David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this week, on June 3 and 4, we will mark the 20th anniversary of the tragic events at Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. I remember very vividly the terrible images of tanks rolling through the square. At the time, I happened to be in Krakow, Poland as an election observer for Poland's first free elections. As we watched the television coverage from Solidarity Headquarters, we did not know the context or the details of the event that was unfolding before us. We didn't know what we were witnessing, and speculated that it was stock footage meant to intimidate the Polish people from voting the next morning. Of course, the reality of what had happened soon became clear: a brutal crackdown on Chinese supporters of democracy. Twenty years later, on the occasion of this anniversary, we should take the opportunity not only to remember the victims of that terrible event, but to assess both the path that China has since followed and our bilateral relationship. We know well that China has a very long way to go in eradicating human rights abuses. Unlawful and politically motivated imprisonments, ethnic persecution and restrictions on free speech rank highest among the abuses that persist. But that is only part of China's story in the past two decades. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people have also been lifted out of poverty because of economic reforms, and today have a far better quality of life than ever before. Chinese civil society has developed, government transparency has improved and a number of key human rights laws have been passed. Of course, laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on if they are not enforced, but that only highlights the need to develop legal institutions and a professional, independent judiciary that can enforce the laws that have been passed. All of this paints a mixed picture--but one that is slowly improving. In China's 5,000-year history, no period has seen more rapid and dramatic change than the last 20 years. The pace of progress may seem glacial by American standards; but in the Chinese context, this is important progress that must be continued. It is also important to recognize that this progress has been made possible through U.S. engagement. By working with the Chinese and encouraging economic and political reform, on a bilateral and multilateral basis, we have been able to ensure that the move toward greater freedom and accountability continues. By bringing China into the WTO and other multilateral institutions, we have bound the Chinese to a rules-based system where the rule of law is the only arbiter. Looking down the road, we see that the Chinese government has a very long way to go indeed before it has the moral authority that only comes from being of the people, by the people and for the people. But we also cannot lose sight of the road behind us, the progress that has already been made. Any improvement in the quality of life of the Chinese people since 1989 is due in large part to engagement with the American people. If we are to ensure that progress does not stop until every Chinese person is free and the rule of law prevails, we must continue to engage, encourage and hold China accountable.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by apologizing for being tardy as I came to the floor here. I was downstairs meeting with the very distinguished Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George's colleague, Justice Ming Chin, and several other staff members about very important foster care programs, and so I appreciate the understanding of the House as I was making my way through the corridors and up here to the House floor. This is very important legislation that we are addressing today, Mr. Speaker. As was said in the testimony delivered by both the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, our friend from Lexington, Missouri, Mr. Skelton, and the very distinguished ranking member, Mr. McHugh, this really is Congress at its best. We share a strong commitment to our Nation's national security. I know that the President of the United States is delivering a speech at the Archives about the very great importance of national security and its relationship to the very important civil rights that the American people cherish and revere. I know that it is an ongoing challenge, but as we deal with the issue of national security and our Nation's Armed Services, it is important for us to do everything that we can to ensure that we have a cost- effective national defense. When we are debating defense issues, Mr. Speaker, I regularly like to say the five most important words in the middle of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' And I point to those because when one thinks about virtually everything that the Federal Government does, most all of it could be handled either by family members and local communities, at the city level, at the county level, and at the State level. But there is one thing that cannot be handled by families, communities, cities, counties, or States, and that is the national security of the United States of America. That is solely a Federal responsibility. And that is why I believe when we look at what we as a Congress are doing, as the Federal legislature is doing, it seems to me that our responsibility is to do everything that we can to provide for the common defense as directed in the Preamble of the Constitution. As we do that, we have to recognize that there is a great deal of attention focused, Mr. Speaker, on the challenging economic times that we face. In fact, many people today are arguing, and we might have a tendency to say, that our number one priority is dealing with getting our economy back on track. And it is clearly what we are spending most of our time and effort discussing and debating as to which path we take to get our economy back on track. But we cannot forget that as important as it is for us to get our economy back on track, it comes in second to our national security. Some argue that if we spend too much money on national defense what is it that we would lose? We lose some money. If we spend too little on our national security, what is it that we lose? We lose this very precious experiment known as the United States of America. Today, as we look at the challenges that exist around the world, the fact is that unlike wars in the past--and I did a telephone town hall meeting last night and was discussing this with a number of my constituents, who pointed to the fact that we don't have adversaries who are wearing uniforms or represent a nation. As we continue to try to work in a bipartisan way to prosecute this war against radical extremism, we have conflicts today that are much different than those that we as a Nation had faced in the past. But we also, as I said, are facing extraordinarily difficult economic times. And that gets to the very point of this legislation. While we say we want a strong national defense, I always like to have that little caveat, ``cost effective.'' We want to make sure that we have a cost- effective national defense. I'm looking at my colleague from New Jersey, my new colleague from Maine, and I don't know if they were here, I know my colleague from Maine wasn't here, I don't know if my colleague from New Jersey was here, but we had raging debates that took place in this institution over $600 hammers and items that people could clearly look at as being horrible examples of wasteful spending. And they were tangible items that they could see. I mean, $600 for a hammer, whatever it was, $800 for a toilet seat, those kind of things that came out in the news back then, they led to understandable outrage on the part of the American people, and it was reflected in this Congress. And so we tried to turn the corner, making sure that we had a more cost-effective national defense when it came to those issues. Again, I always say when you talk about smaller levels of spending, people can relate to them more. What we are here dealing with today are ways in which we can bring about reductions in spending for massive large weapons systems. That is what this is all about, putting into place a structure that will allow that to happen. That is why I am so pleased that Mr. McHugh was able to join with Mr. Skelton and our colleagues in the Senate as well, Senators Levin and McCain, and work very hard on this. They came together with a bipartisan recommendation. It was reported out of this House by a vote of 428-0. And I don't recall for sure, I think it must have been unanimous in the Senate as well. I don't know if they had a recorded vote over there. But I do remember the vote that we had here. So here we are today dealing with an area of complete agreement. I will say procedurally this conference report could have been passed without either of us taking the time of the Rules Committee or standing here. All I would have done, all my friend from Maine would do, as Rules Committee members, we wouldn't have done it, we would just have Mr. Skelton and Mr. McHugh stand up, and Mr. Skelton could propound a unanimous consent request that this conference report be adopted, and it would be adopted unanimously. So I will say procedurally, it is great to have a chance to stand here and talk to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I enjoy it probably more than they. But the fact is we don't need to be here doing this because there is agreement. But it is, I believe, important to focus on the fact that we have been able to work in a bipartisan way to do everything possible to bring about a more cost-effective national defense. And when you think about cost effectiveness, it means that resources will be able to be utilized for something that we all hold near and dear, and that is the men and women in uniform that are out there. I remember in debate we had last week one of the amendments that unfortunately was not made in order was an amendment by my colleague from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, who wanted to have an increase in compensation for our men and women in uniform. I strongly supported her right to offer that amendment, and I would have supported that amendment. I suspect my colleagues would have as well if we had had that amendment made in order. The fact that we are going to be able to save, and I asked Mr. Skelton and Mr. McHugh last night what they believe we would be able to save quantifiably with this, and numbers in excess of hundreds of billions of dollars were the kinds of numbers thrown out. And so I hope very much that we are able to do that and that those resources will be able to be used for a much greater purpose, and that is for our men and women in uniform who need the kind of continued support that we can give in this institution. So Mr. Speaker, I am strongly supportive of this legislation. I congratulate my Democratic and Republican colleagues for working together on this, and by virtue of that, I will be supportive of the standard conference report rule that we have here which will allow for 1 hour of debate for the managers of the legislation, and then we will be able to proceed with something that is, I suspect, more controversial as we come back after the break. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other requests for time. As I said, there's no controversy on this rule. It's something that could have been done. So I'll reserve the balance of my time and see if my colleague has any speakers.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I believe that this is the institution at its best. My friend from New Jersey has pointed out the work that he and Mr. Conaway did. I congratulate them for their tireless efforts in dealing with this, and I hope that we are able to save hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that can go for a much better purpose than the kind of waste that obviously has come forward in the past; but at the same time, it is of the utmost importance that we make sure that in so doing that we don't in any way take a retrograde step on the national security capabilities of the United States of America. And I believe passionately that as we look at these challenges that exist around the world, it is a very, very dangerous place, this planet, and we are the world's only complete superpower: militarily, economically, and geopolitically. And we are going through trying times here in the United States and around the world economically, and I know that the weakened economy could enhance the likelihood of greater military challenges ahead. And so as the work proceeds of these two entities that are being put into place at the Pentagon, I know that they will not in any way take steps that diminish our capability to defend the United States of America or our interests around the world. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend and new colleague from Maine for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I would ask my friend to proceed, and I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman will be closing for his side?

Mr. DREIER. First, let me express my appreciation to my very good friend from Golden, a hardworking and thoughtful member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today we will be considering legislation that represents a true bipartisan effort on a critically important issue. The underlying bill, an emergency supplemental funding bill for our troops, was largely developed through bipartisan consensus, and we as Republicans are very happy to have had the opportunity to work with President Obama on this issue. The President has repeatedly said that he would like to work with Republicans to develop real solutions for the challenges that we face as a country. So far, unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has done a less than perfect job in dealing with the request for bipartisanship, shutting out Republicans and injecting a greater and greater amount of partisanship into the legislative process. But today we have before us our first real opportunity to come together and work in a bipartisan way. This occasion is all the more significant because the issue at hand is the funding of our troops. I'm very proud that we're able to demonstrate to the men and women who voluntarily, voluntarily put their lives on the line for our country, that the support for them in Congress is unified and unequivocal. We owe a great debt to them and to their families, and it is very fitting that we should be joining together in this show of support just before Memorial Day. Our troops in Afghanistan are facing rapidly increasing threats. Our troops in Iraq are working to fully turn responsibility for security over to the Iraqis. Thousands of others are deployed in dangerous places, as we all know, around the world. We must ensure that they have the resources, protection, and support they need to do their jobs effectively and, as my friend from Golden said in his statement, to come home safely. The underlying appropriations bill will help to ensure just that. But this is not, by any means, Mr. Speaker, a perfect bill. There are some key improvements that I believe need to be made. Unfortunately, the rule that we are considering today prevents any amendments from being considered. Even amidst this great bipartisan effort, the Democratic leadership has chosen to tarnish the outcome by refusing to allow debate on a number of key issues. Allowing amendments to be debated and considered would enable us to take this important bill and make it even more effective. One such amendment which my friend and colleague Mr. Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, has offered, would have redirected some funding to very important border security efforts. This is a critical national security issue. Violent drug wars have been escalating, as we all know, on our border for months, and we need to ensure that we have adequate homeland security resources. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule does not allow us to ensure the needed additional funding to deal with border security. Another key issue that must be addressed, as we all know because it has been the center of a great deal of controversy, is the question of how the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be shut down. The President has made it clear that he intends to close this facility, and his administration has already begun to move forward on this. Yet Congress has been presented with no clear plan as to how the facility will be closed and, most important, what will be done with the detainees. Will they be moved to American soil? Tried in jail or--God forbid--released here in the United States? The Guantanamo detainees include Khalid Sheik Muhammad, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks; Hambali, al Qaeda's operation chief for Southeast Asia who planned the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 200 people; Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, who helped plan the 1998 bombings of our embassies at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. These are Guantanamo detainees, and we have received no plan for where they will be moved if the facility is shut down. We have received no commitment, no commitment at all, for congressional oversight. This bill should explicitly require planning and consultation with Congress so we can ensure that unacceptable security risks will not be borne by our communities and our constituents. Republicans have repeatedly raised this issue, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, apparently feeling the pressure to address this issue, would like to self-execute an amendment in this rule to the bill that will place restrictions on the process for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. But there are two key problems with their approach here, Mr. Speaker. First, the substance of their amendment does not adequately address the risks that we must guard against. It does not guarantee that governors and State legislators will have the final say on whether terrorists can be housed in their States. Under the Democratic plan, States can be forced to allow the world's most dangerous terrorists to be held in their communities. Second, by self-executing this flawed and inadequate amendment, they are circumventing the debate and scrutiny that an issue of this magnitude demands. The issue of bringing committed terrorists onto American soil--not people who perpetrated crimes who are American citizens, but foreign-born terrorists--on American soil should not be dealt with haphazardly, nor cloaked in secrecy. It must be considered extremely carefully, thoroughly, and openly. This rule denies us that opportunity and fails to ensure the protection of Americans. There are other issues that should be dealt with, Mr. Speaker. The large increase of foreign assistance funding, while important to long- term efforts to combat the roots of terrorism, should not be considered emergency funding. This funding should be included in the regular budget subject to regular budgetary considerations. Designating them as emergency funds just skirts the tough choices that responsible budgeting demands. All of these issues should be addressed in an open debate with an amendment process, which is standard operating procedure for appropriations. As I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, appropriations bills are considered privileged resolutions. They come straight to the floor. We don't even need to go to the Rules Committee for consideration of appropriations bills. It is done traditionally to simply protect the bill and the work product of the Appropriations Committee, and then allow for an open amendment process. Fixing these problems, Mr. Speaker, would make a good and important bill all that much more effective. It would allow the legislative process for this bill, which has developed in such a bipartisan way, to finish in the same cooperative spirit in which it began. During my tenure as chairman of the Rules Committee for 8 years, every single wartime supplemental was considered under an open rule. Not even one has been open over the last 3 years since the new Democratic majority has been in charge. It is very unfortunate that the Democratic leadership once again is trying to thwart the best efforts of President Obama and congressional Republicans to work together and build consensus. But despite their disdain for bipartisanship and open debate, we as Republicans will join with the President in support of this troop funding bill, and we welcome this opportunity to work with him on this issue. We sincerely hope that we can continue to come together on other very pressing issues that we will want to address effectively and responsibly in the future. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I will be explaining throughout this debate time what it is that we hope to do if we are able to defeat the previous question as it relates to Guantanamo. If by chance we are not successful in defeating the previous question, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying rule so we can, in fact, continue with the spirit of bipartisanship to make this important bill even better. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me, at this time, yield 4 minutes to the extraordinarily patient author of the amendment about which we have been speaking dealing with the issue of Guantanamo, my good friend and classmate from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield? I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend from our time if the gentleman would yield.

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

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Well, I guess for a different reason my friend from Ohio is going to be joining us in opposition to this rule, and I very much appreciate that.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will inquire again of my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. DREIER. Then you will close. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would like to say, the gentlewoman has offered an extraordinarily thoughtful amendment which reaffirms our dedication to our men and women in uniform. Especially as Memorial Day approaches, it seems to me that we should have an open amendment process that would allow us to fully debate the Biggert amendment. And it saddens me that this structure around which we are considering this issue is so restricted. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new Member with a very, very distinguished career in public service, the gentleman from Aurora, Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. DREIER. I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. I understand. I appreciate the gentleman joining us, as I say, for a somewhat different reason than ours. We all want this war to end, there's no doubt about that, but we also want to ensure success. With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to again inquire of my friend, does he have two speakers remaining?