 million to $617 million. This is based on the new estimates. Now, is it a small amount of money? Of course it's a small amount of money. Why is this chosen? Well, I think that there is a reason. It's the fact that it has failed. President Obama chose to cast aside and not utilize this system when he was running for President, and John McCain did use it, as my friend from Fort Lauderdale said in the Rules Committee yesterday. We've already had the President of the United States announce that his plan is to raise $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That would lead me to conclude that President Obama, assuming he runs for reelection, is not planning to use this fund. Let's also look at the fact that, since 1980, when it was in effect, 28.7 percent of the American people utilized that checkoff; and today, about 7.3 percent--or something like that--of the American people are using that checkoff system that is there. Now, I listened to the remarks of my friend from Fort Lauderdale in which he said that the notion of getting rid of this would allow corporations to be involved in a much greater way, and he implied that there would be all kinds of corruption. No one--no one, Mr. Speaker--is advocating that we go back to the way the campaign finance law was before 1974 and Watergate. I mean, it was a horrible, horrible time. Disclosure and accountability are very important, and we have in place today, under the Federal election law, limitations that exist. No corporate contributions are allowed to be made to Federal advocates. No corporate contributions are allowed to be made to Federal candidates. There is the notion of somehow claiming that, by saving $617 million, the idea of taking that amount of money off the table and allowing people to voluntarily support the candidates of their choice is somehow going to encourage greater corporate contributions. It's against the law. This does nothing to change that, and I think that it's a very specious argument to propound something other than the case here. Mr. Speaker, I will say again we are going to have a rigorous debate on this, and Members are going to have an opportunity to participate. If Members do want to oppose the underlying legislation, I think they should be welcomed to do that, but I still find it very hard to believe that for the first time in the history of our Republic, now approaching 222 years this spring, we saw an entire Congress have not a single bill considered under an open amendment process; and while this is not an open rule--and I'm not claiming it's an open rule--it is a modified open rule that does allow for the kind of free-flowing debate that we haven't seen in a long period of time. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with Ms. Foxx in support of this rule. Then let's have the free-flowing debate and allow, as Speaker Boehner regularly says, the House to work its will. Then we'll have a vote, and people can vote however they'd like at the end of the debate.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that, obviously, this is a very positive step in the direction for allowing for that debate. If we had 100 amendments filed that were germane, we'd have the outside time limit and an opportunity for a debate to take place on those amendments. So, again, any Member had the chance--Democrat or Republican alike-- to file amendments last night so that we could consider them on the House floor, and I think it's a great thing. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, ``we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.'' Those are the words that were stated less than 24 hours ago, at 9 o'clock last night, by the President of the United States. And I have to say that truer words have never been spoken. Mr. Speaker, when Ms. Foxx calls up this rule, we will be proceeding with the first modified open rule for debate in 4 years, and we will be putting ourselves on a path towards reducing the size, scope, and reach of government so that we will send a signal out there that job creation and economic growth can finally, finally get moving.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the indelible and enduring images of 2010 was that of violent protesters on the streets of Athens following the proposal of the government to impose austerity measures. We all remember very vividly that scene. Having come to the brink of collapse and nearly dragging the entire euro zone with it, the Greek government had no choice but to scale back its profligate ways. Thousands of public employees took to the streets in anger. Now, Madam Speaker, I contrast that with the image of tens of thousands of peaceful demonstrators across America coming out to express their frustration with excessive government spending. Rather than demanding more Federal largesse, these taxed-enough-already demonstrators actually came together to petition their government for greater restraint and discipline. This might actually have been a first in human history. It was a powerful illustration of the unique nature of American values. But it was also a testament to just how badly fiscal discipline is needed. This issue is no longer just the purview of budget wonks and economists. The looming crisis of our national debt is a challenge that working Americans recognize very clearly. While the magnitude of a $14 trillion debt is simply too massive to truly comprehend, those with a modicum of common sense can appreciate the crushing weight that will fall on future generations. If we do not immediately change course, the damage could quickly become irreversible. Today's resolution is a clear signal that we are making that change in course. House Resolution 38 is the first step, Madam Speaker, in what will be a long and admittedly difficult process over the next 2 years as we pursue the goal of living within our means. This resolution lays down a marker to return to pre-bailout, pre-binge-spending, pre- stimulus levels. This resolution provides the framework under which we will finally dispense with the fiscal year 2011 budget which the previous Congress, unfortunately, failed to do. Nearly halfway through the fiscal year--we are nearly halfway through the fiscal year--now the imperative is to responsibly finish the work that is really very, very urgent for us to approach and deal with at this moment. Once we move beyond this task, we will immediately pivot to fiscal year 2012. We will craft a budget, we will consider alternatives, with a full debate, and then this House will pass a budget. We will then proceed with consideration of appropriations bills. We will return to the traditional, open process that always governed our appropriations bills prior to the last couple of years. This will ensure full accountability and true collaboration and restore the deliberative traditions and customs of this body. There will be very tough choices ahead. Very tough choices need to be made. There is no doubt that we will engage in heated debate, and I suspect we will in just a few minutes right here. But we simply cannot afford to put off the hard work any longer. Madam Speaker, today we take the first step. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. I'm sorry. I was talking to my new colleague, Mr. Mulvaney, here. If the gentleman was yielding to me, I apologize, but he will have to repeat the question.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend by saying a couple of things. Unfortunately, we have begun by degenerating the debate to the sky- is-falling mentality again, that we're going to be cutting NIH funding; we're going to be gutting FBI agents. We are beginning the process of getting our fiscal house in order. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that while both of my friends have used the term ``press release,'' H. Res. 38 is going to be a statement from the United States House of Representatives that we are today, before the President, at 9 this evening, stands here in this Chamber and delivers his State of the Union message, that we are committing ourselves to reduce the level of spending. At this point I yield 4 minutes to my very good friend and classmate, the distinguished new chair on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? And I will yield my friend additional time.