David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. As happened in 1997, we can go upstairs in the Rules Committee if we have recalcitrant Members on either side of the aisle and we can shut down the process, and there would not be the kind of resistance, if we had at least tried the open amendment process. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say, Mr. Speaker, as I reclaim my time and say the following: My friend, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Blumenauer, has never sat on the side as a member of the minority having been denied the opportunity that he has just said that he has denied today in the appropriations process because never before has he or any Member of this institution have all of the appropriations rules handled under a closed process such as this. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very, very hardworking colleague from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very distinguished Rules Committee colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I was just thinking as I was sitting here listening to his very thoughtful remarks. And he is a diligent and hardworking new member of the committee. He's now, this month completed 6 months, halfway through the first session of the 111th Congress. And my friend on the Rules Committee has, along with 70-some-odd other Members, not once, not once seen something that, when I'd been here 6 months I'd seen on countless occasions, and that is an open rule, an open amendment process. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope very much that my friend on the Rules Committee, the other new members of the Rules Committee, and the Members of this institution and, most importantly, the American people, will, sometime in the 111th Congress, have the opportunity to see an open debate under the 5-minute rule in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, last week we marked a very significant anniversary in this institution. It was the formal consideration of James Madison's proposal to amend the Constitution to add a Bill of Rights. That debate, Mr. Speaker, began 220 years ago, just this last week. It was July 21 of 1789 that the House of Representatives began the process of debating whether or not to proceed with the Bill of Rights. In that first summer of the very first Congress, Congressman Madison proposed his amendments, which were considered by the House Rules Committee, and then moved to the House floor for a 10-day debate. And I underscore that again, Mr. Speaker, the debate that took place on the floor of the House of Representatives lasted 10 days for consideration of the Bill of Rights. Now, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that took place that summer and it was very, very instructive. It was instructive, the debate that we saw 220 years ago this summer, not just for its substance, but in many ways for the nature of that debate that was managed by Congressman Madison who, incidentally, represented the seat that is now held by our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor. Throughout the course of that debate, summer of 1789, it was very clear that Mr. Madison had great respect for the views of the Members who disagreed with him. He had a great deal of respect for those with whom he vigorously disagreed. He argued with civility, comity, and respect. He never impugned his adversaries' motives. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he not only didn't impugn his adversaries' motives, he actually defended them himself during debate. He passionately sought consensus on the fundamental issues and placed it above his own ambivalence that existed on lesser concerns. And it was ambivalence, because, if you recall your history, Mr. Speaker, he was not, at the outset, a believer in the necessity for a Bill of Rights. He urged his colleagues to act on, and I quote from a June 1789 speech when he actually introduced the Bill of Rights, what he called the principles of amity and moderation to proceed with caution, but that ultimately they must act resolutely to satisfy the public mind. Again, Congressman Madison's words. He clearly did not believe that decisive action and a full, open debate were mutually exclusive. He believed that clearly that ultimate decision would be a better one with a full, rigorous, and open debate. He saw them as being fully intertwined, that elevating the debate above reproach would give this body the moral authority to act decisively and appropriately as a truly representative body, which it has been. I believe in this Madisonian model, Mr. Speaker, very, very fervently. I believe in that model of intellectually rigorous, open, and civil debate. So it's with great dismay that I have seen the tenor of our debate deteriorate and the legislative process grow even more closed in recent years. The closing down of the traditionally open appropriations process has, for me, personally, been the most troubling thing to observe. We have the very serious responsibility of spending the taxpayers' hard-earned money. That responsibility deserves a completely open and transparent process. Unfortunately, this year, for the first time in the 220-year history, we have had a restrictive appropriations process from the beginning to what today is now the end. As was pointed out by Mr. Flake earlier, this is the last of the now 12 appropriations bills. Today, we consider that final appropriations bill under the exact same, restrictive process with which we've considered every single appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year. Now, Mr. Speaker, as we mark this 220th anniversary of that very historic debate on the Bill of Rights, we, unfortunately, are making history of our own. It's not history of which we can be very proud. It's not history that will judge this institution kindly. Today, we mark the final death knell for the open process with which we have historically handled our constitutionally mandated power of the purse. The abandonment of this tradition began just over a month ago, on June 17, when the Democratic majority announced at the very outset of the process that it would not be granting the customary open rule for spending bills. Since that day, June 17, we have been on a steady march toward an ever more restrictive process, barring the full transparency that the taxpayers deserve and prohibiting the full participation of rank-and-file members of both parties. I will say that we regularly hear that this is characterized as Republicans complaining or whining. We are fighting for the rights of Democrats and Republicans. The reason is the Democrats and Republicans represent the American people, and it's the American people who are being undermined by this very unfortunate process. With today's consideration of our final appropriations bill, the full pivot to what I am describing as the ``new normal'' becomes complete. Having cast aside one of our longest-held traditions, we now have a process where the chairman of the Appropriations Committee alone is the sole arbiter of what spending amendments may be offered, who can speak on them and for how long. They have done this in the name of expediency, citing a strict schedule that must be adhered to. If they were only concerned with time limits, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Flake pointed out earlier, why didn't they simply impose an overall time limit debate on each bill? If it simply were this schedule that Mr. Obey has repeatedly held up, just put an outside time limit on the debate. I would not have been a proponent of that, but it certainly would have been preferable to this kind of restriction imposed on the American people by way of preventing their Democratic and Republican Members of the House from being able to offer their amendments. A popular justification has been to claim that the process took too long back in 2007, so it had to be controlled from the beginning this time, but that argument completely overlooks the fact that 2007 was a very unique year. It was the transition year from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority here in the House. One of the hallmarks of transition years is a lengthier appropriations process, and yet the new Republican minority took less floor time in 2007, almost 26 hours less, than the new Democratic majority did back in 1995. Again, let me underscore that. When we heard that the 2007 appropriations process was so out of hand, we needed to realize that, in its being a transition year, there were actually fewer amendments that were proposed by Members of the new minority. That had been the case when Democrats were in the minority back in 1995. When we compare these 2 years, it is very clear that, while there was an increase in time spent on our spending bills in 2007, it was very modest to what the Democrats engaged in when they entered into the minority, as I said, following the 1994 election. The Democratic majority's excuses just don't stand up to scrutiny. The real motivation, Mr. Speaker, for this restrictive process has been to cherry-pick amendments and to shield their profligate spending practices from any real transparency or accountability. It's very obvious. I and my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee--Messrs. Diaz- Balart and Sessions and Ms. Foxx--have just completed, through a great deal of effort by members of the Rules Committee staff, this report entitled ``Opportunities Lost: The End of the Appropriations Process.'' I'm glad that my friend on the other side of the aisle has it, and I look forward to his comments and thoughts on it, as well as I do of those of our other colleagues. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to read it. I have this report which we're just issuing today, Mr. Speaker. In the not too distant future--I hope later today or tomorrow--we will actually have this report available online for our colleagues who would want to gain access to it. They just need to go to rules-republicans.house.gov, and a copy of this report will be made available. The greater irony, Mr. Speaker, of all of this is that the Democratic majority campaigned on the need for full, open and transparent debate. That was the plank of the platform back when the majority was won and, in fact, in the last election as well. I think it's extraordinarily ironic, while we heard this argument made about a ``culture of corruption''--those are the terms that Ms. Pelosi used repeatedly--that we just had the gentleman from Arizona offer over 500 amendments to deal with this challenge. I mean there are former Members of this institution who are in jail today because of abuse of the earmark process. Yet those who campaigned on this issue of ending the culture of corruption are denying an opportunity for a full vetting of the amendments that have been proposed by our friend Mr. Flake. Regardless of what you think on a particular issue, it would seem that denying him the opportunity to offer these amendments, of which he only has an opportunity to offer 8 amendments out of the 500 that he filed--and he can only pick very few of those--is, to me, really playing the role of exacerbating what Ms. Pelosi described as the culture of corruption rather than working to bring it to an end. I will say that, as we proceed here--and we've gone for 2\1/2\ years. It actually has been exactly 2 years since we've had an open rule considered here in the House of Representatives. I've got to say, as to the notion of saying that we were going to have, as the American people were promised, a full, open, rigorous, transparent debate, they were empty words. They were clearly empty words. They have taken us precisely in the opposite direction, Mr. Speaker, culminating in this dubious honor of being the first majority in the 220-year history of the United States of America to shut down the appropriations process from start to finish. Now, I believe it's no accident that this abandonment of open debate on our appropriations bills has coincided with the most excessive spending in our Nation's history. It's no coincidence that our deficit has exceeded the $1 trillion mark just halfway through the year at the same time that the Democratic majority has shut out meaningful debate on their spending practices. Looking back over the better part of the last two decades, as this detailed report of ours shows, it's clear just how much damage has been done to our deliberative imperative as an institution under this new majority. Mr. Speaker, this resorting to restrictive debate is made even starker when we look back to exactly where we began 220 years ago this summer with that great debate launched by the author, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, when he decided to proceed with the Bill of Rights. If James Madison were around today, he would be absolutely horrified. In fact, I think this is the closing line that we have in this report. It reads, ``This summer marks the 220th anniversary of the introduction of the Bill of Rights by James Madison in the First Congress. It is a good thing that he is no longer alive to see what the House has become. If he were, he would wonder where we went wrong.'' Mr. Speaker, I want us to have an opportunity to engage in rigorous, open, civil debate. Unfortunately, we are denied that opportunity under this restrictive rule, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. This is our last opportunity in this appropriations process. We can prove wrong the statement that I just made that we've had a closed process from start to finish if we can reject this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I would like to say in response again to my hardworking Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, who earlier was talking about the great hearing that we had upstairs with the chairman and ranking minority member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he was talking about the fact that Mr. Young had indicated that this bill would look very similar if he had been in the top position as chairman--which he's been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and now, of course, serves with great distinction as the ranking minority member. But I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this does not in any way mean that because the Appropriations Committee members continue to work together that we should deny the rest of the American people who don't have representatives, like the gentleman from Colorado and I, who serve on the Appropriations Committee the opportunity to participate in this process which was always the case when Mr. Young was chairman, with a very, very brief exception when there was a bipartisan consensus and concern back in 1997, I guess. I don't think he was chairman in 1997 on that one occasion. But I've got to say, I suspect, under his chairmanship, we always had an open amendment process here on the House floor. And I would yield to my good friend from Indian Shores, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and former chairman of the subcommittee and the full committee, Mr. Young. I would like to engage in a colloquy with him.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say to my friend I think he makes a great point, Mr. Speaker, about the working together of subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. We have been regularly arguing, and I know my friend understands very well in his distinguished leadership position that on the floor when we have an open amendment process, the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, not anyone in the leadership, worked this out on the floor, just as they have in committee. And it was my hope that we were going to be able to do that through this appropriations process. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me simply say that what has led us to this point has been, for the first time in the 220-year history of the United States of America, the shutting down of the appropriations process.

Mr. DREIER. I just yielded you a minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman a minute.

Mr. DREIER. I would yield to myself 30 seconds. I will say to my friend, if I could engage in a colloquy with my friend, I will say to him that very, very clearly the argument that he has just propounded about the desire to get back on track with an open--I assume the gentleman meant an open amendment process, which is what we have had for 220 years. I will say it is my hope we will do that. But frankly, today is our last opportunity if we in fact have all 12--as has been the case--all 12 of the appropriations rules closed down as this has been.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010: Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Air Force, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Advanced Projects Research, Inc., located at 1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite B, La Verne, CA 91750 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1.5 million which will be used to continue testing and development for the production of the Wavelength Agile Spectral Harmonic (WASH) Oxygen Sensor which continually measures oxygen concentration in military high-performance fuel tanks, and the Cell Level Battery Controller that monitors and controls charge and temperature at the cell level of military battery energy storage systems. Approximately $146,000 will be used for project management; $220,000 for engineering analysis; $512,000 for engineering design; $275,000 for hardware fabrication and assembly; $329,000 for test engineering; and $18,000 for material and hardware. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air Force RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Defense-Wide, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: AeroVironment, located at 181 West Huntington Drive, Suite 202, Monrovia, CA 91016 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1 million to develop the Hand-Held Lethal Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS). Air Force Special Operations Command stated its need for a capability to engage fleeing enemy combatants on the battlefield. The Hand-Held SUAS will help protect U.S. troops by providing an efficient tool to encounter a target quickly with minimum collateral damage using an on-board explosive. Controlled with common ground-control devices, this precision system will provide unparalleled situational awareness and combat effectiveness in urban and mountainous environments. Approximately $600,000 is for test production, including procurement of parts for manufacturing. $300,000 is for engineering costs and $100,000 is for flight testing and range costs. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Defense-Wide RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Chang Industry, located at 968 Palomares Avenue, La Verne, CA 91750 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4 million to develop Fire Shield, an Active Protection System (APS), with the cooperation of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan. Fire Shield would be used to protect armored vehicles from the blast effects and the plasma jet of rocket propelled grenades by detecting and destroying incoming projectiles. Approximately $800,000 is for directional warhead blast and fragment effects characterization and optimization. $600,000 will be used for static threat defeat characterization, test and evaluation with directional warhead. $600,000 will be used for threat defeat test and evaluation on a controlled moving platform with directional warhead. $1 million will be allocated to integrate the system for use on optimal vehicles, such as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected and Joint Light Tactical vehicles, and protection system deployment configurations (vehicle geometry dependant) for overall vehicle protection using sensor/warhead components. The remaining $1 million will be used for the preliminary incorporation of Insensitive Munition and development of proper Safe & Arm for the Fire Shield system and conducting preliminary interaction with the Army Fuse Board. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Navy, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: City of Hope National Medical Center, located at 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1 million for the City of Hope National Medical Center's Advanced Molecular Medicine Initiative (AMMI), which furthers the mission and goals of the Navy's Division of Molecular Medicine program, performing a variety of basic and translational research programs investigating human disease mechanisms. The Navy's Medical Development Program is directed to develop biomedical equipment and related techniques to reduce morbidity and enhance medical care for combat casualties. The AMMI directly complements these efforts by improving therapeutic treatments for the Department of Defense and civilian populations. This research will also develop expertise and technologies directly applicable to defense against biological, chemical or radiological attacks. $750,000 is for continued research and $250,000 is for genotyping. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Navy RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Tanner Research, Inc., located at 825 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,500,000 to continue development of a Dual-Mode Micro Seeker (radio frequency/electro- optical (RF/EO)) for use in improving the accuracy of gun-launched and small missile interceptors used with current and emerging defensive weapons systems. The funding includes: $300,000 for RF signal processing development; $850,000 for Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits and Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor integrated circuit development; $600,000 for EO avalanche photodiode (APD) circuit development; $450,000 for RF seeker integration; and $300,000 for EO seeker integration. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely outrageous to say the Republicans want to do nothing on health care reform. We want to expand medical savings accounts; we want to do everything we can to build associated health plans so that small businesses out there working and struggling trying to create jobs in the private sector can come together and, in fact, purchase health insurance for their employees. We want to do everything that we can to allow people to, on the Internet, purchase health care insurance across State lines. The fact is, it's no message machine or talking point to realize that the Congressional Budget Office has said that contrary to Speaker Pelosi's line, This is going to dramatically increase the cost of health care, and Robert Samuelson, no Republican he, in The Post yesterday said, If you listen to President Obama, his reform will satisfy most everyone. It will insure the uninsured, control runaway health spending, subdue future health budget benefits, preserve choice for payments and include quality of care. He said these claims are self-serving exaggerations and political fantasies.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010: Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Interstate Maintenance Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $750,000 for the construction of the I-15/Base Line Road Interchange Improvements Project. 100% of this funding will be used for construction of the interchange which includes two new bridge structures for the southbound on/off ramps, a loop ramp for westbound Base Line Road to southbound I- 15, and the widening of the on and off ramps on the east side. The project also improves East Avenue to provide curb, gutter, and sidewalks, as well as the widening of the Base Line Road to provide two left turn lanes for eastbound Base Line Road to the northbound I-15. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Federal Highway Administration Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, with its non-federal partners, is providing 70% of the total cost of the project as a local match through the following funding sources: $9,800,000 from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fees; $6,200,000 from the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency; $9,800,000 from San Bernardino County Measure I Sales Tax, and $4,600,000 from the City of Fontana. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Buses and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Monrovia, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 415 S. Ivy Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $750,000 for the acquisition, relocation, and development of properties within the Station Square Transit Village bus layover and park and ride project area. 100% of the funds will be used to acquire property for the bus layover facility and prepare plans for its construction, including providing adequate pedestrian access to the site. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of Buses and Bus Facilities funds. The City of Monrovia will provide the 20% local match for this project. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Federal lands, Public Lands Highways Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Bernardino Associated Governments, CA Address of Requesting Entity: 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92410-1715 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,500,000 for design and environmental mitigation for the I-15/I-215 Devore Interchange improvement project. 100% of the funding will be used for project development and environmental mitigation of the interchange which will eliminate truck weaving in the middle of a substantial grade, improving operational efficiency, safety and enhancing regional connectivity for commuters and freight movement operators traveling between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. The project will add one lane in each direction and provide truck bypass lanes around interchange merge zones, resulting in improved flow speeds through the Devore Interchange, reducing delays in this heavily traveled freeway. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Federal Highway Administration Public Lands Program, which does not require matching funds.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010: Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration--Health Facilities and Services Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Methodist Hospital of Southern California, located at 300 W. Huntington Drive #207, Arcadia, CA 91007 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $750,000 for the implementation of a Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) system. CPOE systems provide for the electronic entry and routing of medication, thereby reducing the number of medication mistakes and increasing patient safety. Approximately $56,000 will go towards user devices, including Tablet PCS and mobile carts, $630,000 for pharmacy hardware and software to assist with the Medical Order Entry of the project. The final $64,000 will go towards a network and wireless assessment to ensure that the response time of the software does not impede the clinicians. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Health Resources and Services Administration account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration--Health Facilities and Services Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: San Antonio Community Hospital, located at 999 San Bernardino Road, Upland, CA 91786. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $750,000 to purchase cardiac monitoring equipment. San Antonio Community Hospital is expanding its services to meet a growing population. Approximately $140,430 will go towards an Intravascular Ultrasound, $72,900 for an AutoTransfusion System, $51,670 for a Cardiac Surgery BioConsole and $485,000 for a 16 slice CT Scanner. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Health Resources and Services Administration account.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, anniversaries, marking anniversaries, is a very important thing to do, and we do that on a regular basis. In fact, just this past week, a great deal of attention was focused on that marvelous achievement when we saw Neil Armstrong 40 years ago take that first step on the Moon. We in just a few months are going to be marking the 20th anniversary of that amazing achievement, which many of us throughout our lifetimes thought would never happen, and that was the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and there are countless other events that take place that are regularly remembered. The importance of remembering events that have taken place, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to do everything that we possibly can to learn from those very tragic experiences and also from the good experiences so that we can ensure that the world is a better place. Eleven years ago at this very moment, there was a tragic occurrence here in our Nation's Capitol, and I remember it just as if it were yesterday. It was when we saw a madman come into the Capitol, what is now referred to as Memorial Door. At that door, he brutally murdered Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson of the U.S. Capitol Police. Mr. Speaker, in just one moment, colleagues of ours and Members of the U.S. Capitol Police are going to be, for 1 minute, taking a moment of silence to remember the lives of those heroes who were here, defending the U.S. Capitol. Earlier today, here in the House Chamber, we all know that, in remembering that occurrence of 11 years ago, we did have a moment of silence in remembrance of those great men. At this moment, since it is now 3:40, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that we have 1 minute of silence to remember the lives of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to continue the train of marking anniversaries. Today, I rise to mark the occasion of the 220th anniversary of the First Congress and what is, perhaps, the most important milestone that was achieved in that first session of Congress, that being, of course, the passage of the Bill of Rights. Two hundred twenty years ago, James Madison, a Congressman from Virginia and the Father of our Constitution, introduced a package of constitutional amendments, sparking a great, historic debate in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. This came about despite the fact that Madison had opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights when drafting the Constitution. It came about because his constituents demanded it. Lives, fortunes and sacred honor had been sacrificed in the war that followed the signing of our Declaration of Independence, and many believed fervently that it would all have been in vain were it not for putting in place a Bill of Rights. The States, Mr. Speaker, went on to ratify 10 of the 12 amendments that Congress passed, the very first 10 amendments to our Constitution, which collectively are known around the world as the most enduring and comprehensive guarantor of rights in the modern world. I believe there is great value in remembering our history as a nation and as an institution, and in examining the lessons that can be applied to our own era today. As we deal with the many challenges today--the worst recession in recent memory, two ongoing wars and a worldwide struggle that is going on against violent extremism--there is much to be gleaned from the great debates of our past, and the more we know about where we have been, the better we can understand where we are now and where we as a nation are headed. On May 4 of 1789, James Madison announced his intention to introduce a series of amendments that would constitute the Bill of Rights that many opponents of the Constitution had sought. Though 11 of the 13 States had ratified the Constitution, there remained those who opposed the Constitution and the system of federalism it established. Chief among the complaints by those who had not supported the Constitution was, as I said, the absence of a clear Bill of Rights. As I've said, Madison, himself, had originally opposed the issue when he crafted and then, under the nom de plume Publius, joined Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and penned the Federalist Papers with the goal of defending the U.S. Constitution. But he came to see the value not only in explicitly delineating the rights of the citizens of the United States, but more importantly, he came to see the value in bringing unity to the Nation and in consolidating support for our Constitution. On June 8 of 1789, he introduced his proposal in the House of Representatives. Two hundred twenty years ago this very week, on July 21, 1789, the matter was referred to the Rules Committee on which Madison served. After reviewing the proposal, the committee moved the amendment package to the House floor on August 14, marking the start of a very vigorous debate right in the House of Representatives where we are privileged to serve, Mr. Speaker. That debate carried on for 10 days, 10 days as Members passionately argued for and against the individual amendments, passing some, amending some, and rejecting others. On August 24, the House took its final vote and passed 17 amendments sending them over to the other body, to the Senate, for consideration. 220 years ago this summer, the Senate began its debate on August 25. The debate carried on throughout the month of September and additional changes were made. Ultimately, a conference committee was convened and both the House and the Senate passed the final version on September 24 of 1789, having whittled the package down to 12 proposed constitutional amendments. As we all know, the States went on to ratify 10 of those, and Mr. Madison's Bill of Rights was incorporated into our Constitution. Now, throughout that summer and early fall 220 years ago, many passionate arguments were made for and against the proposed constitutional amendments, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the most instructive debate came on June 8 when Madison first introduced his proposal in the House of Representatives. He argued vigorously for the need to pass a Bill of Rights, but he also presented a fair representation of the arguments against a Bill of Rights. He welcomed a fair, open, and spirited debate, and he wanted it to take place on the floor of the House of Representatives where it could be conducted in the light of day and within plain view of the American people. Though Madison had previously opposed the idea, he became increasingly ambivalent, and then ultimately, as we all know, supportive of the need for a Bill of Rights. But he remained sympathetic to the argument that rights that are enumerated are inherently limited. He noted that some believe, ``that a declaration of rights . . . is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said that in the Federal Government, they are unnecessary because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained by the people; that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people.'' Madison, Mr. Speaker, understood, that the government does not grant the people their rights; rather, the people grant their government certain powers. For this reason, he sought to assuage these concerns by including in his proposal a provision clarifying that--and as I quote again from that speech--``The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution.'' Congressman Madison knew that this was an important clarification to make, but ultimately he believed very deeply that despite the concerns, the imperative for moving forward was far more compelling. As I said at the outset, Mr. Madison very passionately believed in bringing unity to our Nation on the question of our Constitution. He saw this as the most fundamental of issues, and he believed very deeply in continuing to work towards consensus despite the fact that the necessary majority had ratified our Constitution already. In his speech on June 8, he expressed respect and understanding for those whose point of view on our system of Federalism was different from his, and he said the following: ``Yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with (our Constitution), among whom are many respectable for their talents, their patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive.'' Mr. Speaker, Congressman Madison widely understood that Congress' capability as a representative body dependent upon the full support of those they represented, whatever disagreements on the various issues of the day there may be that exist, Congress' legitimacy in working out these issues would be called into question as long as there remained a vocal minority who opposed the very existence of the Constitution and our Federal Government. He noted that ``so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures.'' Mr. Speaker, he also saw the passage of a Bill of Rights as an opportunity to demonstrate good faith to those who were skeptical of the Federal Government and its powers, saying, ``those who have been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive him of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled.'' Mr. Madison viewed the unity of the Nation on the issue of our Constitution as far more important than any reservation some may have had on the need for a Bill of Rights, and he championed the need for a rigorous, very rigorous, debate on the issue. Mr. Speaker, he also believed that despite his earlier ambivalence, that the case for a Bill of Rights was ultimately persuasive on the merits because of the needs for checks and balances on the powers of the Federal Government. Though he found persuasive the argument that the government's powers are enumerated and therefore our liberties need not be, he recognized that explicitly enumerating the most important rights would help to place a check on the governments power. He noted, ``It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed . . . but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent.'' Mr. Speaker, ever mindful that government is made up of fallible men, Madison believed wholeheartedly in the need to hold the Federal Government's power in check. He also understood that the issue of basic rights could not be left merely to the whims of majority rule. In fact, he feared this even more than the potential abuse of government, saying again in that June 8 speech, ``I confess that I do not conceive that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But this is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.'' Mr. Speaker, had Madison not taken up the cause of the Bill of Rights, our Constitution may never have explicitly enshrined our freedom of speech, freedom of press, of religion, of assembly, of our right to petition our government. It may have never expressly guaranteed trials by juries of our peers or guarded against lawful searches and seizures, self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, or double jeopardy. Today, we hold these enumerated rights to be as self-evident and fundamental as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the Declaration of Independence claimed. We can't imagine our Constitution without the Bill of Rights. But what I believe is most instructive for us today is not the contents of Madison's Bill of Rights, but the manner in which he proposed it. The intellectual rigor which led him to champion this cause and with which he made his case to his colleagues and the American people was very important. That open, vigorous, comprehensive debate that was held in the United States House of Representatives and the tenure of that debate being, Mr. Speaker, as we've seen from the text of that June 8 speech, 1789, as was introduced by Mr. Madison, he had great respect for the views of the Members with whom he disagreed. He argued with civility, comity, and respect. He did not impugn his adversaries' motives and, in fact, defended them. He passionately sought consensus on the fundamental issues and placed it above his own ambivalence on lesser concerns. He urged his colleagues to act based on ``the principles of amity and moderation,'' to ``proceed with caution,'' but that ultimately they must act resolutely ``to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual.'' He clearly did not believe that decisive action and a full, open debate were mutually exclusive. In fact, he saw them as being fully intertwined, that elevating the debate above reproach would give this body the moral authority to act decisively and appropriately as a truly representative body. In his closing remarks that day, June 8, 1789, Mr. Speaker, Congressman Madison said, ``If we can make the Constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame or abridging its usefulness in the judgment of those who were attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect.'' Let me repeat that final phrase, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Madison said, ``we act the part of wise and liberal men.'' By that, one can only surmise that he meant we're not here to grandstand. We're not here to demagogue or turn the important issues of our day into political footballs. We're not here to attack those who hold different views or stifle debate or prevent opposing views from being heard. We're not here to become mired in petty arguments and partisan politics. We are here, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are here--and James Madison set the example of this--we are here to deliberate. We are here to honestly and openly confront the difficult challenges we face together as a country, to ensure that our constituents' concerns, whether they represent the majority or the minority view, can be voiced and discussed in the House of Representatives. I believe very much in this Madisonian model of rigorous yet civil debate. So it's with great dismay and sadness, Mr. Speaker, that I have seen the tenure of our debate deteriorate and the legislative process grow ever more closed in recent years. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans and Democrats alike have shared in the blame for this deterioration, but there is no doubt whatsoever, no doubt, that that deterioration has accelerated dramatically in the past few years. We've seen the opportunities for open debate become rarer. What's more, the level of debate and transparency allowed has been inversely proportional to the significance of the legislation in question. The more consequential, the more complicated, the more controversial a bill may be, the less opportunity there is for the kind of intellectually rigorous debate that James Madison called for and exemplified. One by one, Mr. Speaker, the traditions and precedents of this House have been disregarded. Perhaps the most significant of these has been the abandonment of openness in the appropriations process which, as is the tradition, we are in the midst of consideration this summer, and we have only one appropriations bill left to be considered, the Department of Defense Appropriations bill next week. Now, throughout our 220-year history, the House of Representatives has considered its annual appropriations bills with an open debate. In recent history, this open appropriations process has been one of the very few opportunities that Members of the House have to get to freely offer amendments and have a debate on the issues that matter most to them. Unlike the Senate, we have a Rules Committee on which Congressman Madison sat in the House of Representatives. The modern Rules Committee sets the terms and conditions of debate on almost every major bill that comes to a vote. These terms and conditions have become increasingly more restrictive, shutting out all amendments to more legislation than ever before and significantly limiting the number of amendments on others. But, Madam Speaker, the open appropriations process has always been held sacrosanct because we have no greater constitutional duty in this body than holding the power of the purse. We have the very serious responsibility of spending the taxpayers' hard-earned money, and this responsibility deserves to be considered under a completely open and transparent process. There have been times in the past when some limits have been imposed. This has almost always been done by unanimous consent, both parties coming together to expedite matters after a period of open debate. There have been other instances of debate restrictions on individual appropriations bills that have been put into place for various reasons. But, Madam Speaker, those have been the exceptions to the rule. And the rule has been an open, good-faith process in which any Member, Democrat or Republican, I underscore that again, any Member, Democrat or Republican, can offer any amendment that conforms to the rules of the House. I am proud to say that this is certainly the spirit in which Republicans operated during the 12 years that we held the majority, and during 8 of those I was privileged to serve as chairman of the House Rules Committee. But this year, we have seen a very troubling reversal of this practice. Madam Speaker, from the very outset, before a single vote was cast or a single word of debate was uttered, the appropriations process was restricted. Rather than granting the traditional and customary open rule to our appropriations bills, they imposed a preprinting requirement. Now, the preprinting requirement means that rather than a free- flowing and rigorous debate that has always characterized our appropriations process, Members were required to submit their amendments in advance to be printed in the Congressional Record. And now this may seem like a reasonable requirement at first glance, and many on the other side of the aisle argued that it was a very reasonable request. Why shouldn't amendments be submitted in advance of debate? In practice, there are a number of ways that unfortunately this stifles the Madisonian debate. First of all, appropriations bills are often debated over the course of a number of days. I mean, 10 days on the Bill of Rights. We have had 3, 4, 5 days on appropriations bills for many, many years. When a deadline is imposed prior to the start of debate, in effect this requires amendments to be submitted 2, 3 or even 4 days in advance of when debate on the relevant section of the bill is considered. Secondly, the Budget Act prevents Members from offering amendments that increase the overall cost of an appropriations bill, and that's a correct thing. This means that if a Member wants to increase funding for a particular program, the amendment must also cut funding elsewhere by an equivalent amount. But what happens if the offset contained in one amendment has already been zeroed out by another? That Member would no longer be able to offer his or her amendment, and the deadline having come and gone before the start of debate, there would be no opportunity to redraft the amendment with a different offset. What's more, Madam Speaker, there are many logistical issues beyond Members' control that can prevent them from getting their amendments properly submitted prior to this artificial deadline. Legislative Counsel, faced with a deluge of requests as Members scramble to get their amendments drafted and submitted, can be too swamped to handle every request. Likewise for the Government Printing Office. This is a self-compounding problem, Madam Speaker, as Members submit multiple versions of the same amendment, just in case their offsets of course are altered by another Member's amendment. It compounds the problem. All of these problems inherent to the preprinting requirement have the effect of limiting debate and the ability of rank-and-file Members of both political parties, again, Democrats and Republicans, from being able to fully participate in the appropriations process; and yet it was imposed at the very outset this year before we had begun consideration of one appropriations bill. Now, that was only the beginning. As we started the already restricted debate on our very first appropriations bill, we got to exactly page 2, line 7 before the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had had enough. One page, seven lines was apparently his capacity for even a partially, even though it was limited, a partially open debate. So he promptly shut down the entire process. We returned to the Rules Committee late that night where the Democratic majority imposed a structured rule for the consideration of the bill. They decided that they alone would be the arbiters on which issues could be debated, which amendments would see the light of day. They were saying 220 years of history be damned. This closed process has been repeated for every single appropriations bill that we have considered. And for those, Madam Speaker, who have followed the debate here, our colleagues know that we have just completed 11 of those 12 appropriations bills and have only one remaining next week. I will make my commitment that, as has been the case for every single one of them, we will try to make an open rule in order upstairs in the Rules Committee on this. As I say, with one remaining appropriations bill, we know that it will most likely be considered under a highly restrictive rule that shuns the traditionally open debate with which we have handled our constitutionally mandated power of the purse. I believe that it is no accident that the abandonment of open debate on our appropriations bills has coincided with the most profligate spending in our Nation's history. It's no coincidence that our deficit has exceeded that $1 trillion mark just halfway through the year at the same time that the Democratic majority has shut out meaningful debate on their spending practices. As disastrous as the consequences of this reckless and unchecked spending spree will be, I fear that even greater damage will come as a result of the utter disregard for the traditions and precedents of this great body. Looking back at that historic debate on the Bill of Rights 220 years ago this summer, it's so instructive because it illustrates just how far we have digressed from the high-minded example that James Madison laid out for us. The civility, the respect for opposing views, the intellectually rigorous and open debate, the deep belief in the importance of building consensus, all of these elements, Madam Speaker, all of these elements that characterized the debate led by Congressman James Madison 220 years ago have been gradually hollowed out, leaving us with little more than empty, partisan rhetoric. Perhaps most troubling of all is how quickly this has become, and it really saddens me to say this, the new normal. More than a quarter of this entire body has served less than two terms. For over 25 percent of the House of Representatives, limited debate and bills written in the dead of night appear to be standard operating procedure. A closed appropriations process is just the normal way of doing business. Rancorous debate and demagoguery is simply the way we operate now. If we do not urgently consider our history and our traditions as an institution, if we do not make an effort to come together very soon and work to restore civility and open debate, these traditions will be lost forever. Of course there will always be significant divergence of opinions. We were meant to have a great clash of ideas here in the Congress. Our Founders very intentionally designed a system in which we would hold ourselves accountable by this very divergence. Benjamin Franklin wrote very famously in 1789, ``A plural legislature is as necessary to good government as a single executive. It is not enough that your legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.'' Franklin went on to say, ``Numbers alone are not a sufficient barrier against the impulses of passion, the combination of interest, the intrigues of faction, the haste of folly, or the spirit of encroachment. One division should watch over and control the other, supply its wants, correct its blunders, and cross its designs, should they be criminal or erroneous.'' Madam Speaker, we certainly have seen a great deal in recent weeks of the haste of folly and spirit of encroachment that Franklin spoke of. When debate is stifled, these checks and balances that the Founders envisaged are drastically diminished, and the result is both a poisonous atmosphere and, sadly, reckless public policy. In fact, the latter inevitably follows the former. A bad process begets bad legislation. And the respect, civility and comity that used to govern this body are destroyed in the process. Madam Speaker, my fear is that irreversible damage has already been done. But I'm standing here today to remember history. By remembering history, by honoring our tradition, by looking back to our Founders and the example that they gave us 220 years ago this summer with that rigorous, open debate, I believe we can begin to restore our institution. We can once again engage in great debates, in a clash of ideas, and do so with respect for our adversaries and a sincere desire to ultimately reach consensus. This is the model, this is the model that James Madison presented in one of the most important debates in Congress' history. The great challenges we face today are no less deserving of this kind of debate. If we are going to effectively and appropriately deal with the economic, energy, health care, environmental, national security and other issues that are before us, we must immediately reverse the very dangerous course on which we have embarked. Madam Speaker, I urge the Democratic leadership to restore deliberation in this body. This body is known as the greatest deliberative body known to man; and, sadly, we are losing that. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again engage in exchanges characterized by what Madison described as the ``principles of amity and moderation,'' to once again act the part, act the part as Madison said on June 8, 1789, act the part of wise and liberal men. We must do this, Madam Speaker, if we are going to successfully address the great challenges of our day.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I as always thank my friend from Miami for yielding me this time. I have to say I was sitting downstairs watching the proceedings here on the floor, and I have to admit, I have been privileged to serve for nearly 2 decades on the House Rules Committee, and for 8 of those years, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the House Rules Committee. I think we've moved into uncharted waters. I know that there have been difficulties and the challenge of trying to amend rules before in the past, and it has often been done by unanimous consent where we've had a bipartisan consensus that some minor technical change needed to be made. Well, that doesn't appear to be the case right now, Madam Speaker. As I've listened to the exchanges take place between my friend from Utica and my friend from Miami, I have to admit to being just a little bit confused. And I suspect that a number of our colleagues that don't have the opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee may be equally confused. I think that the bottom line here is very clear. I heard a new Member from New York take the floor earlier and decry the number of amendments that have been filed by Members of the minority, indicating that this was somehow unprecedented. Well, the only thing that is unprecedented here, Madam Speaker, is the fact--and I'm sure that Mr. Diaz-Balart has pointed this out throughout the debate--is the fact that we have never before in the history of our Republic gotten to what now I guess is appropriations bill number 10--number 9--anyway, and we've nearly completed the appropriations process. I know that after this bill we will have the Defense appropriations bill, and everyone's holding up numbers for me, Madam Speaker. I have to say that I appreciate it. I guess we've got two left after this. You all on both sides of the aisle are helping me make my point. Never before in the history of the Republic have we seen the appropriations process closed down from the very beginning. We began the process, what was described in old Congress as a modified open rule which required preprinting, which did restrict the rights of Members. Then we got to the point where within after 20 minutes of debate under that modified open rule, we shut down the process and required the filing of amendments. And now, here we are with two appropriations bills left, and the Rules Committee members during debate are seeing some sort of conflict taking place I believe between the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee, and one of the things that we pointed to throughout the debate on these last eight or nine appropriations bills has been the fact that the Rules Committee has really been controlled by the Appropriations Committee. I mean, the entire body has been controlled by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because the Rules Committee has simply marched in lockstep to the requests that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has made. Again, it's unprecedented, and the exchange that I've just seen taking place here on the House floor is unprecedented, and I hope that we can learn from this, Madam Speaker, we can learn that there is something called regular order. And all that means is the Democrats and Republicans, the representatives of the American people, the representatives of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and people who aren't even registered to vote across the country, can have their voice heard in the appropriations process, as has been the case for 220 years, if we could have what is known as an open amendment process. Again, this is not about Republicans. It's not about Democrats. It's about the American people and their voice, their voice in the people's House, which is what this place is known as. And so, Madam Speaker, it saddens me that we've come to this point, and I hope that my friend from Utica and my friend from Miami will somehow be able in the next few minutes to be able to bring about a reconciliation on this challenge that we've been following.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Of course. I'd be happy to yield to my friend from Utica.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I believe we need to have a cost-effective national defense. I believe that when we can bring about reductions in the level of expenditures when it comes to waste, fraud and abuse within the military, absolutely. I want to bring about those reductions. But when you, Mr. Speaker, look at the dramatic increases, the $1 trillion in deficit spending that has gone into a wide range of new areas into which the Federal Government has never ever been involved before, it is essential we recognize--

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I apologize profusely, Mr. Speaker, if I put words into my friend's mouth. He did not use the word ``great'' to describe it, but I will say--and this is probably not much of a stretch--that he is here propounding the benefits of this legislation that is before us. And in light of that, I would like to ask my friend, Mr. Speaker, if, in fact, we were to see this statutory implementation of PAYGO, if it would have any way diminished the kinds of increases that we've seen in the appropriations process that have already taken place in the nine bills passed, one of which had a 22 percent increase in spending. And I'd appreciate it if my friend would respond as to whether or not this bill would in any way turn the corner on that spending that we've seen.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Laredo is a very thoughtful Member and very good personal friend of mine, and I will say that the opening statement, I think, really gets right to this point, talking about how families have to deal with the economic challenges that we are facing today. The thing that concerns me greatly is that when I engaged in a colloquy with my friend from Utica on whether or not the implementation of PAYGO would in any way reduce the appropriation levels that we've seen, one of which had a 22 percent increase, he responded by saying that I understood the process and knew that this would not in any way be able to actually take place. So I guess the answer to the question that I posed to my friend from Utica was ``no.'' So I would say to my friend from Laredo that I think that it's very important, Mr. Speaker, for us to realize that what we all want to----

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my Rules Committee colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, today is the 22nd of July. We are just over halfway through calendar year 2009, and the Federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. That's not with an M. That's not with a B. That's with a T; $1 trillion. It's so much money that we can't even fathom exactly how much it is. You know, I've spent a while here, and I can't imagine $1 trillion. It's the amount of money already that the Federal Government not has spent; it's the amount of money, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government has already overspent as we are just halfway through this year. At the rate that we're going, by the end of the year, the deficit will approach $2 trillion. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you think about that, about the amount that we have overspent and that we have spent more than was actually taken in, then actually, based on this annual number, it quite possibly could be larger than the entire Federal budget was just a decade ago. The American people are paying attention. They're paying attention, and they don't believe that such wantonly irresponsible spending is ever justified. They're particularly outraged that it's coming at a time when they are revamping their own budgets, are cutting out every penny of waste and are saving every penny that they possibly can. Our economic challenges have fundamentally changed Americans' budgeting habits. They're spending less; they're saving more; they're paying off their debts; and they're asking themselves, Why is my government doing precisely the opposite? Well, the American families are spending less; they are saving more, and they are paying down their debts. We here in Washington, D.C. are doing the opposite, and they can't understand why that's continuing to happen. During very difficult and challenging economic times, why is Congress spending trillions on bailouts and proposing new taxes that will burden our families even more? Why is it racking up so much debt that our kids, grandkids and great grandkids won't even be able to pay it off? So much concern is mounting over the profligate spending of this Congress that it comes as absolutely no surprise that the Democratic leadership wants to give the appearance of an interest in fiscal responsibility. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, as I go through the analysis of this, and the American people are going to understand, we will find that this is simply dealing with the appearance of trying to be fiscally responsible. The leadership on the other side of the aisle wants to be able to send out a press release to say that they care about this $1 trillion deficit spending that has taken place in the last 6 months and that they're doing something about it. Unfortunately, rather than actually reining in the deficit, what has happened? They've proposed a bill that will do nothing to restore any semblance of responsibility and accountability to the Federal budget. As any hardworking American knows, living within our means during tough economic times is painful, but it's not terribly complicated. You have to reduce your spending. It's very simple. The Democratic leadership will say that the bill before us today requires Congress to spend only what it can pay for, but this claim is not terribly accurate. First of all, this bill does absolutely nothing to limit discretionary spending, which is 40 percent of the entire Federal budget. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. If you think about a family who has to reduce its expenses and who has to rein in its own personal spending, this family doesn't have the luxury of saying, Oh, well, here is 40 percent that I will exempt. That is exactly what is happening with this measure. This bill makes it virtually impossible for Congress to implement tax reforms that will get our economy growing again and that will increase Federal revenues. If the Democratic leadership were actually interested in reducing the deficit, they would simply implement spending caps, caps on spending. That's the way to do it. Instead, they have merely produced a fig leaf of a bill, a fig leaf so they can send out that press release and can then go right on spending this country into oblivion, which is exactly what has been happening. The proposal before us does nothing but mandate tax increases while leaving discretionary spending completely unchecked. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a theoretical discussion that I am engaging in right now. We've been living under the Democratic leadership's so-called ``PAYGO rules'' for 2\1/2\ years. When they reinstated PAYGO at the start of the last Congress, they said it would eliminate deficit spending. Now what has actually happened? The deficit has skyrocketed from $162 billion in fiscal '07 to, as I said, this estimated $1.8 trillion. So from $162 billion in 2007 to $1.8 trillion. Again, that's just the deficit. That's a tenfold increase, and it all happened under this Democratic majority with these brilliant PAYGO rules that have been put into place. This bill will not cut the deficit. This bill will not help to restore our economy. I will say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am really quite concerned that some will believe, with the passage of this bill, that we have now addressed the problems and that it will lure many on the other side of the aisle to continue on the road that they've been going down for the past 2\1/2\ years. The true purpose of this bill is a very, very unfortunate one. The first is to attempt to provide political cover for Members who want to have it both ways, carrying the mantle of fiscal responsibility while voting for trillion-dollar spending boondoggles. The second is to make meaningful tax reform impossible to implement. If we abide by the plan that was laid out in this bill, we cannot offer tax relief to a single working American without raising one's taxes at the same time. This includes tax relief that has been proven to increase Federal revenues. We won't be able to do that under this measure. Tax relief that has proven to increase dramatically the flow of revenues of the Federal Treasury would not be allowed under this measure. In 2003, we cut the capital gains tax rate by 5 percent. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Capital gains tax revenues, that's revenues to the Federal Treasury. And we cut the capital gains rate by 5 percent, doubled in a 2-year period of time. This tax relief is set to expire next year. Guess what? Under this bill, we can't extend it without raising taxes. So, if we double revenues by cutting the capital gains tax, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to guess what will happen if we are forced to raise taxes. This bill ties our hands where flexibility is necessary, and it fails to implement strict guidelines where accountability is desperately needed. Even the Democratic leadership doesn't take this bill very seriously, adding in five pages of exemptions to an already worthless attempt at fiscal responsibility. I find it interesting that they would even bother with these exemptions, considering that they waive their own PAYGO rules all the time. In the last Congress alone, they waived these rules to allow for legislation that increased the deficit by $420 billion. Now, in this Congress, they continue to use procedural gimmicks to get around their own budget rules, which is why it comes as no surprise that we've already passed the trillion-dollar deficit spending mark here on July 22. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: don't be fooled by what is clearly an attempt to cover up the worst spending pattern that we have seen in the history of the United States of America. The American people are figuring this out. They know what it takes to make ends meet; and while they are reining in their spending and are dealing with the economic challenges that they're facing at this time, they know that we are moving in the opposite direction. Reject this rule and the bill. Instead, we must demand true accountability for our constituents' tax dollars. With that, I am pleased and privileged to reserve the balance of my time.