David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me close as I began, saying first that we could have done this under unanimous consent. We all concur with the need to ensure that we take steps to ensure adequate oversight to ensure that we never, ever, ever see the kind of loss of life that we did in West Virginia or any other mine disaster. Mr. Speaker, the American people, the hundreds of millions of Americans who want us to rein in Federal spending have, unfortunately, because of the Democratic majority, they have been denied a voice here on the House floor. They're saying, Try and bring down the size and scope and reach of government. My friend, Dennis Prager, says, very correctly, the bigger the government grows, the smaller the individual becomes. And so we decided to utilize a procedure here known as defeating the previous question. And we said, Why don't we let the American people actually have a chance to be heard? And so what we did is we put five proposals out there on the Republican Whip's Web site and asked the American people to vote. Nearly 300,000 Americans cast votes, and they ended up with 81,000 votes being cast in favor of a measure that said, Gosh, should people be required to work for welfare or should we have an open-ended policy that allows them, without any kind of accountability, to see States actually rewarded for not having people have a work component in the welfare program? So, Mr. Speaker, we said with that overwhelming vote that we would use this procedure to ensure that Democrats and Republicans alike would have an opportunity to make a decision whether or not they want to go down the road towards continued spending where, again, we've had an 85 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending since President Obama has been in office. And that's why I couldn't understand why my friend from New Jersey was arguing that we had an 8 percent increase when President Bush was there, and his answer is a tenfold increase and that's going to solve the problem. We know that we are deeper in the hole. We have more serious problems now, and the American people want us to cut Federal spending, and every Democrat and Republican will have a chance when we move to defeat the previous question to do just that. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be included in the Record just before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the coauthor of the amendment who's joined Mr. Price in bringing about welfare accountability, the gentleman from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I will just say to my friend that the closing was very, very inappropriate, because the solution that the gentleman has offered to the 8 percent increase that existed during the Bush administration is to have an 85 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending, which is what has taken place in the last 2 years. And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. And I will say that it is absolutely false. What has happened is, we did see the 8 percent increase for defense, homeland security, and veteran spending, which did increase during that period of time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my friend that we have had an 85 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending since President Obama has been in office.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that, with all due respect to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, that he obviously has not followed the debate. We approached the majority and said, under unanimous consent, we wanted this kind of authority to be granted so that we could ensure that never, ever again will we see the kind of tragic loss of life because of a mine disaster that we have faced. Now, my friend said that we were talking about some extraneous issue. Then, he takes the well and begins talking about jobs under George Bush, where, in fact, we are dealing with the issue that we have all said needs to be addressed, and that is, from the very outset, Mr. Speaker, we concurred with the desire to ensure that this authority exists. At this point, I yield 1 minute to my very, very good friend from Michigan, a hardworking, very, very thoughtful Member, Mrs. Miller.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Duluth, Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. DREIER. Correct. I agree with the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. I agree with the gentleman that they increased 8 percent during the Bush administration, but they have increased 85 percent in nondefense discretionary spending in the Obama administration.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform our colleagues that common sense has come to Washington, D.C., at least by way of the airwaves. WRC 1260 is now offering ``Intelligent Talk,'' which includes people like Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and more. And we all know that with the 24-hour news cycle, bloggers, talk radio, satellite radio, Facebook, and YouTube, there's no shortage of commentary out there at all. But these hosts are consistently thoughtful voices for sound public policy. They have built large audiences and broad respect not by being the loudest or most outrageous, but by consistently offering reasoned sound analysis and positive center-right solutions. Some might think that ``Intelligent Talk'' in Washington, D.C., was an idea whose time would never come. Thanks to Bennett, Hewitt, Prager, Medved, and more, there is a little more common sense kicking around now in our Nation's Capital.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong support of Muftiah McCartin. And I'd like to begin by outlining my opposition to the rule, and then I'm going to take some time to talk about my support of Muftiah McCartin. Madam Speaker, my friend from Miami is absolutely right when he focuses on the need and the importance for us to be fiscally responsible. My friend from Colorado has made the same argument: Everyone around here regularly decries wasteful Federal spending. Now, this bill is extraordinarily well-intentioned, and as I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, I've been a strong supporter of the STEM concept. Science, technology, engineering, and math are very high priorities. If we, as a nation, are going to remain competitive in this global economy, it is absolutely imperative that we do all that we can to focus on STEM education. The concern with this measure is the fact that it's $22 billion over the baseline, going up to $86 billion. I was asked in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday by the chairman of the Science Committee what level I believe to be appropriate as we focus on STEM education, and that area would be at least at that baseline level, which would take the $86 billion in funding and bring it down to what would be $64 billion. That would be a more acceptable level. Why? Because, while we know how important this is, we also know that if we don't focus on our spending that has been going on for so many years under both political parties, we're not going to be able to compete globally at all. Now, there are other concerns about this measure. I have just obviously been talking about the amendment that the manager on this side's brother--he simply described him as his ``colleague.'' He also happens to be his brother, Mario Diaz-Balart, who very thoughtfully came before the Rules Committee, and that amendment was not made in order. Mr. Bilbray, sitting behind me, has an amendment focusing on the very important issue of ensuring that people who work in this country are here legally. And, of course, the very, very, very important issue that the ranking member of this committee, Ralph Hall, brought before the Rules Committee. By unanimous vote in the Committee on Science and Technology, they incorporated language to ensure that there would be a prioritization of those 59,700 disabled veterans who want to have an opportunity to participate in the STEM program at the undergraduate level and 8,700 who want to have the opportunity to participate at the postgraduate level. That was agreed on by the committee, but, unfortunately, when the measure got before the Rules Committee, it was stricken. As Mr. Hall has described to me, some very, very watered-down version which does undermine the ability of our Nation's disabled veterans to be able to take advantage of this program the way they should is, in fact, denied. And so the fact that these measures are not made in order, Madam Speaker, I am a strong opponent of this rule because I believe that we can do better. And as Mr. Diaz-Balart said, having an open amendment process--which we have not had in this entire Congress--should have been the model for this bill in light of the fact that it has, in the past, been reported out under suspension of the rules. Now, having spoken about my opposition to the rule itself, Madam Speaker, I'd like to speak briefly about my support for Muftiah McCartin. Madam Speaker, in 1976, she was obviously a child, and this institution was probably violating child labor laws when Muftiah McCartin came to work as a clerk in the Parliamentarian's Office. That is 34 years ago. In that 34-year period of time, she has had an amazing career which has been, from my perspective, capped by her service as the majority staff director of the House Rules Committee. She was the first woman named as a parliamentarian back in 1991, and she has worked for both Republicans and Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, and her work there was very important. As I said, the fact that she has come to the House Rules Committee is a very appropriate spot for her. When she began her work, she pursued both her undergraduate and law degrees when she began in the 1970s, and has been able to utilize those skills extraordinarily well. Madam Speaker, we are very sorry that she will be leaving us. In fact, unless there is a massive disruption in the operations of this institution through the week, this will be the last rule that will be considered on the House floor during her period of time. I do know that her husband, Terry, her four children, and her new grandchild will anxiously look forward to spending more time with her. The Rules Committee, as we all know, Madam Speaker, tends to be a rough and tumble place, and Muftiah has had an extraordinarily good and close working relationship with those of us in the minority. When I had the privilege of being chairman of the Rules Committee, we worked extraordinarily closely with her in her role in the Parliamentarian's Office. And I know that things may still be rough and tumble within her family; it will certainly be a great joy for all of her family members to have her back. And so, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to Muftiah McCartin for her extraordinary 34 years of service to this institution. And I know that her family is the only thing that she loves more than this place, which we all respect and love so much.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I'd like to congratulate my friend from Ohio for his very thoughtful remarks and pursuing as diligently as he did the effort to try and make in order his amendment which would have ensured that this $6.6 billion, as Mr. Sessions has pointed out, is, in fact, paid for. Time and time again, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that the sine qua non is to ensure that everything is paid for.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that we continually hear that the penultimate, the highest priority is to ensure that everything that we have before us is paid for. Now, to his credit, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, proceeded to engage, as Mr. Latta has just said, in the goal of trying to come to some kind of agreement. Now, the thing that I found very troubling--and, again, the American people, for the first time in a long period of time, are focusing on process. And what took place in the Rules Committee last night is, once again, an indication of the arrogance that we continue to see from the leadership of the Rules Committee and of the Democratic majority here in the House. Let me say that Mr. Waxman, again, to his credit, came before the Rules Committee and said the following. Referring to Mr. Latta, he said, He has submitted to you an amendment that he wishes to offer-- these, again, are Mr. Waxman's words--and I would like to express to the Rules Committee that I support his right to offer that amendment. I'm sorry we weren't able to work it out to put it into the manager's amendment, but I just wanted to express that opinion to you. Mr. Waxman was making a request of the Rules Committee. Now, I understand that a committee chairman does not in any way dictate the action of the Rules Committee, but clearly, since the chairman of the authorizing committee indicated that he wanted to have Mr. Latta's amendment made in order, I found it very troubling when I asked the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee whether or not we would see the Latta amendment, they chose not to make it in order, and I asked why not. I brought up Mr. Waxman's words about his interest, his desire to see us consider the Latta amendment here on the House floor, and she responded to me by simply saying that Mr. Waxman simply wanted Mr. Latta to have the right to testify before the Rules Committee on behalf of this. Well, Madam Speaker, every Member of this House knows that every single Member who chooses to come before the Rules Committee to make their case on an amendment has the right to do that. And so, again, the arrogance, the arrogance, to deny a Member who simply wants to take on the issue of fiscal responsibility and say, when we've got a $6.6 billion package before us, after we've only expended $368 million of the $4.7 billion that was included in the stimulus bill for weatherization, we're going into this entire new program, and Mr. Latta is saying, At least if we're going to do this, let's pay for it. Very sadly, Madam Speaker, we have gotten to a point where the negotiations between Chairman Waxman and Mr. Latta broke down and Mr. Waxman at least said, Let's have a vote on the House floor about this on this amendment. Again, the arrogance of the committee led the committee to conclude that, in fact, it could not be considered. And it's just plain wrong. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and let me just say at the outset that it is very important to note that Major Koumparakis is going to be going to Buenos Aires by way of California. He is going to be going for language training to Monterey, California. Let me say that my very good friend, Mr. Price, has talked about the importance of Speros' work in dealing with the missions that have been put forth by this House, and specifically the House Democracy Partnership. And I would just like to say that when we look at the work of our partnership, Madam Speaker, one of the very important things to note is the fact that we have gone to, as Mr. Price indicated, some of the most troubled spots in the world. When I think about trips to Ulan Bator, Mongolia; Monrovia, Liberia; Nairobi, Kenya; and clearly Kabul, Afghanistan, the notion of congressional travel is one where I think the perception is that most travel takes place in other spots, when in fact this House Democracy Partnership has been focused on a very important mission. Four years ago this spring when I had the privilege of beginning with Mr. Price this partnership and took on the task of putting together the countries with which we were going to partner in working to build the parliaments, I at the very outset looked to the United States Marine Corps. Now for full disclosure, I have to say I am very partial. My father, sometimes I regretted this, Madam Speaker, but my father was a drill instructor in the United States Marine Corps. I regretted it the first 18 years of my life especially, but I survived it. One of the things that happened when I first had the opportunity to chair the House Democracy Partnership, I made the decision that we wanted to have the United States Marine Corps play the important role of orchestrating and leading with the assistance that only they could provide these efforts. Frankly, as we looked, Madam Speaker, at the task that was before us, it was very appropriate for the United States Marine Corps, and up until now with the departure of Deputy Director Koumparakis, among other great people who have served in the past, to take this task on because the United States Marine Corps are in fact on duty in embassies throughout the world. They are on the frontline in those embassies and play a very important role. And I happen to believe--well, I will say this. Many of the other branches, with all due respect to every single one of them, approached me and said that they wanted to play a role in doing this. And I said the answer was yes, they could, as long as they enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. So I can't say enough about Speros Koumparakis and the work he has done and the effort that the United States Marine Corps has put into especially the House Democracy Partnership. What we have done, Madam Speaker, as Mr. Price said, 15 countries, 15 countries around the world, new and re-emerging democracies, where we have had the task of trying to help them take these fragile democracies and build their parliaments. When we think about it, it is very important to recognize that our relationship is so often simply with the head of state. But if we are going to build up democratic institutions, there is none more important than parliaments that have independence and a very, very good grasp and an opportunity for oversight at the executive branch. And Speros regularly understood that and played a key role in making sure that the House Democracy Partnership could complete its mission. And so, Madam Speaker, I simply want to join with my colleague, Mr. Price, in extending congratulations to Speros and to Bree. I know they are going to continue that very fine service to the United States of America in their work both in California and in Buenos Aires, and we look forward to getting great reports on him.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. I would say that the gentleman has used all of my talking points, so the challenge for me will be following the completion of his remarks.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for him to conclude his remarks to the very distinguished chairman of the House Democracy Partnership and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, ``Who's on first?'' is the natural question that comes to mind on this issue. As we sat in the Rules Committee last night, we saw Luis Gutierrez, Charlie Rangel, and Nydia Velazquez join up with Virginia Foxx. We have here on the floor concerns raised by Dana Rohrabacher and Doc Hastings, and we have Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Mr. Pierluisi; our former colleague, Governor Fortuno; and a number of members of the Republican leadership joining in support of this. The bottom line is that we should do exactly what Mr. Gutierrez argued both in the Rules Committee and here on the floor last night. Now, I have stood in this well repeatedly, saying that I could have done a better job when I'd had the privilege of serving as chairman of the House Rules Committee. I could have had more open rules. I could have had more free-flowing debate. In fact, as this new majority was attempting to emerge to that majority status, I was criticized, and it was justified in some ways. We were promised, though, as I and others were being criticized, Mr. Speaker, that we would have an entirely new direction for America and that there would be an open, freewheeling debate. Well, there is no issue on which it is more apparent that we should be having a freewheeling debate, an open amendment process, than on this issue before us today. As we look at where it is we are going, I will say that I was troubled by the arrogance, the arrogance that was exhibited in the Rules Committee last night. There were attempts made by people like Mr. Gutierrez, who submitted 16 amendments, and two of those 16 amendments were made in order. Ms. Velazquez submitted six amendments, and three of hers were made in order. There were attempts made to make more amendments in order, and they were denied. In 1998, as has been pointed out, we had a completely open amendment process. Let me say that, last night, in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, when we made an attempt to put together a bipartisan amendment, we saw the arrogance of the Rules Committee demonstrated when there was a complete denial of even the chance to recess for 10 minutes so that the Democrats and Republicans could come together and offer a proposal. I will make a pledge that, if I am fortunate enough to hold the gavel again and if a request is made by the minority to cobble together a bipartisan amendment to deal with an issue that is before us, I will assure the Members I will recess the committee and will allow Members to come together and work on that package. We are going to have an opportunity in just a few minutes to defeat the previous question. If we do that, Mr. Diaz-Balart will offer an open rule. Democrats and Republicans alike have been arguing for an open amendment process on this, Mr. Speaker. So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have the free-flowing debate that this institution and the American people deserve.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are all encouraged by the positive news that we have been receiving about the economic recovery which appears to be underway. I think it's very clear that with the report that came from the CMS at the end of last week, the dramatic increase in spending and the regulatory vision that is proposed, that the economic recovery that we're going through at this moment is in spite of, not because of, policies emanating from here in Washington, D.C. Madam Speaker, when we were privileged to have the President of the United States stand in this Chamber and deliver his State of the Union message, one of the things that he talked about was the goal of job creation. We of course have seen signs of economic recovery, but the unemployment rate is still just below 10 percent nationwide. In my State of California, it is in excess of 12 percent, and there are people who are hurting. When the President stood here right behind where I am now, Madam Speaker, just in front of you and delivered his State of the Union message, he talked about the importance of opening up new markets around the world. He talked about the fact that 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders, and we could create good jobs for American workers if we were to proceed with the plan for free trade agreements that have been pending. Well, Madam Speaker, 1,253 days ago, an agreement was signed between the United States of America and the Government of Colombia to open up the market so that we could see jobs created for workers at Caterpillar, John Deere, Whirlpool, and other very important industries right here in the United States. It is 1,253 days since that measure has been signed, and in that same period of time we have seen $2.7 billion in tariffs imposed on products made by U.S. workers going to Colombia. Madam Speaker, if we want to create good private sector jobs, we need to unleash the potential, reducing the constraints that have been imposed on U.S. workers. Two hundred and eleven years ago this month, the author of the U.S. Constitution became a Member of Congress, James Madison. Representative Madison, on April 9 of 1789 stood in the House of Representatives and said the following. He said, I own myself to be a friend of a free system of commerce and hold it as truth that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic. Madison went on to say, Madam Speaker, that this is more true than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature. Now, as it comes to job creation and economic growth in 2010, it seems to me that looking back to what was said 211 years ago by Representative James Madison about unleashing the shackles that exist to the free flow of commerce could create great opportunities for U.S. workers. And so, Madam Speaker, while I congratulate the President for the words that he provided to us in his State of the Union message about the benefits of opening up new markets around the world, after 1,253 days since it has been signed, I urge the President to send to the United States Congress that measure because I believe that, in this election year especially, people want to focus on job creation and economic growth, and I am convinced that we would have a strong bipartisan vote in support of that very important measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Arcadia High School, AHS, Constitution Team on their first place finish in the 23rd annual ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution,'' contest which was held in Washington, DC this past weekend and concluded Monday evening. The AHS team represented the entire state of California in the competition, which tests students' knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and American democracy. After spending time with this outstanding group of students last week, I was confident they would take their knowledge of and dedication to learning about the Constitution and turn it into a great win for Arcadia and California. After winning local and state competitions, these students proved themselves champions at the final competition here in our nation's capital. The City of Arcadia and the entire San Gabriel Valley should be very proud of these outstanding students. On Monday, after three days of simulated congressional hearings testing the students' knowledge of constitutional principles, which were judged by a panel of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists and government leaders, the AHS team was announced the winners of this year's competition. I believe very firmly in the tremendous importance of understanding our history and the principles on which our nation was founded. These students should be commended for their mastery of our founding documents and the words of our founding fathers, and I enthusiastically congratulate them on their success. The AHS Constitution Team's victory is a testament not just to the hard work and dedication of these students, but also the guidance and commitment of their teacher Kevin Fox and coaches Gary Kovacic, Jim Romo, Bob Garrett and Karyn McCreary. The members of the AHS Constitution Team are: Robel Abdella, Wini Addanki, Pallavi Bugga, Madyson Cassidy, Andrew Chang, Winston Chang, Greg Chen, Ruodi Duan, Daphne Fan, Kathy Garcia, Jamie Griswold, Derek Ha, Jennifer Hang, Lauren Hanna, Frank Huang, Rayla Hylbom, Michael Kallin, Amanda Kallis, Jesse Li, Andrew Lin, Sangavi Pari, Tim Semenov, Joanna Shen, Kiko Sunata, Bonnie Tam, Andrew Taylor, Catherine Tong and Shen Wang.