David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that I appreciate the fact that my friend from Colorado pointed out that, contrary to what Speaker Pelosi said when she argued that Republicans would rather see in the unemployment line teachers, nurses, and cops rather than in the classroom, in the emergency room and on the line, on the beat, that, in fact, we do, Republicans and Democrats, alike care. At this point, I am happy to yield, Madam Speaker, 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, my friend from Dallas, Mr. Hensarling.

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, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a Member who would like to see us go through the regular appropriations process, a member of the Appropriations Committee, my friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, a week ago last Friday when we adjourned for the August district work period, I thought to myself, well, we are going to get a six-week reprieve from this pattern of constant increases in spending and more bailouts. And yet here we are one week into this August district work period, and we are back here with a $26.1 billion spending measure. Now, Madam Speaker, I was horrified when I read at the end of last week a quote that was put out of Speaker Pelosi's office. She said that Republican Members would rather see teachers, nurses, and cops on the unemployment line rather than having teachers in the classrooms, nurses in the emergency rooms, and cops on the beat. And as I said in the opening, I am grateful that my friend from Colorado recognizes that Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike all want to make sure that teachers are in the classroom, all want to make sure that nurses are in the emergency room, and all want to make sure that cops are on the beat. So let's disabuse ourselves of this notion that somehow if you are not supportive of this $26.1 billion measure, that you somehow are opposed to teachers, nurses, and cops.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question and allow those five measures to be debated here on the House floor, I believe that that goal would go a long way towards getting our economy back on track; and, yes, that kind of economic growth would ensure that we would have the resources to make sure that teachers remain in the classrooms and that nurses remain in the emergency rooms and that cops remain on the beat. So Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. And if by chance we are not successful, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Because I believe that we can do better. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say the answer is no, we have not voted on this package of items. And let me address this by saying that I don't believe that the litany of items included in this bill which we're just starting to look at have, in fact, had an opportunity for consideration. There was somebody who took a glance at it yesterday afternoon who said to me, This is not what we need to be doing to create jobs. What we need to be doing is focusing on reducing the capital gains rate and the dividend tax right now, tax rate. That would do more to stimulate job creation and economic growth than anything that we've got in this piecemeal package that has been put together. And the transparency, as far as I'm concerned, is based on the following: It's simply a desire to say we've tried to do something to create jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have wanted to do that. We've come forward repeatedly with proposals to do just that. And we have tried the policy of dramatically increasing spending in the size and scope and reach of government, and guess what? We were promised that the unemployment rate wouldn't exceed 8 percent if we passed the stimulus bill. We all know that it's at 9\1/2\ percent nationwide. I see my friend Ms. Chu here from California. We have a 12.3 percent unemployment rate. In Los Angeles County, it's higher than that. And in the area that I represent to the east, it's 14.4 percent in parts of San Bernardino County. We have an unemployment rate that is far in excess of what we were promised if we passed the stimulus bill. We have tried that, Mr. Speaker. Let's now focus on job creation and economic growth with a responsible package, not this pathetic piecemeal approach which is outrageous. And to do it without any kind of consultation whatsoever with the minority is beyond the pale. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure. Let's do what the American people want. Let's have an open debate and let's put into place pro-growth economic policies which have been proven to be successful under President John F. Kennedy, a great Democrat, and under President Ronald Reagan, a great Republican President.

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, for doing her typical spectacular job and appropriately describing this as an outrageous rule. She's right on target. I'd really say ``pathetic'' when I look at both process and substance, because it is absolutely pathetic. Somebody said to me, well, you can say ``outrageous,'' I can say ``pathetic,'' and we can call the whole thing off. We'd be a lot better off, Mr. Speaker, if we did, in fact, not consider this rule the way we're doing it. Because while my friend from Houston just said the American people understand the need to get assistance--not a handout but assistance--so that we can get the economy moving, we can get that. But they also want us to do it with the kind of openness and fairness and transparency that we were promised in this great document, A New Direction for America. We've gotten anything but that. The reason that the substance is pathetic, along with the process itself, is that is not going to do anything to create jobs. This is designed--and while it wasn't directly said, I certainly inferred it from the testimony that we had in the Rules Committee last night. Well, everybody should have a chance to vote on job creation before we adjourn in August. So that's why this rush. Well, it's done clearly in the most inappropriate way when it comes to the deliberative nature. There was basically no consultation whatever with the ranking member on the committee. When I asked the chairman on the Ways and Means Committee whether or not there had been any consultation seeking a bipartisan approach, he said that he hoped this would have bipartisan support at the end of the day. When I asked, the only response that I was given was that he had a discussion with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, our friend Mr. Baucus, but no consultation whatsoever. The bill was introduced at 3:30 yesterday afternoon, and the Rules Committee met 90 minutes later to bring up this measure. Gosh. As I recall, looking at the rules, we should have at least had a 24-hour layover. I would say to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale, what is the rush here? We now know that we're going to be in session on Friday. We know that the Senate is scheduled to meet next week. Is there any reason for us not to have had this bill introduced, allow it to lay over for 24 hours, allow Democrats and Republicans alike to look at it so that we could decide what it consists of, and then have a Rules Committee meeting? I don't know why we didn't do that. I'm happy to yield to my friend if he would like to respond as to why it wasn't introduced with a 24-hour period to allow us to have it lay over. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time, and I do so to simply say we've heard that tired old argument, that we've voted on these items before. We've never had it as a package like this.

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my good friend from Miami for his typical, spectacular job. I have to say, as I stand here I am thinking about the fact that there are probably not going to be too many more opportunities for him to be here as we look towards the waning weeks of this Congress. I want to say that it's been a wonderful privilege for me to serve with him. He has done such an important job, and of course is best known for being a champion in the struggle for freedom and democracy and opportunity for people, especially in this hemisphere. I just thought about that when I stood up, so I would like to say that as I begin my remarks. It's also rather sad, Madam Speaker, that my friend has to preside over a rule which has this institution moving in the direction of more restrictions, more control, less liberty, and less opportunity. That is exactly what we've seen happen in the past year, especially when it comes to the appropriations process. By tradition, appropriations have been sacrosanct when it comes to the amendment process. We have had people who have had amendments that I would vigorously disagree with, and we always, always allowed for an open amendment process, with only one or two exceptions, and that was usually done when there was a bipartisan consensus to have some kind of structure to an appropriations debate. But now it has tragically, with what took place last year and what is taking place now, become the norm for us to shut down the opportunity for the American people--the American people--to be heard through their elected representatives, denying both Democrats and Republicans alike the opportunity to participate. I note that there are some new members of the Rules Committee, lots of new Members of this institution, and Madam Speaker, I don't know exactly what the numbers are, but there are people who have never once witnessed the United States House of Representatives, the People's House, engaging in an open rule debate. Now, why is it so important for us to pursue openness on this? Because, as my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) just said, the priority of her constituents--and I believe most Americans, certainly the people whom I represent in California--is the need for us to reduce the size and scope and reach of government so that we can create jobs and create individual initiative and responsibility. And we are denying Democrats and Republicans alike the chance to offer these amendments through the open amendment process. For example, two of my very distinguished, hardworking colleagues who have been in the forefront in the quest to reduce spending, my California colleague, Mr. Campbell, and our Texas colleague, Mr. Hensarling, both were denied an opportunity to offer amendments. Now if we had had an open amendment process, they would be able to offer their amendments that would bring about reductions in spending so that we can get our economy back on track and exercise the kind of fiscal restraint which is essential if we are going to succeed. So Madam Speaker, that is why we are going to encourage--my colleague will in just a moment--defeat of the previous question so that we can bring about a proposal that will allow us to cut spending under our YouCut program, the proposal that Mr. Linder has brought forward. And we also want to defeat this rule. I was just reminded by one of our staff members that this may be the last appropriations bill that we consider. Guess what number it is of the 12? It's the second appropriations bill. And yet the Appropriations Committee has not even engaged in markups that were promised. We have gone well beyond the deadline. As we all know, for the first time since the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act was implemented, we have not had a budget resolution here in the House of Representatives. So being promised the most open Congress in history is something that has clearly been thrown out the window, Madam Speaker. I hope very much that we will be able to defeat the previous question so we can have a chance to vote to cut spending, and then defeat this rule and come down with a process that will allow Democrats and Republicans to carry the voice of the American people to the floor of this institution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would say to my friend that she is absolutely right, having this 18-month experience. The fact is, if the Rules Committee were to follow regular order and report out open rules, the meetings upstairs would last a grand total of 5 minutes because we would have the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee come forward, say we have got this bill, we have an open amendment process, any Member can stand up on the House floor and offer a germane amendment to the measure. It is considered under the 5- minute rule. We would end the meeting upstairs and we would allow the House to work its will, which is, again, what was done up until last year when we had this shut down for the first time.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield, very briefly?

Mr. DREIER. Let me just close by saying that it's very, very important for us to recognize that process is substance. The American people get that. They understand that we are preventing their voice, Democrat and Republican alike, from being heard in this appropriations process. It is wrong, and I hope very much that as we move through the appropriations process this year we will get back through to regular order. I certainly hope that beginning next year, when a new appropriations process will begin, that we will have the kind of open amendment process that the American people expect and, through their elected representatives, deserve.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his very thoughtful remarks in his opening statement in which he talked about the greatness of this bill. This is a bipartisan bill, as has been pointed out by Mr. Crenshaw, as has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer. Democrats and Republicans alike have come together because, obviously, if we don't take care of our Nation's veterans, how are we going to incent our fellow Americans to join the armed services? When commitments are made to them, they need to be kept. We all want to do everything we can for the brave men and women who have fought on behalf and served on behalf of the United States of America. Obviously, I am here with a degree of sadness. I wasn't here for the exchange that took place when our friend, Mr. Flake, was here, but I have been told that my good friend from North Haven, who is managing this rule for the majority, indicated that if we had had an open amendment process, we would be allowing partisan obstructionism or something along that line to take place. Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that we have made what I consider to be rather sad history in this place. My friend from North Haven is a new Member of this institution and has not once, in her 18 months as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, been able to witness or participate in a bill being debated under an open amendment process. I have got to say that until it is tried, I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, until it's tried, I would think that the notion of passing judgment on the problems of an open rule should really not be brought forward. I will tell you that it is clear that an open amendment process is messier and uglier and more difficult than having everything shut down, but that's really what the framers of our Constitution wanted. They wanted there to be a free-flowing discussion. I just listened to Mr. Buyer a few minutes ago talking about the green initiative, and he wanted to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Edwards about this. The fact is, when we get into an open amendment process, which, by the way, was done for every single year up until last year for almost all appropriations bills--in fact, virtually every appropriations bill has begun under an open amendment process. Then, if a bipartisan consensus and agreement cannot be struck to bring about some kind of limitation of debate between the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the Rules Committee has, on occasion, been called on. But the difficulty here for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not even beginning with even a modicum of regular order. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I talked about William Natcher, who was a great Member of this institution and served for a period of time as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Two decades ago, when I joined the Rules Committee, I discussed the appropriations process with Chairman Natcher. He was probably best known--well, he was known for lots of accomplishments, probably best known as the only human being to go, for all the years that he served here, without missing a single vote. In fact, he gave me advice when I got here. He said, Make a speech in the well and miss a vote. This guy never missed a vote, and he was bound to that. But one of the things that he was was a great institutionalist, and he understood what regular order consisted of. He believed that since appropriations bills are considered to be privileged resolutions, that those measures didn't have to go upstairs through the Rules Committee. They, instead, could come directly to the House floor. By virtue of doing that, it would mean that legislating an appropriations bill could be stricken by a point of order that a Member would raise, but he believed that that was the best way to do that. Well, we moved away from that, and he said he didn't think that it was a wise thing. But we moved to the point where the Rules Committee would say, gosh, if there are items in an appropriations bill that consisted of things like legislation, there was an agreement with the authorizing committee that the Rules Committee would protect those. It was understood and done pretty much with bipartisan consensus. But then Democrats and Republicans, alike, would be able to, under that sacrosanct appropriations process, offer germane amendments to the appropriations bill. Now we have gotten to the point, again, and for the first time in the history of the Republic, of shutting down the appropriations process, limiting the opportunities for Members to offer amendments. While this is a very, very, very good and a critically important bill which virtually all of us will support at the end of the day, it's not the right way to do it. Process is substance. The American people learned that very clearly when we had the 300-page amendment dropped on us up in the Rules Committee at 3 o'clock in the morning, that, in fact, said that we had just a few hours to look at that measure before it was to be debated on the House floor.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Lake Jackson, Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.

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. I have to say it's fascinating to see my two very good friends, our former Presidential candidates, Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who have obviously come together working very thoughtfully on this. I think, Mr. Speaker, they are both making some very interesting arguments about the cost, about the challenges that exist, and I do concur with that. I would simply say that we are where we are today. It's very unfortunate that we are where we are today. Where we are, we are; but fact of the matter is, that is what we do face. There are a number of people who, as leaders on this issue within the Obama administration, are working overtime to seek to address this. I mentioned Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Holbrooke. I have spent time with virtually all of them talking about the challenge of this issue. As I mentioned earlier, I am very privileged to work closely with David Price and the other 18 members of our House Democracy Partnership because we concur, the notion of anything other than civilian control of the military and the intelligence services in Pakistan or any other country for that matter is not acceptable. And that's why I believe that while we look at the cost of both lives, as well as the financial burden that is imposed on us, we need to ensure that we are not going to face the kind of threat that we have before. Now, we know that al Qaeda and those al Qaeda-inspired terrorists, not necessarily tied to al Qaeda, but inspired, exist all over the world. We recognize that; but we also have to, Mr. Speaker, realize that Pakistan to this day continues to be ground zero. As I said, the porous border with Afghanistan has provided an invitation for al Qaeda in Afghanistan to move into Pakistan. As we look at the difficulty that exists, for decades, there have been problems with the ISI. I just mentioned in a private discussion I had with my friend from Cleveland that I remember very vividly in the 1980s, in 1987, to be exact, when I had the opportunity to travel with our former colleague, the late Charlie Wilson, who took me to Pakistan and at that time we witnessed problems within the ISI. But the fact that there are problems within the ISI, appropriately or inappropriately, I mean the leaks that came out, I know that there are more than a few who believe this could jeopardize the lives of our fellow Americans who are over there. But the fact of the matter is, it is not a completely new revelation. That's why doing everything within our power to strengthen democratic institutions and opportunities for greater economic liberalization so that we can see the economy of this country of 140 million people in South Central Asia grow to the point where we will diminish the kind of threat that we faced on September 11. I mean, it's hard to believe that here it is now, almost August, and we will be marking the ninth anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history. I mean, that is the reason that we are doing what we are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Has it gone perfectly? Absolutely not. No one can point to a war that has gone absolutely perfectly. Maybe Grenada, the invasion that Ronald Reagan had in the 1980s; but it is very rare that one can point to a conflict, the likes of which we have never seen before, and come to the conclusion that this has been handled perfectly. Confirmation hearings are going on right now for the new CENTCOM leader. We have a new general who is leading the effort in Afghanistan, the highly, highly acclaimed General David Petraeus, who successfully oversaw the surge in Iraq. We are all very gratified that we are seeing the democratic institutions build up in Iraq. Still problems: just the news this morning of an al Qaeda attack in Mosul in Iraq. So we are continuing to see problems, but I believe that if we were to take this action that we would undermine the ability for us to continue our quest to strengthen both the democratic institutions and the opportunity for greater economic opportunity to exist in this very, very critically important country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that Pakistan is ground zero in our struggle against violent extremism. The porous border with Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to retreat into Pakistan, regroup, and launch new offenses against our troops. Homegrown insurgents within Pakistan have perpetrated countless attacks killing thousands, including targeting their attacks against our fellow Americans. And recent news reports that we've just had over this past weekend have only underscored how critically important it is that civilian control--again, Mr. Speaker, civilian control--of the Pakistani military and intelligence services is fully exercised. Again, these reports that we've had just this past weekend underscore the fact that we cannot entrust, we cannot see these other entities within the ISI empowered without having civilian oversight within that structure of democracy that they have. Mr. Speaker, the democratically elected Government of Pakistan is working to eradicate the terrorist threat on their own soil, to secure the border with Afghanistan, and ensure accountability for the military. Working with the Pakistani Government to ensure that they're successful in doing this is vital to our national security interests. For the sake of our troops in Afghanistan and for the sake of stability and security in a critical region, we must remain engaged with the democratically elected government in Islamabad. This engagement takes a number of different forms. While we have no combat troops in Pakistan, our military commanders have been building relationships with their Pakistani counterparts. Particularly, as Pakistan continues to go on the offensive against insurgent groups in the tribal border region, the technical advisory role of our military is a very limited yet a very important one. Mr. Speaker, our national security leaders--Secretary of Defense Gates; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen; Secretary of State Clinton; and the Special Envoy, Ambassador Holbrooke--all agree the democratic and economic development in Pakistan is at the heart of our national security interests. Building strong institutions will ultimately ensure that Pakistan is able to fully eradicate the violent extremism that threatens both our troops in Afghanistan and stability for the entire region. That's why Secretary Clinton along with Ambassador Holbrooke and USAID Administrator Shah have put such a heavy emphasis on development during their visits just this past week. There can be no long-term solution to the security challenges we face in South Central Asia without Democratic and economic capacity building. We have a number of ongoing programs, including, I'm very happy to say, our 20-member House Democracy Partnership, on which I have the privilege of serving with our great chairman, David Price. We are currently working, Mr. Speaker, with the Pakistani legislature. And I underscore the House Democracy Partnership because, sadly, not many Members of this institution or among the American people are aware of the work of the House Democracy Partnership. We have partnered with 15 legislatures in new and reemerging democracies around the world to help build up their parliament. We have one of these programs going with the Pakistani Parliament. Through this partnership, Members of the United States House of Representatives have the opportunity to engage with our counterparts in Islamabad. We've been sharing our experiences as a democracy, providing support and technical assistance in their efforts to strengthen their legislative institutions. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the case of civilian control of the military, this has a very clear and direct tie to our national security issues, to the overall national security issues, and to our national security interests. But the connections go well beyond the most obvious arenas. By improving the capacity of the legislature overall, making the government more responsive and accountable to the Pakistani people, support for democracy can be solidified. Now, as we look at this issue, as Democratic institutions strengthen, so does the economic environment, providing new opportunity and prosperity. There is this interdependence between political and economic liberalization. That's why I also introduced a resolution that will call for us to begin embarking on negotiations for an FTA with Pakistan. We know very well that democracy and economic opportunity, as I say, are the only effective bulwarks against extremism in the long run. Through greater trade engagement, we can help build the capacity that enables economic growth, which will help to create a more secure, stable, free, and open Pakistan. This is clearly in our own strategic interest. The resolution before us today is one that is likely motivated by frustrations that many of us share. My very good friend from Cleveland and I, Mr. Kucinich and I, share a high level of frustration, especially, as I said earlier, with the reports that just came out this past weekend, the WikiLeaks report that has been carried widely in The New York Times and in other media outlets. We see the very difficult challenges that our troops are facing in the region, and we know that we must do everything we can to address them. But, frankly, it's a little puzzling why we would attempt to address these challenges through a resolution calling for the withdrawal of combat troops from a country where none are deployed. We should be focusing our efforts, instead, on the kinds of programs that I have described that focus on building of those democratic institutions and creating greater, greater economic liberalization. As we look at this challenge, we all seek peace and prosperity around the world, but in this most troubled spot in South Central Asia, we have redoubled our efforts to ensure that that happens. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for every single one of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, when I say that we want our troops in Afghanistan to come home safely, successfully, and soon, as soon as possible, and we want to ensure that we will not have to deploy them again. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know, repeatedly, as we look at nations around the world where we have focused in on crises that they have gone through jeopardizing our national security interests, we've chosen to deal with them often quickly but we have failed to recognize how important it is in the long term for us to do the kinds of things that will build up democratic institutions and ensure greater economic opportunity for these people in these regions. I believe that's a goal that we all share and we're all committed to. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.