David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just ask my friend, there are no speakers at all on the other side of the aisle other than the words of wisdom that we are going to be getting from our distinguished committee Chair.

Mr. DREIER. I anxiously look forward to those words of wisdom, and, pending that, I am going to yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would yield?

Mr. DREIER. Maybe 10 minutes of time. We have a number of speakers who have come, and you know how it goes on the management of debate here.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, my Rules Committee colleague from Miami, who joined me in coauthoring the amendment about which I was just speaking.

Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Rochester for yielding me this time. At this juncture, I would like to, Madam Speaker, yield 2 minutes to our hardworking colleague from Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the newly elected chairman of the Republican Conference, my good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I was just talking to my very good friend, my fellow Californian, Mr. Lungren, and he reminded me that what I should be doing is expressing my appreciation to the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules for complimenting me on the fine work product of the past Congress when it comes to reporting out measures such as this. But I will say, Madam Speaker, that I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition to this rule because it is a martial law rule which provides the opportunity for this measure to come to the floor at any time during the next 4 days. And it is unprecedented. And I know that the gentlewoman has pointed to the fact that at the end of the Congress, it is very often that measures like this are utilized. But there is not a strong bipartisan consensus for us to proceed with the measure that is being considered now. This is, in fact, a $15 billion bailout bill that is not impacting just an entire industry, it's impacting three particular entities within that industry, and to do it under a completely closed process. The distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, acknowledged upstairs, as was stated by the ranking Republican, Mr. Bachus, this was a completely closed process, and we find this to be very, very unfortunate that we're here trying to do this in such a manner. Now, when we were upstairs in the Rules Committee, one of the things that has come forward is the fact that the American people are hurting. We all know that. We very much need to take steps to ensure that we can get this economy growing, and there is a bipartisan consensus on the need to grow our economy. We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as we all know, and in light of that, it is imperative that we take immediate action to try to create jobs for American workers. And that's the reason that my colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart, the gentleman from Miami, and I joined in the Rules Committee last night to do something that most people thought we were going to do last spring and we should have done last spring. And there was acknowledgment, bipartisan acknowledgment, by Members, including Members of the leadership in the majority, that we would, in fact, quite possibly consider this measure in a lame duck session. And I'm referring, of course, to the very important U.S.-Columbia Free Trade Agreement. Last April 10, Madam Speaker, there was a rigorous debate here, and we for the first time ever saw the Speaker of the House take action which subverted the 1974 Trade Act. Basically sent a message that said the following: We as Americans want to embark on negotiations with the country, and under the traditional, what has existed since 1974, so- called fast-track authority, or what we refer to now as trade promotion authority existed, so that that measure would come back to the Congress and there would be an up-or-down vote. And for the first time ever in basically decades and decades, since 1974, we saw that plan completely thrown out the window. That promise that had been made was thrown out the window. But there was one hope left, and that hope was that after the election, in a post-election session, which is where we are right now, we would have an opportunity for a debate and a vote as to whether or not we would pry open the market in Colombia, 40 million consumers strong, and create an opportunity for U.S. workers in Indiana, in Ohio, in Illinois, all across this country to have a chance to sell their products into Colombia. That's really what this agreement is all about. It's all about opening up access to their markets so that we can create good jobs. Now, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules last night was talking about the economic challenges that are faced, the economic difficulty, the devastation that exists in Rochester, Buffalo, and other parts of upstate New York. We recognize that very well. Kodak is one of her largest employers, Madam Speaker, and I believe that by virtue of passing this U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we will be able to create more good jobs in upstate New York so that their products can be exported into Colombia. Now, there are other States that have been particularly hard hit with this economic downturn that we're facing today. States like Ohio. We regularly hear from our colleagues in Ohio about the devastation that has existed there. One of the great companies in Ohio happens to be Whirlpool, and we know that right now the hardworking men and women in Ohio at the Whirlpool Company want to have an opportunity to sell washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, and other products that Whirlpool manufactures. And guess what. Under the present structure, Madam Speaker, it's very unfortunate there is a tariff, a tax, on the work product from those American workers in Ohio who are seeking to get their product into Colombia. And what is it that we have had over the last 7 or 8 months? An indication from the April 10 decision that was made here to not proceed with the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. There was a sense that in this lame duck session we would, in fact, consider that. Madam Speaker, I would argue that as important as it was for us to pass that U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on April 10, it is much, much more important today. Why? Because we have seen hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans lose their jobs and we are here at this moment, at this moment, Madam Speaker, talking about the imperative of creating jobs right here in the United States of America so that they don't flee overseas. And I will say that I mentioned Ohio. It's also important. We're talking about the automobile industry. There is a company called Caterpillar, which is headquartered in Peoria, Illinois. And Caterpillar workers are some of the most dedicated, hardworking, productive workers of any company in this country. And, Madam Speaker, because of the existence of that tariff, the workers who manufacture Caterpillar tractors are unable to sell those tractors into that very important 40 million-strong economy of Colombia because of the fact that we have been recalcitrant and not moved ahead with even a debate or a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. So, Madam Speaker, I have to say that we have a great opportunity with this rule. Mr. Diaz-Balart and I, as I said, offered this amendment upstairs which would have allowed us to do what last April 10--we would have never thought last April 10, by the way, that we would be here dealing with the automobile industry as we are. But last April 10 there was an indication by many, including the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, who said that at that point she was voting to delay consideration of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Well, Madam Speaker, today is the day. We all know and we hope and pray that this is the end of the work of the 110th Congress. The 111th Congress will be convening on January 6 and we will begin anew. But guess what. If we don't pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement right now, we have thrown years of negotiations out the door. We will see our governments have to start from scratch on this very, very important agreement. And the one thing that I haven't mentioned that I know my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart will discuss is the very important strategic interest that we have in strengthening our strongest ally on the South American continent. We all recognize that the modern history of Colombia has been horrendous, but I argue that the last 5 years have brought us the greatest transformation of any country in a 5-year period of time in modern history. The reason I say that is that if you look at the human rights violations, if you look at the actions of the FARC, the paramilitaries, and a wide range of other entities there, if you look at the murder that has taken place in the past of union leaders, and you compare that to the changes of today, it is important for us to realize that we have seen an amazing transformation. Now, I acknowledge that in the past several weeks, some very unfortunate reports have come to the forefront, but I believe that the tragic murders that have taken place, and the resignation of military leaders and the firing of military leaders because of that, underscores how important it is for us to proceed with this agreement, which will strengthen the economic ties and, I believe, bring about a greater opportunity for the recognition of human rights in Colombia. So we are here at this moment focusing our attention on how it is that we can deal with the automobile industry and create good American jobs. I believe that right now we have an opportunity to do this very, very important thing, and that is open up that market so that U.S. workers can sell their products into Colombia. I hope very much that we are able to see that action taken today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I would say, absolutely, we have a lot of people who want to speak in opposition to this martial law rule. I would inquire of my friend if she has any speakers.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules if she might consider yielding, she has 29 minutes remaining, maybe 5 or 10 minutes of her time to us. We have a number of speakers on our side.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking former Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, my good friend from Livonia, Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I understand that chapter 11 is bankruptcy, but I am just saying that I have not advocated that.

Mr. DREIER. Well, you concluded that, but I never actually said that.

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

Mr. DREIER. Oh, then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I had a very thoughtful, eloquent, lengthy closing statement, and I now have 30 seconds. Okay.

Mr. DREIER. As I've said, what is an American-made car? Is it, in fact, a Chevy that is built in Canada made with Mexican parts, or is it a BMW built in South Carolina? And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Oh, I think you'll have the right to close under the rule. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, the current economic crisis that we are facing as a nation has spread throughout many sectors and many industries. The banking industry has been crippled, credit markets have frozen and manufacturing capacity is shrinking. The worst job loss numbers in 34 years were just released last Friday, and the losses were widespread throughout every major industry. But this crisis began with the housing industry, and it will not be fixed without addressing the root problem of excess supply that drives down prices. The lack of home buyers has caused the supply of unsold homes to increase rapidly. This not only causes blight in neighborhoods across the United States, but also places severe downward pressure on home values. Falling home prices are particularly detrimental to working American families, many of whom rely on their home as a financial investment to build long-term wealth. As home prices fall, homeowners are faced with the reality of declining equity in their homes and many are finding their mortgage debt to be greater than the value of their home. Declining values and increased foreclosures create a vicious cycle. As more homes enter foreclosure, home values continue to decline, leading to yet more defaults and further declines in value. All of the ripple effects that we've seen throughout the economy, in the credit markets and beyond, stem from this core problem. We also know that irresponsible actions on both Wall Street and Main Street contributed heavily to this current situation. We need a plan that addresses the core problems of the housing industry, providing an immediate stimulus to the economy, while rewarding responsible, working middle-class families who live within their means and make prudent financial decisions. Today I am introducing a bill that will help to accomplish just that. This legislation offers a new tax credit for 2009 and 2010 for every home purchase made with a down payment of at least 10 percent. A home buyer making a down payment of 10 percent will receive a $5000 tax credit. A home buyer making a down payment of 15 percent will receive a $10,000 tax credit. By linking the tax credit to down payments, this bill will encourage only responsible home ownership. And by incentivizing home buying, it addresses the oversupply of homes that is creating such strain on the broader U.S. economy. Unlike the credit enacted by Congress this summer, which was offered only to first-time homebuyers, this credit would be available to anyone who is able to meet the down payment criteria set forth in the bill. This ensures that all working families, not just first-time buyers, are able to take advantage of the new credit. Furthermore, this bill requires a significant down payment. We all know that irresponsible participants in our housing markets-- individuals, banks and government-sponsored enterprises--took advantage of the system and helped to create our current crisis in the first place. That's why this bill encourages home buying that is based on sound financial planning. I believe this plan will deliver quick relief by restoring our ailing housing industry. It enables responsible home buyers to jumpstart the industry, stop home prices from continuing to plummet and restore the communities that have been plagued by foreclosures. And because this new benefit will expire at the end of 2010, it will encourage quick action. Our challenges won't be solved overnight and there are no quick fixes. But we must take this expeditious and prudent step to put us back on the path to recovery.