David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Well, if I could reclaim my time, we would simply like a chance to offer the amendment, and my friend could vote against it, the bipartisan amendment that had, in fact, full unanimous consent from Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that small insurance companies will not have their future jeopardized. That's all we're asking for. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think all of our colleagues are aware of the fact that a week-and-a-half ago, after a more than 3\1/2\-year battle against ovarian cancer, Ethie Radanovich, the wife of our California colleague, George, tragically passed away. She was a wonderful, wonderful human being. I would like to ask our colleagues to join in a moment of silence in memory of Ethie Radanovich, and to extend, Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers to George and their 11-year-old son, King. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, recently the Economist Magazine had an article in which they said it was time for the President to get tough, and in it, it pointed to the fact that he needed to be serious about the trade issue. It congratulated him for not taking a step backward toward protectionism. But the fact of the matter is, by doing nothing, we are taking a step backward. Now I'm glad to see that the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Locke, is today launching an initiative which will encourage greater trade. Well, it's wonderful to say that we need to focus on a small business, 21st century, export-oriented trade policy, but the fact is the only way that we can do that is if we pry open new markets for union and nonunion workers in the United States of America at companies like Caterpillar, Whirlpool, and other companies. We can do that by doing what the President failed to do in his State of the Union message after making a great statement about trade, and that is: send up the agreements that are pending that have been signed for Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. The votes are here if we could have that on the floor of the House ASAP so that we create good American jobs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday night we all had a stirring address here in this Chamber from the President in which he proposed a 3-year spending freeze. And we all lauded the fact that the President was getting serious about the notion of reducing Federal spending in light of the fact that we have seen this 86 percent increase take place in the past year over spending the year before. The problem is this: We all were taught as children that actions speak louder than words. The first bill that is to be coming to this House since the President gave his State of the Union message calling for the spending freeze is a measure which is denying an opportunity for our colleague from Dallas, Texas, Mr. Sessions, to propose a freeze in the level of spending. There are 17 amendments that have been made in order. The one amendment denied was the spending freeze amendment. And so, Mr. Speaker, it's very important for us to note that it's easy to talk about the need for us to freeze spending, but when the first bill, the first bill that's coming to this House denies an opportunity to even debate it, it shows that actions do speak louder than words.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank both of my Rules Committee colleagues for being here. And I will say that this is obviously a very important day. We're anxiously looking forward to the message that the President of the United States will be delivering right behind me here as he provides his State of the Union address. And there is an early indication of what it is that he might say. He is, according to reports, going to be talking about the need for fiscal responsibility, the need for us to do everything that we can to bring about a freeze in spending, and we all think that that's a good first step. I will say that if you look at the two omnibus appropriations bills, coupled with the stimulus bill, the report that we just got of an additional $75 billion on top of the $787 billion for the stimulus bill, we have over the last 2 years seen an 86 percent increase in spending. An 86 percent increase. And I guess freezing with an 86 percent increase that is proposed in spending for the next 2 years is something that may not be all that painful for people who want to maintain a high level of Federal spending. So, as we look at that, and then recognize that this measure that is before us, that allows for the up to $50 million, $50 million, not billion, not trillion, which are the terms we use around here, but $50 million to be authorized for the purchase of beachfront property in St. Croix, I just don't understand how, on the day that we're going to have the President of the United States stand here talking about a spending freeze, that we could possibly consider taking action such as this. The American people get it. Last night I had a telephone town hall meeting with my constituents in southern California in the Los Angeles area, and they have been raising grave concerns about the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government, and they have made it clear that they want us to work, not just to have a freeze, but to bring about major spending cuts. The message that the American people have been sending to us that we got, as my friend from Dallas said, a week ago yesterday, is that getting the economy back on track is a very, very high priority. Job creation is a high priority. And we know that. In my State of California, where we have a national 10 percent unemployment rate in the area that I represent, suburban Los Angeles, we have an unemployment rate in some areas that is in excess of 14 percent. People are losing their homes and their businesses, and they want us to focus on creating good, long-term, private-sector, not temporary government, jobs, not jobs that are going to be engaged in collecting the numbers and information through the census and that sort of thing, those sorts of temporary jobs. They want long-term job creation. And we have an opportunity, in fact, the President has an opportunity, to do just that, Mr. Speaker. If he were to send us the three pending trade agreements, and I know I've talked to my friend from Colorado about the issue of trade, and I know that he joins me in being a supporter of free trade. I would hope that if the President were to send the three pending trade agreements, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, here to the Congress, I am convinced that at least the Panama and Colombia agreements, based on conversations that I've had with Members on both sides of the aisle, we could have a bipartisan win, and that in passing, if we passed these three agreements, we could create more than a quarter of a million good, private-sector jobs. Why? Well, if you look on average, the tariff on manufactured goods and other products going into the 40 million-consumer-strong Colombia is 14 percent. That means union and nonunion members who are working for Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, manufacturers working for Whirlpool in Ohio, would have an opportunity to sell their manufactured products, their tractors, their washing machines and refrigerators into this market. Now, Mr. Speaker, what that would do is create again, good, long-term private-sector jobs. If we were to be able to do the Korea deal it would be the single largest trade agreement in the history of the world. Korea has a $1 trillion economy, Mr. Speaker, a $1 trillion economy. We have about $83 billion in trade with Korea right now. By and large, Korean products, automobiles and other things get to the U.S. consumer tariff free, virtually tariff free. I think that's a good thing. I think imports benefit the consumer. What we need to do is we need to pry open their market, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I won't take the 5 minutes. I am going to wrap up here because I think what we need to do is we need to not just talk, we need to engage in action. So, Mr. Speaker, I was just mentioning Korea. The fact is we would have the single largest agreement that has ever been put together. They're our seventh largest trading partner right now, South Korea; and it would mean that while we have their products coming here virtually tariff free, there would be an opportunity for us to have access to the millions of consumers in South Korea which we don't today. And I also have to say that our inaction, the fact that we've had these agreements signed by our executive branch, the executive branches of those countries, they're awaiting passage here in the United States Congress. Our inaction has really jeopardized our potential for economic growth. Why? If you look at the fact that Colombia has already embarked on a free trade agreement with Canada, if you look at the fact that South Korea is working with the European Union right now, there are other countries and blocs in the world that are taking advantage of our inaction here. And remember again, Mr. Speaker, our action is going to create probably in excess of a quarter of a million good private sector jobs. So as the President talks this evening about job creation and economic growth and fiscal responsibility, I hope that he will follow his words because he has told me that he believes in free trade and wants to do this Colombia deal. We're awaiting it. We anxiously look forward to his sending it up so that U.S. workers will have the opportunity to enjoy the kind of success we've seen in the past and I am convinced we will see in the future. And I thank my friend for his yielding and for his leadership.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as we all know, there will be a great deal of excitement around the Capitol tomorrow evening. The President of the United States will be delivering his first State of the Union message. Early indications are that he will be talking about the issue that Democrats and Republicans alike and people around this country are talking about, and that is job creation. We have got an unemployment rate in excess of 10 percent, much higher in my State of California, and we think--Democrat and Republican alike--that it's a very good idea for the President to be focusing on job creation and economic growth. Well, Madam Speaker, he has a wonderful opportunity to take what I believe would be the strongest, boldest, most dynamic step towards economic growth, and that is to send to Capitol Hill three pending trade agreements: Panama, Colombia and South Korea. We could create jobs in the manufacturing sector, in the service sector, in the farming sector of our economy if we were to break down the barriers that right now prevent U.S. workers and service providers from being able to have access to that consumer market. So as we work together in a bipartisan way to create jobs, I encourage the President, Madam Speaker, to send those three trade agreements so that we can create jobs.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I have got time. I will yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just say that, again, the example that I used, the bipartisan example of the Kennedy/Reagan tax cuts, were marginal rate reductions for individuals, which encouraged job creation and a reduction of the capital gains rate, and we've chosen to increase taxes.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy further with my friend from Colorado to simply say that I believe very, very strongly, Madam Speaker, that it is important for us to recognize what needs to be done to encourage job creation and economic growth. What we have seen in the past year, unfortunately, has been a dramatic expansion of the size and scope and reach of government, which, frankly, I think, would concern both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. The fact is the notion of this regulatory burden and tax cuts that are not modeled after the pro-growth model of President Kennedy and President Reagan are not going to create the kind of opportunity that we need. Why? Because we constantly hear this class warfare argument of ``tax the rich.'' This week's Economist has a very interesting piece, Madam Speaker, in which it focuses on the bonus tax that Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Great Britain is putting into place. The piece in The Economist is entitled, ``Class Warrior.'' It focuses on the fact, again, that Prime Minister Brown is trying to, with his policy, get the economy going when the British economy is, in fact, among those in Europe, doing the worst of the economies. We are in a position right now where he is engaging in class warfare, and The Economist has this great line, which reads, ``Market reforms are not what class warriors do.'' As we continue to attack job creators, as we continue to attack those at the upper end of the spectrum who are, in fact, struggling right now to get our economy back on track to create the private sector jobs, we've got policies here that are undermining that.

Mr. DREIER. Of course, I am happy to yield.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would yield, that means older.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, let me just say very quickly that, under John F. Kennedy, it's true. We saw a 70 percent marginal rate dramatically reduced. We are not asking for a halving of marginal rates. The $300 billion in tax cuts have not been focused on job creators, which is exactly what President Kennedy did then. I also want to say, Madam Speaker, that I recognize very well that, if you look at the provisions that have been put into place within the past year, we've not been focused on that private sector job creation that President Kennedy and President Reagan perceived. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I am going to need more than 10 seconds to respond. I would be happy to ask my friend from the Grandfather community if she might yield 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman further yield?

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, our friend from Maine is absolutely right. This is a very, very challenging time for people who are dealing with the economic downturn through which we have suffered, and it is essential that we do a number of the things that are before us today. The national security of the United States of America is priority number one. I always argue that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' I say that, Madam Speaker, because if you think about the issues with which we regularly contend here, nearly all of them can be done either by an individual, within a family, within a church or community, a city, a county, or a State level of governing, but our national defense can only be handled by the Federal Government. So I will acknowledge it is very, very important for us to ensure that our men and women in uniform have what they need. And I will acknowledge that as we deal with the economic downturn, ensuring that people have job opportunities is a very, very, very important priority for us. I happen to think that we have gone in the exact opposite direction when it comes to the notion of encouraging long-term private sector job creation and economic growth. I believe that we should deal with that issue in a bipartisan way. And when I say bipartisan, I'm referring to two Presidents in the last half century; one is John F. Kennedy, the other Ronald Reagan. John F. Kennedy, when we were dealing with economic challenges in the early 1960s, decided very clearly that the best way to get the economy back on track, the best way to encourage private sector job creation and economic growth was to do what? Bring about broad, marginal tax rate reduction, reducing the top rate on capital gains and taking the top rate on job creators, men and women who are out there working to create more and more opportunity for their fellow Americans. Well, Madam Speaker, that kind of plan was put into place in the early 1960s with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President of the United States. And guess what happened? During the decade of the 1960s, we saw a doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury because of the heralded John F. Kennedy tax cuts; again, a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Rush forward from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, two decades. I was privileged to be a Member of the 97th Congress which convened in January of 1981. We were dealing with very, very serious economic problems, some of which were even more challenging than exist today. In the early 1980s, people will recall that interest rates were well into double digits, we had an unemployment rate that dramatically exceeded where we are today, and if you look at the overall challenge, it was similar. How did we deal with that, Madam Speaker? We dealt with it by doing, under Ronald Reagan, exactly what President John Kennedy, a great Democratic President, did. Under Ronald Reagan, we saw broad reductions across the board of marginal tax rates, we saw a reduction in the capital gains rate. And what happened? As we encouraged those job creators out there in our economy, what happened, Madam Speaker, was we saw, again, a doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury and we saw good, long-term private sector jobs created. Now, the thing that is most troubling about what it is that we are doing is, while we have seen--I am really happy to see this reduction of 10.2 percent to 10 percent, the unemployment rate; it's a positive sign. The problem is that it's not private sector job creation; what we are seeing is public sector job creation. I will acknowledge that infrastructure spending is important. I represent the Los Angeles Basin, and we have very serious infrastructure problems. And so I recognize that government does have an appropriate role in dealing with infrastructure, and jobs are created when we put resources into infrastructure. I will acknowledge that. But if you look at the other areas, when the President had his job summit the other day, we had a meeting of Republicans. One of the economists who participated was Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, and he provided us with an amazing number. He said that he had his staff at AEI, the American Enterprise Institute, sit down and look at the challenge of the entire nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending. He said, Tell me what would happen if we were to have taken that entire stimulus bill and just hired people. Well, his staff came up with the following conclusion, Madam Speaker. He reported to us that if you look at the average wage rate in the United States, it's $37,000 a year. That's the average wage rate across the country. If we were to take the entire stimulus bill and simply hire people, guess how many jobs would be created? I was stunned when Mr. Hassett reported to us that that number is 21 million. And when you look at how the stimulus dollars have been expended, we obviously haven't created that many jobs, Madam Speaker. But the fact is, if we were to take all of those resources and just hire people at the average wage rate across the United States of America, it would be 21 million jobs that would have been created. That is not the way to deal with the challenge of the economic downturn. The way to deal with it is to encourage long-term private sector job creation and economic growth. That is why, when we look at these priorities and the urgency of dealing with the challenges that exist today, that is what we should be doing. Now, as Ms. Foxx has appropriately said, Madam Speaker, we are here with a virtually unprecedented scenario before us. First, this rule gives something that according to our staff has not happened before, and that is, it gives the Chair the authority to just, without any action by the Members of the House, adjourn the House. That is a troubling sign. And it is troubling but not terribly surprising based on what we have seen over the past 3 years since we had first unveiled to us a document known as ``A New Direction for America.'' This was the proposal that was put forward by the now-Speaker of the House, who was then minority leader. And as minority leader, she was very concerned. And I will acknowledge, having done a less than perfect job in my position as chairman of the House Rules Committee, I am proud of what our work product was, but I could have done better, and I will acknowledge that freely here. But it's interesting to note what ``A New Direction for America'' actually had. I would like to just share a couple of brief lines from that, if I might, Madam Speaker. It says, Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate. I am going to repeat that, Madam Speaker. It says, Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day. Now, Madam Speaker, as we know, virtually all of that has been thrown out the window. The other thing that is unprecedented--and I mentioned this in the Rules Committee when I confirmed it with our staff--to my knowledge, this is the first session ever to go through the entire session of Congress without any bill being considered under an open rule. I know that my friend from Maine was there upstairs when I raised this issue, and I hope very much that she does have an opportunity soon, because as we've talked about--and this bill that is coming before us is an appropriations bill--again, for the first time ever we had the appropriations process shut down, shut down, denying Members an opportunity to offer amendments. Never before in the history of the Republic has that taken place, and we now have, unfortunately, seen that. But as we prepare to extend Christmas and Hanukkah greetings to our colleagues and our friends across the country, it is very unfortunate that we have now--if we do in fact see today as the last day of the first session of this Congress--an entire session without any open rules. I will tell you that there are many people on the Rules Committee who work long and hard to deal with challenges. We, as Ms. Foxx said, met into the evening last night, and then we were here at 7:30 this morning. One of our Rules Committee staff members, Shane Chambers, who has worked long and hard, is getting ready to leave. I would like to say, Madam Speaker, how much I appreciate his work. He and his wife and new baby are moving to Dallas, Texas. I am sure that he will have an opportunity--even with a new baby--to get more rest than he does as a staff member on the House Rules Committee. But I would like to express appreciation to those staff members on both sides of the aisle who do work long and hard to address these challenges. I am going to urge my colleagues to join in voting ``no'' on this rule because I believe that we can do better. This is not the appropriate way, and it is not what was promised to the American people.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am a strong and long-time supporter of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA, and I support extending this vital program. Fostering economic development and the rule of law in the Andean region is essential to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests. H.R. 4284 extends ATPA benefits for Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador until December 31, 2010. I believe there are two essential components to making ATPA work as effectively as possible. First, there must be continuity, so that American businesses and workers can get the greatest benefit. The U.S. jobs that are supported by engaging in the Andean region through ATPA require a sound investment environment, which in turn demands certainty that the program will be maintained. Taking action to extend ATPA for an additional year beyond December 31, 2009, is a positive step. However, demonstrating a stronger commitment to continuity by extending the program for at least 2 years would improve the program's effectiveness and provide greater opportunity for job creation here in the U.S. Second, there must be accountability. While two of the three current participant countries--Colombia and Peru--have made enormous strides in implementing economic reforms, solidifying the rule of law and engaging as strong partners with the U.S., Ecuador has moved backwards in many regards. Most troubling has been the failure to strengthen the rule of law, as this is the bedrock upon which all economic and political reforms are built. While I believe that engagement through trade is the best way to encourage progress, we must take steps to ensure that there is accountability along the way. Unfortunately, H.R. 4284 removes measures currently in place to conduct a special review of Ecuador's progress. This action diminishes the incentives for Ecuador to play by the rules. It also sends the message to our partners that those who take steps backwards will get the same treatment as those who make enormous forward progress. This lack of accountability diminishes the effectiveness of both the carrot and the stick. As we consider long-term proposals for our trade preferences programs, including ATPA, I believe that we must ensure there is both greater continuity and greater accountability. Continued failure to do so will only limit our ability to achieve the national security, foreign policy and economic objectives these programs are designed to achieve.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Alpine, Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), I would simply say that I will give him 2 minutes, which would total $15 billion of this measure based on the $7.5 billion per minute that it is costing us to do this. I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking new colleague from Utah.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, with the somewhat unprecedented procedure utilizing the 2,500-page bill as the lectern, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chair of the Republican Conference, my friend from Columbus, Indiana, a self- described favorite Hoosier of mine, my friend, Mr. Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the problem we had was this: The first appropriation bill came forward, it was a total of 20 minutes of debate. Twenty minutes of debate took place, Mr. Speaker, and then all of a sudden the process was shut down and Mr. McGovern and I and our other Rules Committee colleagues were forced upstairs to take the first step towards shutting down the process. So let's say that this extraordinarily dilatory process lasted 20 minutes before we took the first step towards shutting this place down. The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is that as we talk about the sacrosanct September 30 end-of-fiscal-year date, that's only part of it. The only reason that we point that out, recognizing that under both Democrats and Republicans through a difficult appropriations process in the past, we have clearly had to go beyond that September 30 deadline for the end of the fiscal year. And the problem was that when we were told that we would not exceed that because we were shutting down the process. So, unfortunately, we lost both the opportunity for deliberation and this sacrosanct deadline that was constantly held up as the raison d'etre here for this kind of action. The third point is, as my friend, the distinguished Chair of the committee, went through the 95 amendments that were offered in committee, the 160 amendments that were made in order on the House floor for consideration, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the selection of those amendments in the hand of one individual Member of this institution--not those of us on the House Rules Committee. Yeah, we ultimately, with the majority vote in the House Rules Committee, saw our Democratic colleagues put the stamp of approval on it, but the decision of what amendments were made in order was made by one person, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations. That's where the decisions were. Now, Mr. Speaker, under the historic tradition, the tradition of consideration of appropriations bills, knowing how sacrosanct article I, section 9 of the Constitution is, Members of the House had the chance, as Mr. Flake said in his remarks, to stand up and offer amendments. One of the things that we believe strongly about, with the 85 percent increase that we have in nondefense discretionary spending; not those issues that the gentleman pointed to that we of course agree to in a bipartisan way--the national security of the United States of America--but in the multifarious other areas, there is a real desire for Members to stand up and have a chance to offer amendments that might be able to bring about, with a scalpel, some kind of spending reduction because we've gone through such huge increases. And so, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it's very, very troubling to hear these kinds of arguments. Mr. Kirk, to whom I'm going to yield in just a moment, has the 2,500 pages very, very gingerly propped up there on the lectern. At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes--which, based on the level of spending in this 2,500 page bill, will amount to $15 billion since we're spending $7.5 billion per minute--to my friend from Highland Park.