David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to yield to my colleague to engage in a colloquy, if I might, so we might have a discussion. I found it very interesting, very interesting, Madam Speaker, that she talked about that amazing drug that is used for breast cancer, and, unfortunately, the huge disparity in the cost that that woman she was riding on the bus had in Canada versus the United States of America. There is an important reason for that, Madam Speaker, and that is the fact that we want to make sure that there are more amazing drugs created. There are many very serious ailments that exist out there today, and one of the things that we have as our great comparative advantage here in the United States of America is that we are the center for research and innovation. And, unfortunately, we have had to shoulder the financial burden for that research so that that woman riding on the bus with my friend from North Haven was able to have a drug that would never have been developed had it not been for the kind of innovation that exists here in the United States of America. I would like to yield to my friend to see if she would recognize that the innovation and creativity that exists in the United States of America is what allowed that friend of hers on the bus to have. I am happy to yield whatever amount of time my friend consumes from my time.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that I am very happy that we are here to address an issue that is of concern to the American people. With all due respect to the importance of algal blooms and hypoxia research, I believe what we are talking about today is much more important. And the thing we should be talking about is not something that happened 5 years ago, which, frankly, many, many seniors are benefiting from, but what we should talk about is what is about to happen and what is happening behind closed doors throughout this Capitol at this moment. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1032. H. Res. 1032 not only stresses the need to work with the Mexican law enforcement community in the fight against drug cartels, it also honors the life of El Monte resident, Agustin Roberto ``Bobby'' Salcedo. El Monte is a great city in the San Gabriel Valley which Congresswoman Chu, the author of this resolution, and I represent. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H. Res. 1032 and I want to thank Congresswoman Chu for her hard work on this important issue, and her dedication to the Salcedo family and the El Monte community. Mr. Salcedo was an innocent bystander in the relentless, ongoing drug war that is being waged throughout Mexico. He was viciously murdered, along with five other men, while visiting family in Mexico over the holidays. It is clear that Bobby Salcedo touched the lives of thousands through his work as a teacher, coach and school administrator and I offer my deepest condolences his family and friends. The community of El Monte lost an outstanding family man, friend, colleague and educator. Unfortunately Mr. Salcedo is not the only innocent victim in this drug war. As noted in H. Res. 1032, there has been an outbreak of violence in Mexico and individuals who have no connection whatsoever to the drug cartels are in danger. I will continue to support efforts in Congress to ensure that our law enforcement have the resources they need to end drug related violence in Mexico and the United States. This will not be an easy task. The cartels are ruthless in their desire to continue the brutality. The Mexican government and the FBI are working together to solve Mr. Salcedo's murder. It is my hope that with continued cooperation between law enforcement agencies in both the United States and Mexico, the individuals who committed this senseless crime against Mr. Salcedo will soon be brought to justice.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman from Dallas, a very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me this time. Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I stood here in the well and began talking about a date that may only be in my head, but I have been talking about it. The date was June 24, and my friend from Dallas, of course, remembers it. It was 3 a.m. on June 24, and we were sitting upstairs in the Rules Committee considering the so-called cap-and-trade bill, and as the motion was being offered by my friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, to move the special rule to the floor for consideration, as that motion was being offered, I had a nice, warm, hot-off-the-press, 300-page amendment dropped in my lap, as did Mr. Sessions, Mr. Diaz- Balart, and Ms. Foxx. Within a matter of hours, we considered that measure. And it was a very important time, Madam Speaker, because that is when the American people got it. They began this chant, ``Read the bill. Read the bill.'' The next day, we will all recall, that when the customary 1 minute was yielded to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), he spent 1 hour going through the 300 pages in that amendment that Members of this House had not yet read and had only had before them for a matter of a few hours. I talked about that just yesterday when we were, for the second time in as many weeks, proceeding under martial law rule, and I was arguing that takes place at the end of a Congress when we are dealing with very, very pressing situations, not in the third month of the second session of the 111th Congress, which is where we are today. Madam Speaker, once again we have it again, and I know that my friends from Texas, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Sessions, have both referred to the fact that we met this morning for a grand total of 2 minutes in the Rules Committee, and this measure is now before us. The American people are hurting. They want us to focus on job growth and economic growth. They know full well that it is absolutely imperative that we create good, long-term private sector jobs. We know how important that is. But we also have a responsibility to do what James Madison envisaged this institution as being, and that is a great deliberative body. We have the responsibility to deliberate on these matters. Now, I understand the urgency. I understand the urgency, but when you look at the legislative schedule we have had over the past several weeks, and some of our colleagues have gone through them, I can't name them all, but post offices and recognition of items, we have not extended the time and energy and effort that we clearly could here in this institution doing it. Now, I know that Mr. Oberstar was speaking earlier, and others have spoken. It's not a question of our not trusting the process we're under right now, but I'm reminded so vividly of the famous exchange that took place between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. ``Doveryai, no proveryai'' was what the Russian used to say: ``Trust, but verify.'' Madam Speaker, I think that that's all we're saying. We have a responsibility--not to Republicans, not to Democrats, but to all of the American people--to hold accountable this institution, which saw this majority come to power based on a document, a document that was entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' In that document, Speaker Pelosi pointed to the fact that legislation would be considered under an open amendment process whenever possible. It talked about minority rights, the kinds of things that James Madison regularly focused on when he talked about the rights of the minority. And what is it that's happened, Madam Speaker? Unfortunately, we are now, as I said, in the third month of the second session of the 111th Congress, and guess what? We've gone through the entire first session of Congress for the first time in the history of the Republic and not had a single piece of legislation considered under an open amendment process, not a single piece of legislation considered under an open amendment process, and now we're in the third month of this second session, nothing considered under an open amendment process. Then we have, as we deal with the very important pressing jobs issue, we have legislation that is brought here under martial law rule, considered for a grand total of 2 minutes in the House Rules Committee just 3 hours ago, and now we're here on the floor dealing with it. Madam Speaker, we can do better. I urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Sessions in opposition to this rule so that we can come back with a work product that will do the kinds of things that will get real jobs created out there. I know that in this measure there is a provision that provides a tax incentive for people to hire new employees. Well, that sounds great, but the heads of one of the top companies in this country had this proposal offered to him by the former Treasury Secretary, one of the top economic advisers to President Obama, Larry Summers, and his response was, Don't offer me a tax credit to hire someone. What we need to do is increase the demand for our product. Those are the kinds of things that we should be doing. So, Madam Speaker, again I say, as I regularly do from this well, when it comes to job creation and economic growth, what we should be doing is pursuing the bipartisan John F. Kennedy/Ronald Reagan vision: marginal rate reduction and a reduction of the top rate on capital gains. Job creators deserve the kind of relief that is necessary since Japan is the only nation in the world with a higher tax on those job creators than ours. We know what it takes; we know what it takes. It worked under a Democratic administration, and it's worked under a Republican administration. So let's defeat this rule and go back and come up with a bill that will, in fact, create exactly what I said at the outset: good, long-term private sector jobs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the American people get it. Last June 24, we, at 3 o'clock in the morning up in the Rules Committee, had dropped into our laps a 300-page amendment that no one had read just as the motion was being offered to move that so-called cap-and-trade legislation to the floor of the House. Up until that time, being on the Rules Committee as I am, whenever I would talk about process in this institution, Members' eyes would glaze over, and I know that the American people would have their eyes glaze over, and I have even had colleagues of mine from both sides of the aisle say, Why do you talk about process? Well, Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned from being on the Rules Committee for more than a couple of years is that process is substance. The utilization of process plays a very critical role in determining the outcome of legislation. The American people concluded after June 24, when the next day our distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boehner, stood here taking his 1-minute and went for an hour going through that 300-page amendment, the American people got the message and they said, You guys don't even take time to look at the legislation before you vote on it. Again, this happened at 3 o'clock in the morning, and within a matter of hours we had that measure on the House floor. Well, Madam Speaker, why am I going through this? Because in the rule, and I understand that my friend from Grandfather Community has talked about this, but the fact is, in this rule, we have what is described affectionately from Members of both sides of the aisle as martial law rule. What it means is, in this rule, any Member who votes for this rule is voting to give the majority the authority to, without any kind of consideration, move directly to the floor of the House with legislation. We don't know what that consists of. In a colloquy I had with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules last night, she said that it was going to be focusing on the jobs issue. But guess what, Madam Speaker? In this rule, there is no clear definition as to what legislation is going to be considered. Now, this is a structure that is utilized by both sides of the aisle. I will plead guilty. We have used this kind of expedited procedure in the past when we were in the majority. But, Madam Speaker, it is almost always done only at the end of a session when there are very, very important time constraints that need to be addressed, and Members on both sides of the aisle usually end up agreeing to it. Madam Speaker, I know that I speak for not only my Republican colleagues but the American people, Democrat, Republican, Independent, when I say that the notion of imposing a martial law rule, in what is now the third month of the second session of the 111th Congress, is a nonstarter. We should not be utilizing this kind of procedure at this point. So, Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and bring back a structure that does in fact strike martial law, which is not what Americans, regardless of political party, want us to be utilizing in dealing with this very important issue. There is bipartisan support for the underlying legislation, but there is very, very strong opposition, I hope, from both Democrats as well as Republicans because of the fact that the American people do not want us, especially at this time when we are focusing on very, very important legislation, to deal with job creation and economic growth utilizing martial law rule. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me first say that, as the gentleman knows, in my remarks that I made from this well just moments ago, I recognized that this is a process that has been utilized under both political parties. So I completely concur with that, and I said that that happened. The important distinction to make is that the five instances that my friend mentioned when we were in the majority, this was all done in the September-to-December timeframe, basically in the waning days of a Congress, or at least a session of Congress. And that played a big role, recognizing that that needed to happen.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Let me say I'd like to engage in a colloquy with my friend, if I might. And I'll be more than happy to yield to him whatever time he needs under our time, because I know he has to deal with these time constraints. Let me say, Madam Speaker, at the outset, the notion of saying 200,000 people have been thrown out of work because of the actions taking place in the Senate is not right. This had to do with an issue of spending. But let's not get into that. Let's focus on what it is the American people want us to do. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right: Job creation and economic growth is what the American people are talking about. I, too, last night held a telephone town hall meeting and was listening and talking with thousands of people in southern California. Our unemployment rate is not quite as high as the gentleman faces in the San Joaquin Valley. The part of the area I represent, the Inland Empire, just in suburban Los Angeles, has a 14.2 percent unemployment rate. It's a very serious issue. We need to work together in a bipartisan way. And I consistently stood in this well saying that what we should be doing in a bipartisan way is utilizing the John F. Kennedy, a great Democratic President, and Ronald Reagan model to get our economy back on track. We know what it will take. It's not a dramatic increase in Federal spending. It is encouraging, through incentives, private-sector job creation and economic growth. This procedure is virtually unprecedented at this early point in the Congress. And I will say, Madam Speaker, that last week, last week, I would have thought that the majority would have learned its lesson as it imposed martial law rule at the end of last week, and then had to come back, and my friend was in fact managing in what was a very unfortunate circumstance for the institution, the idea of pulling back on the McDermott amendment that was considered that clearly, Democrats and Republicans alike, recognized would have jeopardized the security of the courageous men and women who serve in our intelligence field around the world. So I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he'd like to respond to any of my comments.

Mr. DREIER. It was 19.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, the gentleman is not talking about people being put out of work; what he's talking about is people who are not receiving these benefits. Madam Speaker, let me just say that everyone acknowledges that we want to make sure that people who are struggling to find a job today and are unable to find a job are able to receive those benefits. No one wants to deny that. Our colleague in the other body who was raising concern about the spending issue and offsets and pay-as-you-go, which is something that I know my friend has regularly championed, is what led to this issue. The question is: What is it that we do to get the economy back on track? We've seen a massive increase in spending in a wide range of areas. And guess what? We still have an unemployment rate at right around just under 10 percent nationally, 20 percent in my friend's district, and 14 percent-plus in part of the area that I represent. That's why I believe we should be utilizing this bipartisan John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model. That's what we should do to address the shared concern that we have. But in saying this, Madam Speaker, I point to the fact that we should not be imposing martial law, undermining the ability for us to do what my friend said should be done, and that is working together in a bipartisan way. Because when you at this early point in the Congress, in this session of Congress, impose martial law rule, you undermine the ability for us to work together in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the White House, Speaker Pelosi said that people sitting around the kitchen table don't care about process; they care about results. Well, the fact of the matter is this has been an extraordinarily sloppy process. As we've just seen from the exchange that has taken place, it looks like we had the potential for very, very serious, far- reaching results which could have been devastating had we included the McDermott language in this measure. Now, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this pattern, it is unfortunate. I think we have made history here today by having the third rule considered for the first step of legislation. It has taken 8 months for us to get here when we should have dealt with it last summer when it was a priority for us. I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, when you have bad process, you end up with bad results, and that's exactly what has happened here. So I am very, very troubled that we are at this point, but we are going to try to do what we can to move forward. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another hardworking, thoughtful member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from metropolitan Chumuckla, Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my friend from Atwater has chosen to reserve his time, I am happy at this point to yield 4 minutes to another hardworking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence who brings his great experience, having served in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the gentleman from Brighton, Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to congratulate the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my good friend, for his service in the Border Patrol. And we have worked together on a wide range of issues. I thank him for that. I have to say that I am very concerned, though, about the fact that we, unfortunately, have not seen what is best described as a forward- leaning policy when it comes to dealing with this threat of terrorism. We all know that law enforcement by its nature is reactive, and we need to have a policy that is more proactive. The inclusion of language like the McDermott amendment in this measure in the manager's amendment unfortunately creates a scenario whereby we are not focused on being the forward-leaning entity that we should. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, my friend from Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that, interestingly enough, the measure that we are addressing here is not being considered under a martial law rule. The martial law provision in this rule was to deal with any other issue that would have come to the floor either yesterday or today. The idea of including that in the rule----

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that obviously job creation and economic growth is a very, very important priority, but the notion of saying that all of a sudden this has to be done under martial law, which basically undermines the legislative process, is not only not necessary, but we are all focusing on job creation. We want to do what we can. We all have very strong feelings as to what should be done on this and we are concerned about this dramatic expansion of government. Let me at this point, Mr. Speaker, yield 4 minutes to the very thoughtful, diligent, and hardworking gentleman from Clarendon, Texas, the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Gold River, California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Atwater, and I yield myself such time as I may consume as we proceed with our customary 30 minutes. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend has just gone through--as was the case yesterday when Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale, was managing the rule on his side--the importance of dealing with our Nation's intelligence. And we obviously have, since this bill first came to the forefront last year, been dealing with a wide range of very, very serious challenges: the shooting at Fort Hood, which the Speaker pro tem understands very well took place in his home State of Texas; the great threat that existed on Christmas Day when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab posed a threat, and thanks to the fact that his device did not go off, and, even more important than that, the fact that we were able to see these courageous passengers come forward and prevent this man from posing a threat to all of those on board; and then, of course, the arrests of those who posed a terrorist threat, Najibullah Zazi and David Headley. And then of course there are many other instances that have not been in the headlines. But those three which I have just mentioned have developed since last summer when this bill first came forward. Mr. Speaker, what is happening today is, unfortunately, a very disturbing trend. We have had some records set by this Congress and, frankly, since Speaker Pelosi has been leading this Congress and the last Congress. Last year, we went through the entire--entire--calendar year, the first session of the 111th Congress, without a single open rule. Not a single open rule on even the appropriations bills. Never before in the now 221-year history of the Republic have we had that take place. We, in fact, in the last 3 years have saved the appropriations process, in the first 2 years of Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we have had a grand total, Mr. Speaker, of one open rule. And now, today, we seem to be establishing another very disturbing and unfortunate record. It seems to me that as we look at legislation in its first stage, which is where we are right now, in its first stage, we are now considering not the second rule, as my friend from Atwater has said in his opening remarks, but in fact the third rule because this legislation last July was reported out of the Rules Committee. We had a rule. On July 3, we had a statement that came forward from the administration that leveled a very, very harsh criticism of the bill itself. Now, we've gone through a wide range of measures that have been very important and many that are less than important in the last 8 months, and yet we have not considered this very important intelligence bill. My friend from Atwater has just talked about how critically important it is; and if that were the case in the eyes of the majority, it would seem to me that last July we would have dealt with this bill, since it's been 4 years since we have had an intelligence authorization measure. Now, the language which has just been stricken from this bill, it was one of 21 amendments, Mr. Speaker, included in the manager's amendment. And the message that comes through to me over and over and over again-- and my friend from Atwater just referred to it as a vigorous debate on both sides as an attempt to continue to move the legislation forward-- this language was taken out. Well, the bottom line is it meant that the votes weren't there on either the Democratic or the Republican side to move ahead with the intelligence authorization bill. Why? Because one of the most outrageous amendments imaginable was incorporated in this measure, and that's the McDermott language. Yesterday, Mr. Lungren and Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Hoekstra and I, and I know others during the debate throughout the bill, talked about this language. And I think that probably this was best put when the special election took place in Massachusetts and we saw our new colleague, Scott Brown, elected to the United States Senate. And he gave an entertaining and rather lengthy victory speech that night. But the message that came through loud and clear was that when he got to Washington, he was going to do everything within his power to make sure that we expand our hard-earned taxpayer dollars ensuring that we defeat the terrorists and not defend them. And the language that was included--not allowed for debate on the House floor, but actually included among the 20 other amendments all by Democrats in the manager's amendment--the manager's amendment is usually a relatively noncontroversial measure, Mr. Speaker, that comes to the floor and there is often a very brief 10- minute debate and it sails through with bipartisan support--but the manager's amendment included this McDermott amendment. And it provided a circumstance which could have seriously jeopardized our men and women who are courageously engaging in intelligence gathering. Now, when we talk about, as now-Senator Brown mentioned, the rights of those individuals who have perpetrated terrorist acts against us and our interests around the world, the notion of using the word ``phobia,'' which was actually included in the McDermott amendment, it would mean that an individual could be imprisoned and they could claim that for religious reasons it's absolutely essential that they have a knife with them at all times. People can say, Well, that is silly. How can that possibly take place? I mean, one has to scratch their head thinking that that could happen. And yet there are individuals who've interpreted that language which was included in the manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, as language that would have allowed a prisoner to say that for religious reasons it's absolutely essential that they have a knife in their possession, obviously posing a threat to everyone around them. And so, again, it's difficult to comprehend that that could take place, but we know how ruthless these barbarians are who have been perpetrating acts against us and other freedom-loving peoples around the world. So, Mr. Speaker, it to me is very disturbing that we are here dealing with what has been once again a major management problem which has taken place in this institution. The American people want us to focus on job creation, economic growth. We, of course yesterday, saw the 7-hour summit take place at the White House on the issue of health care. But of paramount importance is our security. It's the single most important thing that we deal with. And to have it mishandled in the way that it has that has led us at 9:25 Friday morning to be on the House floor with the third rule dealing with the Intelligence authorization bill is, I think, a sad commentary on where we are. I have to say that this rule actually included several other provisions which should not have been included at this point, and I discussed this last night up in the Rules Committee when we met into the evening. And that is we understand--I mean, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, and we understand that moving the agenda and ensuring the process of getting that agenda passed is very, very important. And yet, Mr. Speaker, what this rule did was it put into place a so-called martial law rule. Mr. Speaker, martial law basically means that something can move immediately to the House floor, and it usually takes place--and I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend, Mr. Obey, here. He knows very well that martial law rule usually takes place at the end of a session when there are very, very pressing needs that need to be addressed. When we are dealing with those issues we can see martial law imposed. I understand that and recognize that sometimes it's necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, we are in the second month of the second session of the 111th Congress, and yet we have imposed a so-called martial law rule here. So the most important thing is, of course, dealing with the intelligence authorization bill. But underlying all of that are very, very serious management flaws which have taken place. So I just want to voice my concern, and I know we are going to have a number of my colleagues who are going to want to speak and address the issue of the intelligence authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.