David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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. 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. 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. 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. If I could reclaim my time for a moment just to underscore what my friend is saying on this foreign policy issue, which is an important one. President Obama has, I believe correctly, talked about the importance of soft power. Dealing diplomatically, which I think is important. I, of course, am a strong proponent of a tough decision posture as well. But utilization of soft power is something that President Obama has referred to. In fact, at the G-20 meeting that took place, those leaders all agreed that they would reject protectionism. Unfortunately, if you look at 66 of the 78 trade measures that have been implemented since that G- 20 meeting, they have been protectionist. It's very sad because as we're talking about the economic downturn through which we're going right now and the challenges that we face here in the United States and in the global economy, one can't help but think about history. Because people are talking about regularly this economic downturn and what took place seven decades ago. The Great Depression. We know that, unfortunately, under Republican leadership, President Hoover and Congressman Hawley and Senator Smoot, we saw passage in 1930 of very, very poor trade policy. Fortunately, we as Republicans have been proudly providing leadership since then and we want to work in a bipartisan way on this. But most economists, regardless of their stripe, acknowledge that the protectionist actions which, frankly, Smoot-Hawley began as just a little agricultural tariff measure at the outset and grew into one of the most protectionist measures in the history of the United States. It undermined our ability globally to provide leadership. If you look at what happened to Europe, as we all know, following that, the Second World War, it can go back to this use of soft power question, which the President has correctly raised and, similarly, at that time engaging in protectionism undermines that. The unfortunate thing is we seem to be slipping down that road of protectionism now, which seriously undermines our ability to provide that strong global leadership in dealing with the war against radical extremism, in dealing with the challenges that exist in a wide range of areas. I'm happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

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

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.

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

Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last month, President Obama stood right behind me here in our Chamber and delivered an address to a joint session of Congress in which he said, ``Anyone who mischaracterizes our bill, we will call you out.'' His next line was, ``I will not accept the status quo.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that no one--no one--wants to accept the status quo. I've been listening to my California constituents, and they've been saying that we need to have exactly what our colleague from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) described as a step-by-step approach. They know and understand that a massive government takeover of health care is not the answer to our problem; in fact, it could exacerbate the problem, especially with the proposed Medicare cuts that will hurt our seniors. We need to do things like allow people to purchase insurance across State lines, giving them a chance to have the best quality product at the lowest possible price. We need real medical liability reform, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will bring about a savings of $54 billion. We need to have the step-by-step approach that Mrs. McMorris Rodgers said that we need. Let's make it happen.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather community for yielding me the time. I rise with a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker, for what is taking place here. My friend from Worcester has talked about the commitment to nutrition programs. I share his concern about nutrition, child nutrition especially. It is a very high priority. And anyone, anyone who tries to characterize those of us who are opposed to this conference report as being opposed to child nutrition is totally off base. I was just speaking to my good friend Mr. Conaway, who is a member of the Agriculture Authorization Committee, and he points to the fact that while we look at this conference report, every single line item, every single line item has had a plus-up, an increase, and it brings to that total a 14 percent increase. Now, Mr. Conaway has reminded me that we can have that strong commitment, as we do in a bipartisan way, to nutrition. There are other areas where cuts can be made. And so again, once again, the tired old argument that somehow those of us who are Republicans want to throw children out in the street and have them starve is a nonstarter. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to continue with that kind of argument. Now, there are other concerns that exist. We have the 14 percent increase with this measure. We have something known as air-dropping, which is a violation of House rules, and this rule waives a measure which provides an addition of items that were never considered by this House or considered by our colleagues in the other body in the Senate. That is described as a scope violation. It means that neither House considered it and yet the conferees came together and without a single hearing, without any kind of deliberation, they just dropped a couple of provisions into the conference report. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what is leading us to raise concern that is bipartisan on the fact that this House is not taking the amount of time that it should to look at legislation, and this came to the forefront on June 26 of this year. On June 26 at 3 in the morning, my Rules colleagues and I were sitting upstairs in the Rules Committee and my friend, Mr. McGovern, offered the motion that would allow us to move ahead with the cap-and- trade bill. As he was reading that motion, Mr. Speaker, as he was reading that motion, I had dropped on my lap at 3 in the morning a 300- page amendment to the cap-and-trade bill. No one on that committee had had an opportunity to look at it. We know that most Members of the House had not read it. What did it lead to? It led to our very, very strong level of degree of outrage, and it led our minority leader to use a great deal of time, taking 1 hour to actually walk through that 300-page amendment. The by-product of that, Mr. Speaker, has been outrage across this country. I have spent most of my career here focused on process. I believe process is substance. But many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when I talk about process, make it very clear that they and their constituents have their eyes glaze over. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? The American people understand when you don't take the time to deliberate and read and look at legislation. Now, I will admit that in Republican Congresses, we have waived the 3-day layover requirement. In fact, in the 109th Congress, on 40 occasions we waived the 3-day layover requirement. But, Mr. Speaker, we were told that in this new Congress there would be a better way and they would change those ways. In the 110th Congress, this new majority waived the 3-day layover requirement 43 times. And so far in this Congress, and we are 40 percent of the way through this Congress, Mr. Speaker, the 3-day layover requirement has been waived 22 times already, and we are only 40 percent through this Congress. And so this new majority has said we are not going to allow for the reading of legislation. We're not going to allow for an adequate amount of time. We're going to move quickly, without letting Members look at or the American people look at legislation to the floor. So what is it that happened? A bipartisan group, led by our colleague from Washington, Mr. Baird, our colleague from Texas, Mr. Culberson, came together with legislation saying that there should, in fact, be a process that requires that that 3-day layover be maintained. Now, there was no opportunity provided by the majority to allow for consideration of this, and so it led my very good friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, to launch a discharge petition, a discharge petition which, at this moment, has 181 signatories. A bipartisan group saying what we should do is, we should say that Members should look at legislation before it's considered. And on this conference report, the notion of air-dropping measures in is just a further example of not allowing the membership to look at legislation. My colleague from Grandfather community, Ms. Foxx, is going to move to defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker. When she does that, she is going to be seeking to make in order the bipartisan Baird-Culberson resolution, which states that we must have 72 hours to look at legislation before it is considered. It's a commonsense proposal that the American people understand and that this membership understands. And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to join with Ms. Foxx and Mr. Conaway, and the wide range of people who are working on this, led by Mr. Walden, who's here on the floor and is going to have some very, very interesting numbers and figures to show to buttress this argument that we're making here. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we'll be able to allow this measure to move forward so that the commonsense idea of saying we should look at things before we vote on them is, in fact, able to prevail.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me just say, I will say to my friend that he must not have listened to my opening remarks. The notion of pointing the finger to the other side of the aisle and somehow saying that we have an interest in seeing child nutrition deteriorate is outrageous, and it should not be said on this House floor. And I will say this, too. If you look at the number of times that that 3-day layover requirement was waived when we were in the majority, as I said, 40 times in the 109th Congress. And you promised a better way on the majority side of this aisle. And what has happened is you've bested us by doing it 44 times in the 110th Congress and so far 22 times, 40 percent of this. And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for being so generous with the 15 seconds. Let me just say that article 1 of the United States Constitution very clearly, with section 9, points to us as being responsible for funding. We have the power of the purse here, and the notion of saying that ACORN somehow has a right to U.S. taxpayer dollars is just plain wrong. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say to my friend that the American people get it. They understand that ACORN is responsible for its own actions. They have seen what has taken place. It has been outrageous behavior. And the notion of somehow standing here and defending that when we are dealing with the funding bills themselves, the appropriations process, is just plain wrong. Let me also say to my friend from Worcester managing this measure that he responded to my remarks by saying that he didn't want to have lectures given and he was tired of excuses being made. You know, the American people get it, too. The notion of pointing the finger of blame back and forth is not what they want. Children make excuses and get slapped down by their parents. That has happened to me as a kid. It happens to everybody. And the idea of standing here saying, Well, we were lectured here and excuses are being made, so we somehow can continue to do what it is that we want to do. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that we didn't do things perfectly, but the fact of the matter is we didn't shut down the appropriations process. We did not shut down the appropriations process, denying Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to participate, as has been the case throughout the history of our country, and I think it's just plain wrong to do that. And the American people get that, too. So we're not providing any lecturing. We're just saying regular order. The rules of the House should be followed, and they have been ignored consistently. When one looks at the statements that have been made by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were critical of us when we were in the majority, it's incredible to see that they have taken and ramped up, ramped up the kind of behavior that they criticized on our part. In fact, on the fiscal year 2000 measure, the fiscal year 2000 measure, as the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill was moving through, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the now chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, said, in talking about the Legislative Branch bill, This bill should not be passed until we know how deep the cuts that are being made contemplated for veterans, for education, for health care, and other areas of major responsibility to our people. Because, in the end, if this bill is one of the first out of the gate and signed into law before the other cuts are made, then the American people are really going to have a right to ask whether we are more concerned with taking care of ourselves than we are with taking care of their own problems. Those are the words of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee today, who is utilizing the ``putting Congress first,'' the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, as the first measure for tying the continuing resolution to that. And I think that it's a very, very unfortunate thing. When we had an exchange up in the Rules Committee, I asked the distinguished Chair, As we look at our priorities--homeland security, veterans, our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq and Afghanistan--and we have now chosen that the priority for passage is the funding for the Congress of the United States, the distinguished Chair's response was, Uh-huh. Right. She said, That's it. And so here we are, putting Congress first, when the American people believe we should be focusing on our border security, the threat of terrorism, funding for our troops. Those should be the priorities that we have. And the notion of standing here, Madam Speaker, having subverted the opportunity for the American people, Democrats and Republicans alike, to be heard in this appropriations so that we could get everything done by September 30, when we failed to meet that, is just plain wrong. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a fascinating debate, and I know that we want to move to consideration of the measure. I hope that we'll be able to defeat the rule. As I listened to my friend from New York talk about ACORN, to follow the logic that the gentleman has put forward basically is saying that ACORN is an entitlement; ACORN is entitled to these taxpayer dollars. We don't believe that, Madam Speaker. We happen to believe that the outrageous reports that have come forward are very clear and the admissions that have been made by ACORN, and the changes that they are attempting to make now that this kind of behavior has come to light is very important. So my friend from New York is criticizing the fact that this continuing resolution does not provide funding for ACORN, but only for 30 days. The continuing resolution is 30 days. Basically 30 days following September 30, the end of the fiscal year, funding goes right back up. So I guess his entitlement will be able to be continued. The notion of somehow saying that the United States House of Representatives, which under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, is empowered with spending the taxpayer dollars, cannot cut off funding for ACORN, and for that reason, we're going to see the gentleman from New York voting against the continuing resolution is, to me, absolutely incomprehensible. Madam Speaker, I've got to say that we've got a process here which is putting Congress first. My friend has just outlined the priorities. I guess I would inquire of him how often he gets calls from his constituents saying, Are you keeping the Capitol Complex safe so that you can move in and out of your office? That is not what the American people are concerned about. I recognize it's important to keep this great Capitol Complex safe, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass the Legislative Branch appropriation bill. I'll tell you what I do believe. I believe that border security and dealing with the threat of terrorism by funding Homeland Security and I believe that passing the Defense appropriation bill so that our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need through the appropriations process is more important right now, and the American people get that. With that, if my colleague is prepared to close, Madam Speaker, I will simply say to my colleagues that this measure does, as I said, put Congress first, and we should not put Congress first, ahead of the priority spending for national security, which is priority number one. We continue to have statements made by our friends on the other side of the aisle, including the veto message from President Clinton in 1996. He vetoed a measure because we were passing the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for saying that there are many other priorities that should be ahead of it. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can move ahead in a very, very responsible way. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Of course, I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, the end of the fiscal year, as we all know, is just a few days away. Despite this looming deadline, Congress has not completed action on a single appropriations bill. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: we have got within 5 days of the end of the fiscal year, and yet not one single appropriations bill has been completed by this Congress. As a result, the Democratic majority is scrambling to accomplish two things, two things with this underlying bill that we have. The first is to buy more time to get our work done with the continuing resolution, which will keep the government operating for an additional 38 days beyond the September 30 expiration of the fiscal year. The second is to finally take the first step towards passing our appropriations conference reports. Madam Speaker, which spending bill has the honor of being considered first? Which spending bill? Perhaps it's our Homeland Security appropriations bill, which funds our Border Patrol and other Federal agencies charged with protecting our States, cities, and ports from terrorist attacks. Or, perhaps, Madam Speaker it's the very, very important Defense appropriations spending bill, which would provide the funding for our troops. In fact, the very first spending bill that the House is moving to send to the President is our Congress' own funding bill. The underlying Legislative Branch appropriations bill makes the Democratic majority's funding priorities very, very clear. Madam Speaker, I describe this as the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. That's really what it is. We remember back in 1992, putting people first was President Clinton's campaign motto. We have now seen this Congress establish a new directive based on what we are doing on this appropriations bill, and that is we are putting Congress first. As we look at this priority, it is very clear that the continuing resolution will allow for more time to take care of everything else. Now, some would say that we, as Republicans, are just belly-aching. I mentioned President Clinton and his campaign back in 1992 of putting people first, and this now the putting Congress first appropriations process. Well, back in 1996 after President Clinton had been President for almost 4 years, he vetoed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill when a Republican Congress sent it as the second appropriations bill of that season. Madam Speaker, President Clinton said the following in his veto message: ``I believe that it would be inappropriate to fully fund regular funding for Congress and its offices while funding for most other activities of government remains incomplete, unresolved and uncertain. I don't think Congress should take care of its own business before it takes care of the people's business.'' Those are the words of President Clinton in his 1996 veto message when the second appropriations conference report sent to him was the Legislative Branch appropriations bill measure. He was right to veto that bill and President Obama would be right to do it now, Madam Speaker, following President Clinton's lead. Unfortunately, even if the President wanted to veto this bill, there is a problem. A veto, as we all know, would shut down the government, something that no one wants. The Democratic majority has made sure that our offices don't have to worry about working within temporary funding; but our veterans, Homeland Security personnel, the fighting men and women will just have to make do. Madam Speaker, this is just another example of what I am calling the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. Those who follow the work of the Congress know that continuing resolutions are not unusual, and we recognize that on this side of the aisle. The Federal budget is a very serious responsibility, and our work often, under either party, has extended throughout the fall. What's different throughout this year is not the necessity of a continuing resolution. What's different, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the Democratic majority shut down debate on our appropriations bills, ostensibly for the sake of completing our spending bills on time. They said that there was a schedule to keep. They said that there was no time for debate and deliberation while the clock was ticking. With regrets to the American people, we just cannot allow for scrutiny and accountability on the spending of taxpayer dollars because September 30 is fast approaching. Now, as the fiscal year draws to a close, it would appear that the rights of Democrats and Republicans have been trampled on for the sake of a goal that has not come close to being achieved. Throughout June and July, as debate on bill after bill was shut down, we heard the drum beat of the impending deadline. On June 10 our friend, whom I am happy to see here on the floor, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, announced his ``ambitious schedule'' saying that his time line would be unworkable as long as we had ``procedural cooperation.'' Of course, we very soon learned that procedural cooperation was a euphemism for closing down the debate. Now, the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, on June 17 on the House floor, said that the Democratic majority was prepared to push forward at all costs to complete the appropriations process on time. Again, we now know that those costs were the abandonment of what has been the 220-year history of the appropriations process, and that is open to debate and the rejection of amendments to be considered by Democrats and Republicans. On June 19, the distinguished majority leader reiterated this stance saying that the only way to get our work done is if we limit debate time. Throughout the summer, the Democratic majority did just that. Every single appropriations bill was considered under a restrictive rule. Spending bills have been historically considered, as I said, under a full and open process that allows for all Members, not just committee Chairs or members of the leadership, but all Members of both parties to make their constituencies' voices heard in the Federal spending process. Yet the Democratic majority announced at the outset of this year's process that they were abandoning open debate for the sake of expediency. Now, Madam Speaker, the Democratic majority did deliver on the issue of closing down debate for the appropriations process. What they haven't delivered on is the timely completion of our constitutional responsibility. They dismantled the open appropriations process, and, for what? So we could pass the ``putting Congress first'' bill and leaving the rest of our work to be completed at a later date. We could call this just another broken promise in a never-ending string of broken promises by this Democratic majority; but this is bigger, this is bigger, Madam Speaker, than just broken promises. We have more than a trillion-dollar deficit, and the year isn't over yet. Our national debt has skyrocketed, skyrocketed to nearly unfathomable levels. The American people are incredibly frustrated about our fiscal state and the crippling debt we have saddled on our future generations. Yet the Democratic majority has shut out accountability of their spending practices for the sake of a deadline that they didn't even try to keep. That's one of the reasons why we are here today, to extend the deadline on appropriations bills that were rammed through the House without the benefit of many thoughtful amendments from both Democrats and Republicans proposed by those who are deeply concerned about runaway spending. Now, of course, our friends on the other side of the aisle will have great excuses, and they are excuses we have heard regularly from both sides. They will say that the House has done its work; they can't control what happens over in the other body; we can't control what those guys do on the other side of the Capitol. But when the Republicans were in the majority, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would regularly point out that we had control of both bodies of Congress and the White House. They would say that we were in control, and so we had to shoulder the responsibility. Madam Speaker, when someone stands up and makes the argument we did our job in the House, but we can't, we can't control what those guys do over on the other side of the Capitol, remember what was regularly said, that when you have supermajority control of the Senate, and now with the appointment of Paul Kirk, the 60th seat is there in the Senate, when you have control of the White House and a large majority in the House of Representatives, one has to take responsibility. Now, the situation is such that our friends must take the responsibility. With the impending appointment, as I said, we now have, we now have both Houses of Congress and the White House in complete control of the Democrats. Excuses about blaming the other body for having not done their work really are not acceptable. Madam Speaker, not one of us, not one of us is interested in a government shutdown. But this bill makes two things very clear, first, that the Democratic majority is more concerned with padding its own budget for this institution than meeting the rest of the country's needs. Second, the concerns and input of the American people were stifled, we see now, for no good reason at all. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me say that I was simply responding to the gentleman from Worcester, who was saying that somehow the ACORN concerns that have been raised are nothing but developed from right-wing radio, as he described it. It is true that a number of very, very smart investigative journalists have come forward and brought to the forefront some of the most outrageous abuses of taxpayer dollars, and we have seen these reports carried on television. The gentleman mentioned Fox News. We've heard it reported on the radio. I believe that it is a great service, as we see hardworking Americans, hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet, and that kind of abuse of their tax dollars is outrageous, as has been reported. That kind of abuse is outrageous.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I yielded repeatedly to the gentleman from New York.