David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I cannot reserve the right to object to the unanimous consent request?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to object. Am I allowed to be heard under that reservation at this juncture?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Stark, for yielding, and I want to join from our side of the aisle in extending congratulations to Governor Garamendi. It is interesting that he is now part of a long-standing tradition of the relationship between California's congressional delegation and the Office of Lieutenant Governor of California. As I look across the aisle at my friend Mr. Stark and many others, we have had the privilege of serving with two former Lieutenant Governors who came to the House of Representatives, Glenn Anderson and Mervyn Dymally, and of course, the very distinguished opponent Mr. Garamendi had, David Harmer's father, John Harmer, served as Ronald Reagan's Lieutenant Governor. And so I know that this is another in that long list of challenges that Mr. Garamendi will face, and I hope very much, Madam Speaker, that we will be able to work together in a bipartisan way to address the needs of our State and our Nation as well. We extend congratulations.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from San Diego for yielding, and I am very privileged and honored to join here with my fellow natives of the Show Me State. And I want to congratulate my former mayor from Kansas City and now distinguished colleague here in the House for introducing this resolution. First and foremost, this is about recognizing those tens of thousands of Americans who lost their lives in the First World War. It was a very challenging time for the entire world when we look at the two alliances that existed at that time. It is often forgotten when we talk about the Great World War being the Second World War. The Liberty Memorial is very important to me personally, as the gentleman from Kansas City and I have discussed, Mr. Speaker. My great- grandfather was on the city council of Kansas City, Charles O. LaRue. He was one of the individuals who played a role in the construction of the Liberty Memorial itself when it was built in 1921. In 1921, he was a member of the city council. I have memories of having first visited the Liberty Memorial when I was a very young child. In fact, I remember very vividly when I was 4 or 5 years old and President Eisenhower came and delivered a spectacular address at the foot of the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri. Recently, I had a chance to be there and see the dramatic expansion of this memorial. As one walks in and see the poppies on display that you walk over, it is a very moving experience when you think about the men who faced the conflict in World War I. I just want to say that I have told my friend from Kansas City that I anxiously look forward, with my great-grandfather's name being inscribed at the base of the Liberty Memorial, to be able to participate in any celebration or ceremony they have. He has invited me to be there, and I will join him and it will be a great honor. I am privileged to be invited, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of Mr. Cleaver's resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I object.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Tennessee has just described this as America's bill, not the Pelosi health care plan. It is, in fact, Americans who are going to have to shoulder the burden if, God forbid, it becomes public law. The American people, when they think about health care reform, are not thinking about taxpayer funding of abortion on demand. They're not thinking about a $500 billion cut in Medicare. They're thinking about greater transparency. These are the kinds of concerns that rank-and- file Democrats have joined with Republicans in raising. The American people want many of the things my friend from Tennessee has just advocated. They want us to deal with preexisting conditions. They want us to ensure that there's an opportunity for children, young people up to the age of 25, to continue to be on their parents' plan. They want people to buy insurance across State lines. They want us to bring about a step-by-step approach. That's exactly what the American people want. That's exactly what our alternative does. That's what this House should do.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Well, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks. I made a horrible mistake earlier. I live in southern California. There is a great area called Woodland Hills, and I know my friend is actually from Woodland, Texas, but I hope that he'll excuse me. I know there could be a worse slur than being mistaken for a California city, but as a Texan, maybe that's not the case. Our friend Mr. Brady has provided very thoughtful, tremendous leadership on the trade agenda. I've been privileged to work with him. Mr. Herger and I were able to join Mr. Brady, with the leadership he provided, on a very important roundtable discussion we had over at the Library of Congress on the trade agenda a couple of weeks ago. I am happy to yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to just underscore the point my friend has made. We regularly hear that free trade agreements lead to job losses in the United States. That is a mantra that many people, unfortunately, are beating, when in fact the empirical evidence we have, history has shown the opposite in fact to be the case. In fact, we enjoy a trade surplus with our free trade agreement, FTA, trading partners as a whole, and the country with which we don't happens to be Mexico. There is a reason for that. It is our purchase of oil from Mexico. Were it not for the purchase of oil from Mexico, we would, for all intents and purposes, have an equilibrium in trade between the United States and Mexico. But we do have in other countries a manufacturing job surplus, a manufacturing job surplus, right here in the United States. So we have a surplus. When we export, more jobs are created for those countries with which we have free trade agreements than with not. So the answer to deal with manufacturing job creation here in the United States is more, not fewer, free trade agreements. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will say that yesterday I had the great ambassador from Colombia, Carolina Barco, in my office, and we were talking about the fact that Colombia has just embarked on this agreement with Canada, and they have proceeded with a fair trade agreement with Canada. So now what is happening is, our friends to the north are going to have a competitive advantage over us in Colombia, a market of 40 million people, that we should be getting into, and we could do it very, very quickly. I would like to talk and get into some of the details now, if I might, with both of my friends. Since I mentioned the Colombia agreement, it has gotten a great deal of attention. It is seen as one of the most controversial in the eyes of many, and I will admit that I am very troubled, while we want to have bipartisanship, and I know there are many Democrats supportive of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, I think that one of the saddest actions taken in dealing with the trade agenda was when, for the first time since implementation of the 1974 Trade Act, we saw the commitment--and it was a commitment made for an up-or-down vote here in the United States Congress--denied when it came to the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. There still is another opportunity for us to do that. But there are a number of myths out there that I would like my friends to join me in shattering, and I would like to share some information that I just received yesterday, Madam Speaker, from Ambassador Barco, Colombia's great ambassador here to the United States. We regularly hear about union violence in Colombia. In fact, as I listened to a number of labor leaders here in the United States, we are regularly told, and it saddens me to hear this, that the Colombian government is murdering our brothers. That is a statement that I have heard repeatedly in television and speeches made by union leaders here in the United States. Colombia is a country which has I believe in a 5-year period of time gone through a more positive transformation than any country in modern history. Are there problems in Colombia? Absolutely. Is the situation perfect in Colombia? Absolutely not. Work still needs to be done in Colombia. But under the great President Alvaro Uribe, we have seen again a very positive transformation take place there. And this report of tremendous, tremendous violence being inflicted on union leaders has in many ways been shattered. Many of my colleagues, and I know my friends have been to Colombia, people on both sides of the aisle have been there, but just yesterday Ambassador Barco provided me some information from an independent study that was done by the University of the Andes in Colombia, a very respected institution. They went into a detailed analysis of violence against unionists in Colombia. Their data samples actually included the Colombian unions' own data. Information that they used for this study actually consisted of information that was provided to the University of the Andes in Colombia by the unions of Colombia. Their findings were that while overall violence in Colombia has steadily declined, we have seen a decline in violence in Colombia, we know that very well, in the last 8 years the decline in union violence has actually been greater than the decline in overall violence in Colombia. They went on in the study to say that there is absolutely no evidence today that violence against union members is systematic or targeted. So this notion that we have heard that the Colombian government is murdering our union brothers, which is, again, a message that has come forward from a lot of union leaders here in the United States, is just plain wrong. The authors of the study said the following, and I quote, Madam Speaker: ``Of course, any murder is a very serious matter. However, an evaluation of the progress made in confronting such a serious problem as violence against union members in Colombia must necessarily look at the statistical evidence. This is particularly so if the conclusions of such an assessment are to be used to block important economic reforms, such as free trade agreements.'' So, in other words, Madam Speaker, they are saying that every murder is a tragedy--we all know that--and every government has a responsibility to apprehend and prosecute those who commit violent crimes. In Colombia, the Uribe government is doing just that. But the numbers don't lie. Any claim that unionists are being targeted is patently false. In fact, the murder rate for unionists in Colombia is one-fourth the rate for the general population. In fact, I remember on our last trip there, I was there in mid-August with our House Democracy Partnership and we had a lengthy discussion about this at what is their Attorney General, it is called the Fiscalia. The figure I was most struck with, as we spent a great deal of time going through the analysis of violence and specifically union violence, is that the murder rate in Colombia is, tragically, 39 per 100,000 for the average Colombian. If one is a union Member, the murder rate is 4 per 100,000. So actually the threat is greater for someone who is just an average citizen as opposed to a unionist in Colombia. So this notion that somehow there is this planned violence against union leaders is preposterous. In fact, one of the things that President Uribe has done is he has put into place around-the-clock, 24 hour security for 1,500 labor leaders in the country, because they are determined to do everything within their power to ensure that union leaders' lives are not threatened. They are doing everything they can to protect those union leaders. I would be happy to yield to either of my colleagues who would like to comment on this. Mr. Herger.

Mr. DREIER. It is called the demobilization effort, those from the FARC, the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia, which have been the guerrillas, and the so-called paramilitaries, those on the right who responded. They have had this amazing demobilization effort, where young people have been drawn into violence and now they are so excited to be part of productive society.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say, along that line, the gentleman is absolutely right. In mentioning that construction, the modernization of the Panama Canal, we all know what it takes to bring about the modernization of the Panama Canal--tractors, road equipment, all kinds of heavy equipment. What comes to mind? John Deere, Caterpillar, and other companies here in the United States that are on the cutting edge of developing great, great equipment. Yet the tariff rate that exists right now on selling that equipment into Panama exists. With this agreement, we would be able to get it to zero, dramatically cutting the cost of the modernization of the Panama Canal. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I would say it's very interesting that my friend raises both Asia and Latin America. We have agreements, as we know, and both of these gentlemen here, Madam Speaker, have been involved in this and have negotiated free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Those three agreements are pending right now, and we, unfortunately, have not had a vote here in the Congress on those agreements. In the wake of that, our neighbors to the north, Canada, have embarked on a free trade agreement with our allies in Colombia. They have already proceeded with that, in part, because we have not. Our friends in South Korea have already negotiated a free trade agreement with the European Union. So what has now happened, as my friend has referred to this high tariff rate on all of these specialty crops that would be sold in Colombia, if those things are grown to the north, in Canada, under this agreement that has been struck, by virtue of that--because we have been so slow in putting together our agreement and not passing it and I believe, if we were to have it here in the House of Representatives, it would pass with bipartisan support--the Canadians are able to sell tariff-free into the Colombian market right now, and unfortunately, we are denied the opportunity to do that. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I think the gentleman makes a very interesting point. As I've talked to a number of colleagues about the importance of our bringing up and considering and voting on these trade agreements, I know that my friends will hear this argument made: My gosh. We're dealing with a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate in the United States. Our State has a 12.2 percent unemployment rate. Now is not a good time to bring up a free trade agreement, because aren't we going to lose jobs here in the United States if we put into place a free trade agreement? When, in fact, as the gentleman has said so well, Madam Speaker, the opposite is the case, because the passage of and the implementation of these trade agreements are job creators right here in the United States of America. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Let me say, I'm going to be joined by a number of my colleagues this evening to talk about an issue which often has a tendency to leave people to have their eyes glaze over. It's the issue of international trade. I know that we have people who are focused on the World Series. I regret the fact that my two Los Angeles teams, the Angels and the Dodgers, haven't made it to the World Series. We're all fascinated watching the Phillies and the Yankees play. We've got people focused on--as my California colleague Mr. Lungren just pointed out--the issue of health care. We've got understandable concern about the situation in Afghanistan, and our colleague from Illinois just spent time talking about the families who had loved ones who paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan. We have a lot of very, very important issues that we are addressing here, and it's important to note, as our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor, said in his colloquy with the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, that what we hear at home and what public opinion polls and, most recently, the Gallup Poll that came out the day before yesterday have shown is that the number one priority right now, the greatest concern of the American people happens to be the pressing need to get our economy back on track. The report came out earlier today that the jobless numbers have, in fact, not improved. We know that we have an unemployment rate that is approaching 10 percent. In my State of California, it's 12.2 percent. As I said, today's report that the new jobless claims did not decline by the extent that had been thought. We did get positive news on the gross domestic product growth over the last 3 months. Annualized, it came at 3.5 percent. But I've got to say--and I was talking to one of my Democratic colleagues late this afternoon who said, What evidence do we have of this economic growth? We all know, as we talk with our constituents across this country, that we have very, very serious problems when it comes to job creation and economic growth. Now I began by saying that our goal here this evening is to talk about international trade, and the challenge that we have, Madam Speaker, is to underscore the direct correlation between job creation, economic growth and international trade. Tragically, over the past several years, we have had people get it completely backwards. There are people who believe that as we pursue international trade agreements, that the natural step to follow is job loss in the United States. We constantly hear, Well, if we pass a Free Trade Agreement, what is it that's going to happen? Oh, we're going to see our jobs going to Mexico or to China or to any other country in the world, but they're going to flee the United States of America when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Why? Well, the reason for that, Madam Speaker, is that 95 percent of the world's consumers are outside of the U.S. border. They're not here in the United States. The United States is a country that has provided the world access to our consumer market. Meaning, as we all know, we can buy goods from China that people see regularly at Wal-Mart, Kmart, Home Depot, stores across the country. So we allow, virtually tariff-free, for goods to come into the United States so that the American people can enjoy a standard of living that is higher than it would be otherwise, and that's a good thing. It's a good thing. As I said, we want the standard of living in the United States of America to improve. One of the things that can help us improve our standard of living and create jobs based on every shred of empirical evidence that we have is for us to embark on more, not fewer, trade agreements. Basically, market-opening opportunities for U.S. workers so that manufacturing workers, union members and nonunion members will have an opportunity to sell their finished products in countries around the world. It's very important for us to embark on those agreements because the existence of those agreements--and we have a lot of evidence that we're going to talk about this evening that shows that-- the existence of those agreements do, in fact, create jobs right here in the United States of America. In fact, if we think about our goal, the goal that we have of job creation and economic growth, there are very few efforts that we have that promise more benefits if we move forward on the global trade agenda, and there are very few things that threaten our goal of job creation and economic growth if we fail to move forward on the trade agenda. So that's why I want this evening to have my colleagues who are here--and I will say that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--this was to be a bipartisan Special Order this evening--both sides of the aisle were hoping to join me. Colleagues like Mr. Meeks, Mr. Kind and other Members on the Democratic side and other colleagues here because I very much hope, Madam Speaker, that we can get back to the bipartisanship that has existed on the trade agenda in the past. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has chosen not to move the trade agenda, and I am saddened that President Obama has to this point not been able to move the trade agenda forward as it should be because I know that he very much wants to see new jobs created in the United States, but for I guess a number of reasons that I find hard to comprehend, they have failed to move the trade agenda forward. Again, there are rank-and-file Members on both the Democratic side and on the Republican side who feel strongly about the need to do this in a number of areas. I want to spend this hour this evening talking about those. I have two very distinguished colleagues who are here--my California colleague (Mr. Herger) and the very distinguished gentleman from Woodland Hills, Texas (Mr. Brady). I would be happy at this juncture to yield to either of the two of you if we could engage in a colloquy and discuss some of these issues. I know that Mr. Herger, who, Madam Speaker, has served with great distinction as the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been a wonderful leader in this area. I would like to yield to him at this juncture.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will engage my friend, if I might, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. The issue of agriculture, let's spend just a moment on that, if we might, because the gentleman comes from an agriculture-rich area. Frankly, there are many people who believe that the State of California's No. 1 industry is tourism, defense, or motion pictures. There are a wide range of areas, but they often don't get it right, because the No. 1 industry in the largest State of the Union is agriculture. The Central Valley of California, which is going through serious challenges now of which all of our colleagues know because of the water problems out there, has not been able to move ahead as we would like. The area in northern California, which my friend represents, is a very, very rich area in many ways and when it comes to the agriculture field. I know that prying open those new markets with 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of our border would be very, very helpful for job creation and economic growth in his district. I am happy to further yield.

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

Mr. DREIER. I appreciate my friend getting back to the point of why it is that we are here, because the number one priority, according to the American people in the Gallup poll that was released the day before yesterday, was job creation and economic growth. We have all been talking about that. We want to make sure that we can create good jobs, agriculture, manufacturing, small businesses. We want to create service-sector jobs. We want to create these jobs here in the United States of America. And I believe that one of the best ways for us to do that is to open up these new markets. Now, obviously we want to underscore concern. If governments are taking action, murdering union leaders, that understandably is outrageous. But there is a complete, complete blur that has been put together on the part of many people who, for some strange reason, are opposed to engaging in these trade agreements that I just find incomprehensible. It is, again, beyond me why it is that they would hurt rank-and-file union members, who are going to be the ones to benefit by opening up these new markets. I am happy to yield to my friend from the Woodlands.

Mr. DREIER

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin my extending my appreciation to my friend from Fort Lauderdale and thank him for his very thoughtful and powerful statement that he has just delivered to us. Madam Speaker, for the second time this fall, we're considering a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government operating as the Democratic majority fails to complete action on Federal spending for the new fiscal year. Continuing resolutions are not new. Congress has frequently, under both political parties, taken the action of having a continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown while the difficult appropriations process is finalized. What makes this particular series of continuing resolutions so significant--and I say again, we're on the second one so far--is that it exposes this year's unprecedented--and I underscore unprecedented-- closed appropriations process for what it really is. It's an utterly hollow excuse, a hollow excuse because never before in the history of the Republic have we had the appropriations process shut down, as has been the case through this past summer. Time and again, the Democratic leadership told us during the summer that they had no choice but to shut down the debate on the spending appropriations process because they had a schedule to keep. In fact, they very solemnly spoke of the inviolable September 30, end of the fiscal year, and that we had to have the appropriations work completed by that September 30 date. There simply was no time for us to debate appropriations bills, no time for accountability or for the kind of scrutiny that has gone on under both political parties throughout the appropriations process. They were on a timetable and they just had to stick to it, regardless of the precedents and traditions that would be abandoned. In fact, Madam Speaker, as we all know, they were abandoned. So what did the expediency bring about? Well, they completed one- twelfth of their appropriations work by that hard, fast, inviolable September 30 deadline. It's worth pointing out that the single appropriations bill that they managed to get done on time was, what? Congress' own funding bill. The bill that funds the Congress was the only appropriations bill that's been completed. Not national security, not the very, very important issues, not the important issues that are addressed in this bill, I will acknowledge. In fact, I thank my good friends Messrs. Dicks and Simpson. We had a lengthy discussion upstairs in the Rules Committee yesterday on the importance of the FLAME Act. Especially as a Representative from the Los Angeles area, we have gone through the worst fire in the history of Los Angeles County, the Station Fire, the loss of two firefighters, Ted Hall and Arnie Quinones, whom we continue to honor in southern California, and we've had other fires since the Station Fire. So the FLAME Act is a very important part of this measure, and I appreciate that. We could have done this bill before we did Congress' own spending bill. So having taken care of their own funding needs, Madam Speaker, the Democratic majority turned to the rest of the country's priorities, and they gave themselves another month to finish the work. Now the new deadline is rapidly approaching. Over the last month, we have inched forward, and we've completed three more appropriations bills. With the first extension about to expire, this Congress has now completed one-third of its appropriations duty--our constitutional responsibility. Remember, again, we had that inviolable September 30, end of the fiscal year, deadline we had to meet, and here we sit, approaching the 1st of November, and we've completed one-third of our appropriations work. The underlying conference report that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Simpson are bringing forward here actually grants another extension. It's an extension to take us all the way to December 18. Now, despite the Democratic majority's penchant for making excuses, there are really no plausible excuses left. Madam Speaker, I know that often the finger is pointed down this hallway to the other side of the Capitol, to our colleagues there. There are 60 votes that the Democratic majority has over there. We have the White House, as we all know, in the control of Democrats and a huge majority here in the House of Representatives. The majority is so ironclad that even their supporters are complaining about their lack of progress and empty excuses. We are hearing that from supporters of the Democratic majority. In fact, the former staff member who was a Democratic strategist, David Sirota, told Congress Daily last week: Democrats decried their lack of 60 votes in the Senate as a campaign tactic between 2006 and 2008 as the reason why they couldn't get anything done. Again, the fact that they didn't have 60 votes in the Senate was the reason that nothing could get accomplished and that things couldn't get done. Well, Mr. Sirota, the Democratic strategist, goes on to say they got the 60 votes. He says: Mathematically, there are no excuses left. There are no excuses left. Those are the words of the Democratic strategist, Mr. Sirota. Yet, Madam Speaker, here we are passing another continuing resolution because the Democratic supermajority still can't get the work done. Again, these extensions are far from unprecedented. I know the continuing resolutions have taken place again under both political parties. What is unprecedented is the fact that an open debate of the Federal budget was completely abandoned for a deadline that has proven to be utterly meaningless. We all have to acknowledge, Democrats and Republicans alike, that that September 30 deadline was utterly meaningless, and we were told constantly, having that calendar held up before us in the Rules Committee and here on the House floor, that it was absolutely essential that we meet that September 30 deadline. It was nothing more than a pretense for shutting out amendments for both Democrats and Republicans. That's why, Madam Speaker, I argue that this is not a partisan statement because there were just as many, if not more, Democrats who were denied an opportunity to amend appropriations bills as Republicans. Rank-and-file Members of both parties were completely shut out and were refused the opportunity to freely offer their amendments to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote. That kind of open process had been the custom, as I say, for 220 years. An open amendment process is something that we all, again, under both political parties, were used to. Unfortunately, those days are now behind us. For what reason? So that we can end up right where we always are--passing a string of continuing resolutions. The need for scrutiny of the majority's spending practices became clearer than ever with the announcement of the $1.4 trillion deficit. Even the continuing resolution that we're considering today includes a number of last-minute additions that further diminish the accountability of Federal spending. For example, there is a provision that extends funding for organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are the very organizations that very heavily contributed to our current economic crisis, and those are extended until the end of next year. This is a very curious provision. The continuing resolution, itself, only goes, as I said, Madam Speaker, to December 18; yet this controversial funding provision is extended until after next year's election. It's very, very curious. Another provision in the underlying measure provides a bailout for local housing authorities that intentionally issued vouchers that they could not afford. These agencies clearly believed that they could act with impunity because the Democratic majority would just bail them out. Clearly, Madam Speaker, they were right. It is these kinds of practices that have driven up our deficit to unmanageable proportions and have destroyed public trust in this institution, and they are precisely why we need an open appropriations process. The American people want us to meet our priorities, but they also want us to rein in spending. Unfortunately, closing down that appropriations process denied Members the opportunity to scrutinize and then to, we hope, put together the votes to rein in spending. The American people, Madam Speaker, have been deprived of their voice in this process, and they were promised timely action. Unfortunately, it just has not happened. With today's consideration of yet another continuing resolution, it's painfully clear that the American people have gotten neither the quick action that they were promised nor the accountability that they deserve. So, again, I will say that there are items within the Interior Appropriations conference report that I support. I am concerned about the 17 percent spending increase that is there; but in light of the issue that I've raised and the fact that we've had an appropriations process that has been shut down for the first time in the history of our Republic, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the previous question as well. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just close by responding first not to the very thoughtful remarks given by the subcommittee chairman. He didn't quite focus totally on the rule. We talked about everything from Watergate to California fires, and I appreciate his fine work there. But I will say that as we look at the remarks that were offered by my friend from Fort Lauderdale at the outset, in which he talked about the 60 vote number that exists in the Senate and where we are, there are a couple of differences. We never had the 60 votes in the Senate, number one; and number two, we did not shut down the appropriations process, Madam Speaker. And that is what has happened throughout the past summer. The American people had their ire raised on a procedural issue for the first time ever on June 26 of this year when early that morning, at 3 o'clock, while the motion was being offered in the Rules Committee to bring a special rule to the floor to consider the so-called cap-and- trade bill, my friend Mr. McGovern was offering the motion, and I had a 300-page amendment dropped on my place at that moment. People have said: read the bill, deliberate, think about the process. That message is resonating across the country. That did not happen with this appropriations process. Unfortunately, on consideration of this measure, we are having a continuation of that because one of the waivers provided in this rule is for the 72-hour layover, the 3-day layover requirement, which the American people believe we should have. I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question so we will be able to make in order the very thoughtful bipartisan effort launched by Messrs. Baird, Culberson and Walden that will, in fact, require the 3-day layover for measures as they move to the floor. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the explanatory material, appear in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.