David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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, 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.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.

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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Grandfather Community North Carolina for her thoughtful approach in dealing with what is obviously an extraordinarily difficult issue. Night before last I had one of the telephone town hall meetings that many of our colleagues have regularly now, and there was an unemployed truck driver who was on the line saying that he had, for 1 year, been looking for a job. I said, are you going out every day? And he said, well, actually I'm going out every other day because I've got responsibilities taking care of my family. But he said that he is out working very hard to find a job. And he said we need to do what we can to ensure that those of us who are hurting do have access to those benefits. Then he went on to say, after I had talked about the desire for us to, with our $1 trillion-plus budget, we have a budget well in excess of $1 trillion, that we might be able to find $34 billion to pay for this. He said, that makes so much sense. He said, please try to do that. And when you do it, then we'll be able to have the unemployment benefits that we need right now just to survive. Now, Mr. Speaker, the notion of pay-as-you-go was not a Republican initiative. It was an initiative led by Democrats; and, in fact, as we saw the Democrats emerge to majority, pay-as-you-go has been the Holy Grail. In fact, we've heard constantly that pay-as-you-go would be utilized to deal with spending legislation, meaning we would offset it by bringing about spending cuts in other areas. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my friend Mr. Heller was absolutely right when he came before the Rules Committee this morning and made his case that he proposed an offset so that this truck driver in southern California with whom I spoke 2 nights ago would be able to get his benefits, and we would also be able to do what this unemployed truck driver wants, and that is for us to do what he said was a commonsense approach, to pay for it. I think Mr. Heller really hit the nail right on the head when he said you can do it; it's just that you won't do it. I have to say, and I said this when I stood here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I like to be a positive, Ronald Reagan optimist. But when we know that the majority can in fact pay for this and they know that we are desperately concerned about the fact that an attempt is being made, as Mr. McClintock pointed out in his thoughtful remarks, that we're exacerbating the spending problem, which did go on under the Bush administration, but has gotten substantially worse in the last 18 months--in fact, we all know we've seen an 84 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending. And so we've said, okay, we'll go along, and we want to see if we can find in this $1 trillion-plus budget $34 billion to offset so that we can pay for these benefits. The other side of the aisle has chosen not to do it, I think in large part to put some of us in a position of saying, well, if you're not going to do this, if you're just going to blindly continue with $34 billion in additional spending, we're not going to go for it. And what is it they want to do, Mr. Speaker? They of course want to paint us as being on the other side of those who are trying to make ends meet. Again, we've seen constantly this class warfare argument. And to me it's a failed argument. I like to quote the late Senator Paul Tsongas. We are very pleased to have his widow serve here as our colleague from Massachusetts. Senator Tsongas had this very clear approach when he was running for President in 1992. He said, ``The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees, but they hate employers.'' And, Mr. Speaker, as you look at that argument, this perpetuation of class warfare, tax cuts for the rich, throwing people who are on unemployment out into the streets without having any concern for them whatsoever, that argument really falls very flat because I believe that the American people understand that we truly do care. We do want to create opportunity for everyone. And those who are desperately in need should in fact have their needs met. And we want to do what we can. Now, I will say that this measure extends for people going onto unemployment, unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. Ninety-nine weeks. Now, that's almost 2 years. Now, I hope very much, as Mr. Heller said, that we can put into place a bipartisan approach, a bipartisan approach to deal with economic policy that can get this economy growing. We know that we were promised an unemployment rate that would not exceed 8 percent if we passed the $1 trillion stimulus bill. And in part of the area that I represent in southern California, the unemployment rate is 14.4 percent. Statewide for us in California, just announced this week, it's 12.3 percent. Nationally, it's 9.5 percent. Well, it's well in excess of what we were promised. So why don't we try to do what has succeeded in the past, using again the model of John F. Kennedy and the model of Ronald Reagan. When John F. Kennedy's economic growth plan was put into place in 1961, marginal rate reduction, growth-oriented, growth-oriented tax cuts. I was just talking to my friend Mr. Welch, the gentleman from Vermont. And it's true every tax cut does not generate economic growth. But if we had growth-oriented tax cuts, we could do, I would hope, what John F. Kennedy was able to do in the 1960s. He saw a 60 percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Economic growth generated more revenues. We know that we need to increase revenues. We desperately need to increase revenues to deal with the spending that has taken place, and to try and pay down this $13 trillion debt. In the 1980s the increased flow of revenues to the Treasury was 90 percent when the Ronald Reagan tax plan was put into place. It's a bipartisan approach, exactly what Mr. Heller said. Mr. Speaker, let's use that as our model, which will be substantially better than what is being put before us today.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by praising my colleagues Messrs. Camp and Brady for the hard work they have put into the overall job-creating and trade agenda. We all know very well that opening up new markets for U.S. goods and services around the world is one of the most important things that we can do if we, in fact, are going to do what everybody says we want to do, and that is to create good American jobs. We have pending, as we all know, the Colombia and Panama agreements and the South Korea agreement. It's wonderful to hear the kinds of supportive remarks that come regularly from the President of the United States. After the G-20 meeting, he was very supportive of it. He stood right here when he addressed us in his State of the Union message saying that he thought it very important that we pass the Colombia and the Peru agreements, but he has yet to send them up. And so I will say that we are all anxiously awaiting the arrival of those job-creating measures. Now, what is it that we're doing here? And, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that I always pride myself on being a bit of a Reagan optimist and occasionally skeptical, and I don't want to say that I've moved over toward cynicism. But when we have a measure like this that is being brought up under the suspension the rules, which, as Mr. Brady said, will, in fact, die if we're not going to get it, it means that the majority understands full well that this measure ain't going to happen. Now, let's look at what is it that has gotten us to the point where we are, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is we made it very clear that in our attempt to rein in Federal spending, the notion of continuing to expand earmarks was a nonstarter for us. And so our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, encouraged all of us under his leadership to say that we would have a moratorium on earmarks. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not until the 110th Congress, not until this Congress, under the rules established by the Democratic majority, did we have these tariff measures included under the earmark designation. And so, while there's criticism leveled at us over here, the fact is, you all, Mr. Speaker, your party, actually designed this new definition, which included these measures under earmarks. And so the majority knew full well that those of us who are opposed to this dramatic expansion and earmark spending would, in fact, come to the conclusion that we would not be supportive of this measure, as much as we would like to, as much as we are passionately committed, I believe more so than many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We're more passionately committed to the notion of breaking down tariff and nontariff barriers to encourage the free flow of goods and services around the world. As much as we would like to do that, the majority knew full well that creating, under their new definition----

Mr. DREIER. That under their definition, under their definition, Mr. Speaker, what is it that's happened? They knew that we would not be in a position to do this. And so it is with a great deal of regret that I join with Mr. Camp and Mr. Brady and encourage our colleagues to vote ``no'' but to say that, as Mr. Brady pointed out, a bipartisan agreement that could allow us to address these measures is something that we should be working on and we could do in the House Rules Committee. And so I will say, just as we are ready, willing, and able to take on and, I hope, pass the South Korea, Colombia, and Panama agreements if the President were to send them up, I stand ready, willing, and able to work in the Rules Committee in a bipartisan way to make sure that we can address this issue and bring it here so that we can work together to create good American jobs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather Community for the great job that she's doing managing this rule, and I even recognize my friend from Fort Lauderdale is doing a reasonably decent job of managing the rule from his side. You know, the focus of this institution is right now on what it is that the American people want us to focus on, jobs. Everybody here, Democrat and Republican alike, is talking about getting our economy back on track, creating job opportunities. The problem is that the policies that are emanating from this institution are tried and failed policies of the past. I listened to my friend from Tennessee just a moment ago talk about the Great Depression. Well, Mr. Speaker it's very obvious that the policies of tax-and-spend that were pursued during the Great Depression exacerbated the Great Depression. In fact, very famously in testimony delivered before the House Ways and Means Committee in the fall of 1939, the Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had these words to say. He said, We've tried spending money. We've spent more than we've ever spent before. Now, after 8 years of this Roosevelt administration, we have unemployment that is just as high today as it was when we started and an enormous debt to boot. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Treasury Secretary of John F. Kennedy, Secretary Douglas Dillon, who pursued a pro-growth economic policy, you would not find him critical of President John F. Kennedy's economic policy. If you look at Treasury Secretary James Baker, who had been an opponent of Ronald Reagan's vision of putting into place pro- growth economic policies during the 1980s or, actually, when he was running his friend George H.W. Bush's campaign, he called it voodoo economics. But if you talk to Jim Baker today, he is a huge proponent of those policies, having seen the empirical evidence of their success. So as we look at Secretary Douglas Dillon, as we look at Secretary James Baker, and look at Secretary Henry Morgenthau, it's very clear what it is that works. And so that's why, while Democrats and Republicans alike, Mr. Speaker, talk enthusiastically about getting the economy back on track, getting jobs created--because we all know how the American people are suffering. In part of the area I represent, Mr. Speaker, I have a 14.4 percent unemployment rate. It was just announced this week. My Statewide unemployment rate in California, a State with nearly 40 million people, the largest State in the Union, the greatest and most important State in the Union I should add as well, has tragically an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent. We all know that with the policies that we've gone through in the last 18 months, we were promised that if we pass the trillion-dollar stimulus bill we would not see the unemployment rate exceed 8 percent. We were told at this point following implementation of the stimulus bill that the unemployment rate would be at 7.4 percent. Well, as I said, in my State it's 12.3 percent, the largest State in the Union. Nationwide we all know, very sadly, it is 9.5 percent. So clearly everybody's talking about the need to create jobs and get our economy back on track, but the policies have been the tried and failed policies of the past. I had an interesting conversation 2 years ago with one of the leaders in Latin America who had been the President of his country in the 1980s. He was President for 5 years, and during that period of time, he pursued an extraordinarily statist, big government, high tax, regulatory vision for his country, and they had serious problems. He became President again and governed like Ronald Reagan governed. He focused on reducing the size and scope and reach of government. He reduced taxes to stimulate economic growth. He put into place an effort to reduce the regulatory burden, and he said to me in this meeting 2 years ago that the worst 5 years in the modern history of his country had been when he was President from 1985 to 1990. And he asked rhetorically, how can you in the United States of America contemplate moving in the direction that the rest of the world has learned to have failed? I was just talking to the son of Ronald Reagan a few minutes ago, Michael Reagan, on the phone. He told me that he was just in France, and we all know that we have not used France as our economic model for the future. But Mike Reagan was telling me that he was there, and people are scratching their heads wondering why it is that we would be pursuing in the United States of America, the greatest Nation the world has ever known, a policy that has led to an 84 percent increase in the last 18 months in nondefense discretionary spending. So, Mr. Speaker, we're here under a martial law rule, and since it's part of my job as a member of the Rules Committee to focus on procedure, I want to congratulate my friends in the majority for establishing martial law rule only for the issue at hand here and not providing blanket consideration of martial law rule. I will say as I said in the Rules Committee last night, we have since mid- to late May every single week extended suspension authority through the rest of the week. Last week, we took a little break from that and we didn't do it, but this week again in this rule we have blanket extension of suspension authority. I know those are very inside baseball things, but they are indicative of an arrogance that we have seen from the majority that is really undermining the deliberative process the American people deserve and desperately seek for this institution. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to join with my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, in urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule in hopes that we can come together with a very decent and bipartisan approach following the John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model to make sure that we get our economy back on track.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. We all know that. There are some specific numbers to which we can point that underscore that pain: First, 9.5, the current percentage of unemployment; 14, the number of consecutive months that the unemployment rate has been in excess of 9.4 percent; 125,000, the number of jobs that were lost last month; $13 trillion, the level of our national debt; $1 trillion, the annual deficit as we head towards the end of the fiscal year; 0, the number of times before this year that the House has ever failed to debate and pass a budget; 0, the number of proposals by the Democratic majority to cut wasteful spending and provide accountability for their out of control spending practices; 0, the number of pro-growth proposals that the Democratic majority has offered. The American people want nothing more, Mr. Speaker, than to create jobs and get our economy back on track. Unfortunately, the refusal to pass a budget, the refusal to rein in wasteful spending, the refusal to allow proven pro-growth economic policies to be put into place is impinging our opportunity to do that. Republicans stand ready to put into place the kinds of policies that will ensure that the pain the American people are feeling will be diminished.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me at the outset say I twice asked my friend from Worcester to yield, and I will say that at any time during my remarks that he would like to challenge me, I look forward to yielding to him. Now, Madam Speaker, let me say first and foremost that this issue of who is in fact responsible for the security of the United States of America, my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, is absolutely right. The five most important words in the middle of that preamble to the Constitution that she just read are ``provide for the common defence.'' Virtually everything else that we do can be dealt with by individuals, families, churches or synagogues, cities, counties or States. But the national security of the United States of America can only be dealt with by the Federal Government, and we should never forget that. Now, as we listen to some of the specious charges that have been coming from the other side of the aisle, like this chart that my colleague on the Rules Committee offered, saying that this was from the Republican National Committee, this is from usgovernmentspending.com, a completely nonpartisan entity and they are facts. We have seen a dramatic increase in spending. My friend regularly talks about the fact that this administration, this President, inherited a bad economy. We all acknowledge that. But what is it that has happened since then, Madam Speaker? Contrary to what my friend just said, we have seen the economy get worse and worse and worse. We were promised, and I will be happy to yield to my friend if he would like to, we were promised that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent if we were to pass the $1 trillion stimulus bill. Where is it today? At 9.5 percent. Across the country, many of us are hosting job fairs. There are people who are hurting. In the area that I represent, Madam Speaker, part of it has an unemployment rate that exceeds 14 percent. The American people know one thing that they have learned over the past year-and-a-half, and that is you cannot spend your way to prosperity. Now, Madam Speaker, what is it that we are trying to do? We want to ensure that future generations are not saddled with this tremendous debt burden that has been imposed. This morning I had the opportunity to meet a young man who is very, very inspiring with what he has done over the past 39 days. He visited me. His name is Joseph Machado, and he is here with his parents and his brother Robert and his sister Mercedes. What this young man did, 13 years of age, having gone through tremendous physical adversity, having suffered over the past few years because of an accident, he has been wheelchair-bound. But what has he done over the past 39 days, Madam Speaker? He rode a bicycle from Southern California to the White House. He came here, I met him this morning here in the Capitol, and he has been doing this to raise money and focus resources on the challenges that young people are dealing with. Now, I raise the name of Joseph Machado to say that as we look at this 13-year-old boy and the challenges that he has gone through, the idea that we will be thrusting on to his shoulders and his brother Robert and his sister Mercedes the responsibility of paying for such profligate spending that has been going on is just plain wrong. We feel strongly about the need to ensure that we do not do that, that we do everything we can to decrease that. That is one of the reasons that we are going to urge our colleagues today to vote no on the previous question, and in voting no on the previous question we will allow the House to have a chance to vote on a proposal that our colleague from Peoria, Mr. Shock, has offered that is going to deal with training to rein in spending. The people of this country have driven around, and I laugh, I mean sadly laugh, when I see the signs along the side of the road that credit the Reinvestment Act with the job creation that is supposedly going on in dealing with infrastructure issues. Millions and millions of dollars are being expended putting up the signs along the side of the road. The burden of those is going to be passed on to Joseph Machado and other young people in this country, and we believe that that is an example that the American people can get so they don't have to see signs that they are paying for along the side of the road. Every Member of this House, Madam Speaker, is going to have an opportunity to vote no, to say that we shouldn't be continuing to spend millions of dollars on road signs crediting the stimulus bill for the construction that is taking place on those roads. So I am going to join in urging my colleagues under this YouCut proposal to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because that vote in and of itself will allow us the opportunity to consider this measure. Madam Speaker, with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule, because this is a completely closed rule, having had this measure considered under suspension of the rules.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I'm really struck having seen that chart with a fascinating juxtaposition that I've pointed out a couple of times here on the House floor. There is a requirement for membership in the European Union. The requirement for a new country to join the European Union, Madam Speaker, is that they not have a debt that exceeds 60 percent of the gross domestic product of that country. Now, what does that mean? As we look at that chart today, the United States of America, Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, could not qualify for membership in the European Union because of that debt burden which is continuing to be passed on and on and on to our children and future generations.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield an additional 15 seconds to my friend from Houston if she might yield to our other friend from Houston, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson), a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Urbana, Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Houston wouldn't yield; so I will yield 30 seconds to my other friend from Houston, Mr. Culberson.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from West Chester, Ohio, the very distinguished Republican Leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a tireless worker on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Lake Jackson, Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)