David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement of my friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I looked at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen to her statement and then look at the reports that we have this morning, I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential campaign. First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas, that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am I, and why am I here? Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2- year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not increase taxes on any Americans. Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers. Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are, it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job creation and economic growth is something that we should do. And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell, who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course that will get this economy back on track. Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact, if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact, not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put forward first by a great Democratic President. We will mark the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He was elected 50 years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great celebration here in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural speech, which many of us have been quoting since we were children, of John F. Kennedy. And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan, who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have economists from even on the left who will say--even Keynesian economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we all know we have a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the sad news about housing sales that came out this morning--we all know that in a down economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that increasing taxes is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines the potential for economic growth. Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here. We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for consideration of this measure. Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow that. I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee, a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a party-line vote it was rejected. It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times. So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Boulder, a hard-working member of the Rules Committee, and I want to associate myself with much of what he said. We obviously have very important priorities that need to be addressed, whether it's dealing with environmental issues, border security, FMF, the Pakistani anti-insurgency effort, all of those things are very, very high priorities which need to be addressed; and so I think he is right on target in pointing to those. The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is what is it that got us to the point where we are at this moment. We all know that the American people are hurting. We know that unemployment benefits have expired. We know that we have looked at the election that took place on November 2 and that, in and of itself, was evidence of a high level of anger and frustration that has been shown by the American people, I mean, the largest turnover in this institution in nearly three-quarters of a century. And by virtue of that, it seems to me that we need to realize that there is a message that has been received, and that message is a clear one. This business-as-usual pattern cannot continue. And when I say ``business as usual,'' it's a very tragic and sad commentary as to what business as usual has become. Because in this 111th Congress, we have for the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act not passed a budget. We have not even dealt with the budget issue, and that has played a role in getting us to where we are at this moment. The importance of keeping the government running is one which Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge, but we also know that we have what my friend described as constitutional responsibilities; and those constitutional responsibilities, under article 1, section 9, are for us to do everything that we can to make sure that we responsibly expend those taxpayer dollars. We basically abrogated our responsibility. So for the first time in history, we have not passed a budget. And then, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened in the last 2 years, we have for the first time ever not allowed Democrats or Republicans an opportunity to participate in a free-flowing open debate on appropriations bills, which had always been the case on virtually every appropriations bill up until this Congress. And it's unfortunate that we have gotten to this point, because if we had had that free-flowing debate, Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that we wouldn't be here today with this continuing resolution. Of course, I acknowledge that continuing resolutions have taken place in the past, but I wrote down the remarks that my friend just offered when he said that this continuing resolution will continue the funding levels that we have had already in existence. That's the funding level for the massive trillion-dollar so-called stimulus bill, the appropriations bills which have seen a 91 percent increase in the past 4 years in nondefense--nondefense discretionary spending. That's what is being maintained with this continuing resolution, and that is why we are very, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about continuing to move in that direction. Now, I believe that there are a number of things that have to be done. And the reason that I'm concerned and opposed to the continuing resolution that we have before us is that it does perpetuate this ``business as usual.'' So I mentioned the message that came from the November 2 election. We all know that. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that the American people are angry, they are hurting, and they want change. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know how important this issue is that we are trying to address. We have the Debt Commission, which was scheduled to have a vote today. It's now been postponed until Friday. They are looking at attacking this issue. We have a month before the 112th Congress convenes. And it seems to me that at this moment, certainly following the outcome of the November 2 election, the responsible thing for us to do would be to take on these issues right here and now. We are looking at the challenge of getting the economy growing, as I said in my 1-minute presentation. And I bring this up because I know my friend from Boulder shares the commitment I have to prying open new markets around the world so that we can create good American jobs for people. In fact, I met yesterday with the new Ambassador, Gabriel Silva, from Colombia, who has just taken over from Carolina Barco, who did a spectacular job, as we all know, working diligently to try and pass that U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement which has been languishing for 3 years. And again, for the first time in history, having passed the Trade Act in 1974, we saw that measure thrown aside by Speaker Pelosi nearly 3 years ago after the deal had been signed and was sent up by then-President Bush. The numbers that we got yesterday from this meeting that I'm going to be releasing in a ``Dear Colleague,'' that I know my friend will look at, interestingly enough is in the area of agricultural products. We have seen the level of exports of U.S. agricultural goods drop from 46 percent to 22 percent in the last 2 years from the U.S. to Colombia. And at the same time, Colombia is dramatically expanding its trade relationship with Mercosur, the four countries in South America: Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. They developed a greater linkage with Western Europe. And here in the United States of America, we could create good jobs, get our economy growing and generate revenues to deal with many of these priority items that my friend mentioned in his remarks that need to be addressed. We'd have the revenues to deal with border security, foreign policy issues, and environmental issues if we could create good American jobs by opening up these markets. And so that is why, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, as we look at the notion of a 17-day continuing resolution to keep the government going and the expiration of unemployment benefits, what we should be doing is we should have a laser-like effort focused on our need to create good American manufacturing jobs. My California colleague was critical of me for talking about the importance of creating union jobs. He said that I couldn't have it both ways because I didn't vote for the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus bill and somehow want to create good union jobs by expanding market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers. Well, I believe that union and nonunion workers will benefit. Workers from companies, as I mentioned in my 1-minute speech, like Caterpillar, like John Deere, like Whirlpool and others, companies in my State of California, would have a chance to have union members, union and nonunion workers, have opportunities that don't exist today because we haven't opened up these markets. And so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we look at the challenges that are lying ahead, the notion of saying we are going to continue funding at the levels that created a 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending, that we're going to continue the funding levels that have created that obviously failed $787 billion, if you add interest and all, it's a trillion-dollar stimulus bill which has been decried as having failed by people all across the political spectrum, and if you look at the notion of our denying the American people a chance to have their proposals heard through their elected representatives with the kind of free-flowing debate when it comes to the notion of trying to bring about reductions in spending is just plain wrong. That is why I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this measure. I believe that we can do better. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we all know the sad news of the expiration of unemployment benefits. And we feel very strongly about ensuring that the American people who are struggling are able to have their needs met. We also feel strongly that it must be paid for. We also feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the focus should be on job creation and economic growth. We have three pending trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, which not only would have far-reaching economic impacts on the United States of America, but at the same time it would have a very, very important geopolitical impact. And it seems to me that as we look at creating good manufacturing jobs for union and nonunion workers in the United States, at companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, Whirlpool, other union companies, that the single best thing to do for those workers and potential union and nonunion workers is to open up markets where there are 40 million consumers in Colombia. The single largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world would be the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join, and I know there is bipartisan support for this, in encouraging the administration to send up those agreements so that we can focus on what it is the American people want us to do, and that is create good manufacturing jobs right here in the United States.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness I submit for the record, together with my friend and colleague Representative Jerry Lewis, the obituary of our dear friend Maggie Stewart of Upland, California. Maggie was a formidable community leader, activist, volunteer and philanthropist. San Antonio Community Hospital, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, United Way, Kiwanis Club of Upland, Soroptimist Club of Ontario and the Assistance League of Upland are just a few of the community organizations that benefitted from her outstanding service. As we remember her extraordinary life and accomplishments, Maggie's two daughters, Shirley Preston of Rancho Cucamonga and Carol Hawkins of Upland, four grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren remain in our thoughts and prayers. The contributions of this tremendous woman will continue to make a difference in the lives of so many in our communities. [From the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Nov. 16, 2010] Stewart Family Matriarch Leaves a Rich Legacy (By John Jopes) I learned Monday that Margaret Stewart had died. And I was hurt by that. She was not only a friend, but also was part of a withering vestige of our community's rich history. Because of that, the end of Maggie's life tolls a particular sadness, and marks a conclusion of an astonishing life. Maggie married into the Stewart pioneer family when she was 23; that was in 1944. Her husband, Walter Stewart, was heir to the family's citrus ranches that date back to the 1890s. Walter, a former member of the Ontario City Council, died in 2004. The Stewart family, among others, fashioned the character of an agrarian community that evolved into the vibrant valley it was to become. But by anyone's reckoning, Margaret Stewart was her own kind of dynamo. In 1939 Maggie (Margaret Sanders then) was elected president of the Chaffey High School student body. She not only was the first girl in the school's history to win that post, but she had to whip a star football player to do it. ``My mother was always so proud of that,'' her daughter Carol Hawkins said the other day. That high school victory was a watershed for Maggie, for she was smitten with politics, and her love for it remained with her from that time forward. Although she never served in public office, she steered countless such campaigns, and helped elect scores of officeholders during the remainder of her life. Some of them still serve in high places. A headline from a yellowed newspaper clipping describing Maggie's political prowess referred to her simply as ``Mrs. Republican.'' She earned that sobriquet, and answered to it with pride. She was a founder of the influential Chaffey District Young Republicans in 1950, and later served as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee. She used the power of that post with envied skill and fairness. Maggie was a delegate to three Republican National Conventions (1988, 1992 and 1996). But she spread her goodness liberally beyond the local and national political stage and was active with numerous local organizations whose missions were to make the community a better place in which to live. She just as well could have been referred to a ``Mrs. San Antonio Community Hospital,'' or ``Mrs. Spanish Trails Girl Scout Council.'' The list could go on. At the 2004 San Antonio Community Hospital's President's Award Dinner honoring Maggie, she was praised for her work with the United Way, the Assistance League of Upland, the hospital's auxiliary, PTA and other organizations. She possessed a myriad of awards, local, county and statewide. Maggie liked to describe herself as a freelancer in the public relations field, and her clients, as well as newspaper people, agreed that she was an expert in that exercise. ``Maggie is a gentle arm-twister,'' an editor once said. She possessed another trait--she was particularly generous, and had the knack of making other people feel especially important when she talked to them. Ask anyone who knew her. But Maggie's labor in the fields of community good came at no expense to her duties as an accomplished homemaker and a loving and supportive parent. Kathy Brugger, a close friend, once wrote, ``Family is not just a word to Maggie, but a commitment. She continues to be there for her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.'' Maggie's place in history also is well-established. She and her family spent 28 years living in the Stewart ranch home constructed in 1895 by Walter's grandfather, W.B. Stewart. When new, it was surrounded by citrus groves. Although no longer owned by the family, the historic Queen Anne home (regarded as a mansion in its earliest days) was occupied, at one time or another, by five generations of Stewarts. It still stands at 830 W. Sixth St. in Ontario. In the new part of their marriage, Maggie and Walter, like other citrus growers, confronted the conflict between warm smudge pots and cruel frost in a struggle to save their fruit from certain death. The pots were fired by men and boys who ran through the night, a dance of sorts that left the valley veiled in dark smoke. One of the Stewart groves was at the county roads of Arrow Highway and Mountain in Upland. Stewart Plaza, an office building and commercial complex, now stands on that site. Maggie was born Margaret Sanders in Ontario on July 9, 1921, the only child of William and Mary Sanders. Her father was a Southern California Edison Co. employee. Maggie attended local schools, and she graduated from Chaffey College. In the early 1940s, she worked in the offices of the Cal Aero Academy (now Chino Airport) where thousands of young men were trained before they flew off to World War II. She also was employed as a secretary at the General Electric flatiron plant in Ontario. In 1944 she and Walter, who was a highly decorated Marine fighter pilot while serving in the South Pacific, settled down to married life. Maggie soon began what was to be her extraordinary career in community service. It would be a lifetime devotion. Maggie's death at her Upland home on Monday at the age of 89, was brought on by a lengthy period of diminishing health and the result of a recent fall. No one would disagree Maggie Stewart led a full and rewarding life, a life that has left a place better than it was before her time. She is survived by two daughters, Shirley Preston of Rancho Cucamonga and Carol Hawkins of Upland. Besides her husband, she was preceded in death by a daughter, Sandy Lee. Four grandchildren and seven great-grand children also survive. Funeral services will be Friday at 1 p.m. at Life Bible Fellowship Church, 2426 N. Euclid Ave., Upland. The family said memorial contributions can go to Charter Hospice, attention: Bonnie Beck, 1012 E. Cooley Drive, Suite G, Colton, CA 92324; or San Antonio Community Hospital Foundation, 999 San Bernardino Road, Upland, CA 91786.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to join in expressing both appreciation and congratulations to Sophie Hayford for her 34 years of dedicated service to this institution. It is true, I think, that the thing that struck me--I mean, I have never analyzed the National Archives hidden behind her desk. I have been able to benefit from some of the wonderful things that she has cooked. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing from my perspective is that Sophie Hayford has always, always, always offered a smile and encouragement, which doesn't always take place from side to side in this institution. And that's the thing that I will miss the most. I just want to wish her well. I know that her first action is going to be to jet off to Paris. And I will say, mine is going to be to jet off to Los Angeles, California. And while I am looking forward enthusiastically to that, I will say that the idea of going to Paris is very appealing. So after 34 years of great service, having worked with our Rules Committee colleague Mr. McGovern on the staff of Mr. Moakley, and having worked so closely with that great man, our former chairman, it is something that obviously taught Sophie a great deal, Mr. Speaker, because Joe Moakley was a man from whom I learned a lot, and I know others in this body who had the opportunity to serve with him and staff members who had the opportunity to work for and with him learned as well. So I would say that those 10 years of service in Mr. Moakley's personal office obviously played a big role in creating the kind of spectacular public servant that Sophie has been. And I want to join in wishing her well, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this House, as I said, has failed to budget and failed to appropriate. The majority leadership of this House has actively denied Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to make spending decisions, particularly when it comes to cutting its Federal deficit. We can see the result, as I have been saying: A 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending. This amendment we have would restore some sanity to our fiscal outlook, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my friend is prepared to close.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing appreciation to my very good friend from Rochester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and to say that, not surprisingly, I believe that based on the facts, the American people have a slightly different take on what it is that has gotten us to where we are and what it is that we are doing here this evening. Apparently, the House is wrapping up its business tonight, adjourning early for the campaign season. Our final act will be the passage of this continuing resolution, made necessary by this majority's many, many failures. Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to remind us over and over again that they have completed their agenda. We just heard that from the distinguished chairwoman. That completed agenda is, Mr. Speaker, the failed stimulus bill, the unsuccessful cap-and-trade legislation, and the evermore unpopular government takeover of our health care system. What they will not mention, Mr. Speaker, what they will not mention is the work that they did not do. They did not pass a budget for the first time since the implementation of the 1974 Budget and Empowerment Act. They did not complete work on a single appropriations bill. And to make matters worse, they are leaving town with a tax hike looming for the American people. Mr. Speaker, this is not a record of which to be proud. But that is not all. The 111th Congress is departing with another dubious distinction. Not a single bill was considered under an open amendment process, not one. Not a single bill in this entire Congress considered under an open amendment process. This fact alone makes this Congress the most closed Congress in history. Let me say that again. Sadly for the American people who have been denied the opportunity to be heard in this institution, the action of not allowing one bill to be considered under an open rule has made this the single most closed Congress in the 221-year history of our Republic. How did we end up here? Wasn't it just 4 short years ago that we were promised a new direction? Didn't Speaker Pelosi assure the American people that their business would be conducted in the most open, honest, ethical way possible? Those promises are still available on the Speaker's Web site. It is almost eerie, as we look at the past 4 years, Mr. Speaker. It is almost eerie to read the words that appear on the Speaker's Web site. They read, in part: with integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our new direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people. Mr. Speaker, those are the words that at this moment are still on the Speaker's Web site: with integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our new direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people. Mr. Speaker, 4 years later, the hopes and dreams of the American people are being crushed by a tragically high unemployment rate and rising debt. They are clamoring to understand how and why legislation they pleaded with the Congress not to pass could be forced through with procedural games. They are wondering why, when they are being forced to tighten their own belts, the Congress refused to consider a budget for our Nation's spending priorities. The American people know that this is not the new direction they were promised. They know that this majority has led our country the wrong way. Today, my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee and I released a new report that I have right here; and I would commend to my colleagues, and our colleagues who don't have a hard copy of it can get it by going to our site, which is house-rulesrepublicans.house.gov. So I would commend this to our colleagues: ``The Wrong Way Congress: How the Democratic majority took America in the wrong direction with the wrong bills in the wrong way at the wrong time.'' And we have right inside here, Mr. Speaker, symbolic of what it is that we have gotten, the sign that many people across this country have seen: ``Putting America to Work Project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.'' That is what we have right here. And we all know that this sign, in and of itself, is an indication of the failure. This report outlines the procedural abuses and the failures of the 111th Congress and the role that the House Rules Committee has played in executing them. Rather than focusing on job creation, as the American people wanted, the Democratic majority pursued a job-killing agenda based on reckless spending, over-regulation and, tragically, tax increases. The details are all too familiar by now. It all started, Mr. Speaker, with the failed stimulus bill. There were no hearings, and well after midnight the bill was rushed through the Rules Committee at warp speed. We continue to hear that everything is done in the light of day, and the stimulus bill was passed out of the Rules Committee after midnight. We were told that this lack of regular order, Mr. Speaker, was necessary to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. That is why we had to rush the stimulus through so we could make sure that the unemployment rate that at that point was at 7.7 percent would not exceed 8 percent. Well, we all know today how painful it is that we across the country are suffering with a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and in my State of California, a nearly 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. Next up was the unsuccessful cap-and-trade legislation. Now, I don't need to remind any of my Rules Committee colleagues about our meeting on that bill. Think back to the cap-and-trade legislation. It wasn't considered in the light of day. Mr. Speaker, it was 3 o'clock in the morning--not 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock--3 o'clock in the morning, just hours before we voted here on the House floor, that my friend Mr. McGovern was in the process of reading the motion to report out the special rule. He had already begun reading the motion to move this bill to the floor. And at that time, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we had dumped onto our places a very warm, 300-page amendment, a 300- page amendment that completely rewrote the bill. It was that hearing, and that manager's amendment, that launched the hue and cry across this country when the American people said, read the bill. And the next day, Republican leader John Boehner stood right where I am, and he took his privilege, as leader, to explain to our colleagues and the American people what was in that 300-page amendment. Then, next up was the health care reform legislation. Who can forget the town hall meeting, the public outrage, the long hard slog that they went through, Mr. Speaker, to find the votes for its passage? Things got so bad that the majority searched for ways to pass the bill without actually voting on it. It was dubbed the Slaughter Solution, named for our very distinguished committee chair. The public outrage was so intense that they eventually abandoned the so- called Slaughter Solution strategy. Again, Mr. Speaker, that bill was reported from the Rules Committee in the middle of the night, not in the light of the day, in the middle of the night. The bill was unpopular when it was passed. And as we all know from public opinion polls today that we see from virtually every source, Democrat and Republican alike, that health care bill is even more unpopular now than it was then. Mr. Speaker, as they pursued this job-killing agenda, the wrong-way Congress abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of budgeting and appropriations work. As I said earlier, for the first time since 1974, when the Budget Act was put into place, the House did not even consider a budget resolution. This failure was part and parcel of their strategy to shut down the appropriations process and restrict the amendment debate. It began in the summer of 2009, a year ago this past summer; and it became complete this year. We considered only two of the 12 spending bills and both with a handpicked list of amendments. Mr. Speaker, this crackdown was not without consequence. Listen to this number, Mr. Speaker. As the number of amendments declined, the rate of nondefense discretionary spending actually increased an astounding 91 percent. Nondefense discretionary spending since we put into place the crackdown on the opportunity for 435 Members, Democrat and Republican alike, to offer amendments, we have seen that increase take place since we saw the process for the first time ever completely shut down. This was not a coincidence. So here we are on the final day of the legislative session before the election. The House is operating under unrestricted martial-law authority, giving the majority the ability to call up any bill at any time with just an hour's notice. In the event that any of my colleagues are wondering when that happened, let me remind them that they voted for it last week when the House approved a rule providing for consideration of small business legislation. It is not surprising that most Members wouldn't notice. It was tucked into the rule, just as it has been for every single week that we have been in session, but one, since the month of May. This is the new normal. The majority can do whatever it wants whenever they want to do it. But let's remember, Mr. Speaker, what they won't do. They won't pass a budget. They won't vote to prevent the coming tax hikes that are crippling our economy with uncertainty. They won't allow a vote to get spending under control. They won't allow the House to debate a bill under an open rule. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am an eternal optimist. I was privileged to be elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President, and I believe in that Reagan sense of optimism. I believe that there is still a chance for the majority to do what was promised in a new direction for America, and that is to truly offer a new direction. I believe that the ``Wrong Way Congress'' can in fact make a U-turn and remove the uncertainty that is hurting our economy. We can have a vote to prevent tax hikes on all Americans, including small businesses and job creators. We can have a vote on a responsible level of spending, sending a powerful signal that we will work together to get our fiscal house in order, as was promised and as can be still read on the Speaker's Web page. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that would be the right thing to do for all of us and, most importantly, for the American people who have entrusted us with dealing with these very, very serious challenges and problems that we as a Nation face. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, and I am going to urge my colleagues also to defeat the previous question first. And if we are successful in defeating the previous question, we will offer a motion to go to the spending levels that were before the failed stimulus and before the bailouts, to the 2008 spending levels. Mr. Speaker, with that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and, if we are not successful on that, a ``no'' vote on the rule. And I will say let's work together in a bipartisan way to deal with these very important issues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is very troubling that we are here at this late hour having not passed a budget for the first time since the Budget Act was put into place in 1974, having not completed a single appropriations bill, and having passed legislation which has dramatically exacerbated the debt that is going to be shouldered by future generations. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that we can do better. We can do better right now. I and my colleagues are prepared to stay here so that we can ensure that Americans don't face the uncertainty of a tax increase, which will clearly impinge the potential for economic growth as we are struggling to get out of this recession. I am convinced that if we stay here, we can in fact get that done; I am convinced that if we stay, we could complete a budget; and I am convinced we could even complete the appropriations work. Now, I know the writing is on the wall. We have passed an adjournment resolution. It is up to the majority leader to determine whether or not we can do this. But things have moved so quickly, things have moved out of the Rules Committee so quickly, I think that we should make an attempt to try and address our constitutionally mandated items, like passing a budget, like completing our appropriations work. So I urge my colleagues to do that. It is very sad that this has become the wrong-way Congress. But as I said, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we do have the chance to turn things around, make a U-turn. This wrong-way Congress document is not filled with lots of hyperbole. It is filled with facts. It is filled with the very sad facts about what we have seen over the past 4 years, and I would commend it to my colleagues. I am going to ask my colleagues to join me now in defeating the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will change the budget enforcement ``deemer'' resolution to reduce our discretionary spending levels to pre-bailout and pre-stimulus levels, 2008 levels. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment appear in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Worcester talk about the unemployment rate, talk about the economic challenges that we're facing, and I can tell you we all are well aware of it. Part of the area I represent in southern California has a 14 percent unemployment rate. Statewide in California, we have nearly a 12.5 percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. Let's remember, we were promised, when the proposals came forward from this administration, that we would have an unemployment rate that would not exceed 8 percent, and now, as my friend from Grandfather Community said, we have an unemployment rate that is between 9.5 and 10 percent--very, very painful for people all across this country. And what it is that we've learned is that a $1 trillion stimulus bill that had $4.7 billion in it for weatherization, when only 10 percent of those funds have been expended, is obviously not the answer to the challenge of weatherization. And so we now have another bill that is a loan program, but it's $4.25 billion and is designed, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a problem that, frankly, is not the top priority that we have out there. My friend is absolutely right. We want to create jobs. But I think we have learned from the stimulus bill, Mr. Speaker, that the notion of spending billions and trillions of dollars is not what needs to be done to create jobs. We need to create good, private sector jobs. And so what is it they've come forward with? They've come forward with another bill to deal with weatherization that they say will be a job creator. Well, the policies that we've seen over the past 20 months have killed jobs. The report that is coming out this morning is that the increase in the poverty rate has been nearly unprecedented. We have lots of very, very unfortunate economic indicators out there. I am an optimist. I believe that our economy is going to recover. It is going to recover in spite of, not because of, the policies that we have put into place here in Washington, D.C., over the past few years. We will because we are Americans, because we are the United States of America. We will, as a Nation, recover, but, Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing is we should be breaking down barriers. We should be reducing the tax and regulatory burden on working Americans and job creators to ensure that we can, as early as possible, have that kind of success. Now, this rule that we are considering right now is a further indication of the arrogance of the majority leadership. There was one Republican amendment that was germane that was submitted, and, Mr. Speaker, it was submitted by our Texas colleague, Mr. Barton, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was denied. Five amendments were made in order, all amendments offered by the majority. Unfortunately, what we've seen is, time and time again, this institution, under the Democratic leadership that we have, is simply coming forward with proposals offered by Democrats, completely shutting out Republicans. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that in a partisan way. I'm saying it because the Republicans represent nearly half the American people, and the American people are the ones who are being shut out and, unfortunately, many Democratic Members are being shut out as well. This has tragically been the single-most closed Congress in the history of our Republic. The 221-year history of our Republic has never seen a Congress as closed as this. Mr. Speaker, I know this comes as a surprise to many, but with the exception of the appropriations process in the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we have seen a grand total of one bill considered under an open amendment process in the entire 3 years. In fact, we are poised right now to, for the first time in the history of our Republic, see an entire Congress without a single open rule. Why? Because we saw the appropriations process close down in this 111th Congress as well. The American people want us to focus on job creation and economic growth, and they also want greater transparency, disclosure, and accountability, and, Mr. Speaker, they are not getting that from this Congress. They deserve better. And if we can deliver it, I am convinced we will be able to get our economy back on track. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because we can do better. First vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will be able to say to those Federal employees who are not paying their taxes that they shouldn't be there. We are focusing specifically on ways to cut spending. We've got an opportunity to do that. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from Lakeville, Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.