David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the hardworking ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Ohio, in his newly established home in Bainbridge, Ohio.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield a minute to my very good friend from Alexander, Iowa, a very hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Latham.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I want to express my appreciation to my very good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, at this moment, we are beginning the debate on this very, very important package. For the second time this week, this body will consider a plan to unclog our banking system and to unfreeze our credit markets. The plan before us today is similar to the one that failed to pass on Monday but with two very important and key additions. First, it allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to insure larger bank deposits, which is absolutely essential for protecting our Nation's small businesses. Second, it extends a number of critical tax credits and protections that will reduce burdens on middle-income Americans, that will increase the use of renewable and alternative energy and, very importantly, that will promote job creation and economic growth for businesses, large and small. These are significant improvements, Madam Speaker, that make this a better bill, but the bill isn't the only thing that has changed since Monday. The economic landscape has shifted as well, or more accurately, the landscape has become clearer. Prior to Monday's vote, we had a 3-hour debate. We heard from a lot of Members with dire predictions if there were a failure to act. I was one of those who expressed a deep concern for the economic consequences if we could not enact an effective rescue package. This was reasoned speculation but speculation nonetheless. Today, we can act on more than speculation, Madam Speaker. As Monday's vote went down, it took the Dow with it. Anyone who watched CNBC's coverage saw a direct juxtaposition. One half of the screen showed this House floor. The other half of the screen showed the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. With each new ``no'' vote, the Dow lost points, and greater panic spread throughout the trading floor. By the end of the day, as we all know, the Dow dropped 770 points, or $1.2 trillion. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: There was more than $1.2 trillion lost on that day, and as we all know, that was the single largest point loss in the history of our Republic. The next day, as hope was renewed that there would be a second bite at the apple, a rebound began. It wasn't a full recovery of Monday's losses, but significant ground was regained on the hope that this rescue bill would ultimately pass. Now, I know that deep and pervasive skepticism of this package persists, and I understand that skepticism very well. I, myself, am very skeptical about this package. I held a telephone townhall meeting Wednesday night, and a number of different points of view were expressed by my constituents. Those who oppose this bill explained their reasons very carefully, and I agree with every single word that they said. They said we should let the market sort itself out. They said that people must not be shielded from suffering the consequences of their own bad choices. They said that we should be considering alternative solutions based entirely on market principles. These are precisely my instincts as well, and I couldn't agree more, but I've ultimately concluded that this bill is a necessary evil. Why can't we let the market sort itself out this time? Because, Madam Speaker, the market didn't cause this mess. Let me say that again: While people say we should allow the marketplace to sort this situation out on its own, we should not do that because the marketplace did not create this mess. Government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made this mess possible. Government regulators failed to apply adequate oversight. Today, we are not experiencing market failure. Let me say that again, Madam Speaker: Today, we are not experiencing market failure. We are experiencing the inevitable failure of government attempts to manipulate the market. The Federal Government must now do its part to undo the damage and allow the market to operate freely once again. Shouldn't we let people suffer for their own mistakes? Yes, we should, starting with the Wall Street executives who exacerbated this problem. This bill bans golden parachutes for those who seek assistance, which is one of the things that consistently came forward from my constituents, but the problem with today's crisis is that responsible people who have followed the rules are suffering, too, not just those who behaved irresponsibly. Madam Speaker, as you know very well, small businesses are losing their lines of credit. Families who have saved for a down payment for years are unable to get home loans. Parents and students are finding it difficult to get loans for tuition. Those nearing retirement have seen their nest eggs evaporate as the stock market has fallen. Today's credit crunch is hurting businesses and individuals indiscriminately. It is bringing our engines of growth to a grinding halt and shutting hardworking Americans out of their dreams. The Los Angeles Times, my hometown paper, yesterday chronicled this deepening crisis, declaring, and I quote, ``Credit Freeze Puts Business on Thin Ice.'' Madam Speaker, we know that our State of California is faced with very difficult circumstances as a State. We've heard that from our Governor. Small businesses all over California, as is the case in the rest of the country, are losing access to credit, getting forced into laying off workers and cutting operations. And they're looking for leadership from Congress. One business owner is quoted as saying, and I quote, ``Payrolls are getting harder to meet. Cash flow is extremely difficult. I'm getting the feeling that if we don't have a Federal deal, a lack of cash flow is going to bring everything to a halt.'' Now, Madam Speaker, today's bill is rightly called a rescue bill. But who are we rescuing? Madam Speaker, as you know very well, we're not rescuing the fat cats. The fat cats can take care of themselves. Today we want to rescue the working Americans whose livelihoods are threatened by our current economic situation which, again, has been caused by bad government policy. Finally, there is the question of why we must consider this particular bill and not alternatives. This is a very good question, Madam Speaker. I've been a big proponent of having an open process that allows for other plans to be considered. And just last night, I've offered plans like the LaTourette plan and others at the Rules Committee for us to allow just that. But those amendments have been rejected by the Rules Committee and we have only this one bill before us. So our choice is very simple, pass this bill, or do nothing. This is not a perfect bill. It is far from a perfect bill, far from it. But it is far better than the original Paulson plan. It includes strong bipartisan oversight, accountability, a ban on golden parachutes and a 100 percent guarantee that the taxpayers will earn back every penny of their investment. Those are critical protections that Republicans fought for and won for the American taxpayers. This bill was improved further by the Senate, which added more protections and credits for taxpayers. We can accept this important but imperfect bill or, Madam Speaker, we can do nothing. We saw on Monday the consequences of doing nothing. Today we have a second chance. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. And let me just respond by saying that the anger level among the American people reflected in those of us who are elected representatives is such that there is no way in the world that we would allow, that we would allow the United States Congress to thrust on to their shoulders this responsibility. And I am convinced that within 5 years as we look at those institutions that have been the direct beneficiaries of this program that if in fact there is one penny of taxpayer dollars exposed here, I have little doubt that just as is the case with the increase in premiums the banking institutions shoulder through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, this institution will make the taxpayers whole by saying to these institutions that have been the beneficiaries of this program that they must pay for that. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are a wide range of reasons that we are all angry that we're here. I am very, very angry that I am here. I know that my constituents are angry that we're here facing the challenge that we are. But there is one thing that everyone will acknowledge: the United States of America faces a credit crisis. There is a crisis of confidence. And I want to make sure that throughout the coming weeks, months and years that when people who have deposits in financial institutions go to their automatic teller machines and seek to withdraw, that those dollars are there. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that when the hardworking, diligent, small businessmen and -women on Main Street are seeking an opportunity to take a brilliant and creative idea that they have and to get access to capital, that they are able to do that. I want to make sure that when people are seeking the American Dream of homeownership and they want to step forward and responsibly take on that obligation, that they are able to have access to that credit. I want to make sure that as we deal with this global economy, and the fact of the matter is, we, the United States of America, are shaping this global economy, and it is imperative that we continue to shape that global economy, so that we can pry open new markets for U.S. goods and services around the world. As we do these things, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to put into place policies which will diminish the pain that we are facing today and play a role in instilling the confidence that is necessary to ensure that we have the credit that the American people deserve and desperately need. Now, when this package came forward, there were a wide range of provisions that led my constituents to be understandably outraged. And I'm very grateful that as we stand here at 1 o'clock this morning--in just a few hours we will be voting on the previous question in this rule--I am very pleased that there are a number of provisions in this package which will make it acceptable to many. First of all, I'm glad that we are not mandating that union leaders all of a sudden automatically be granted positions on boards of directors. I am very pleased that the very controversial organization known as ACORN is not going to receive one single penny from this program. I'm very pleased that we will not see the so-called cram-down provisions whereby judges would be able to distort the marketplace by completely reestablishing interest rates on mortgages. And I'm very pleased that under this package, we will be able to see that executives, executives who have heretofore been the beneficiaries through these so-called golden parachutes will instead get concrete shoes which will take them to the ground. And I also have to say that as we look at the overall executive compensation packages, the fact is that we will not see companies who are part of this program continue down the road of very, very high levels of compensation. I also have to say that, as we look at the structure, the existence of an inspector general and the work of the Government Accountability Office and as we look at the dramatically increased role that the United States Congress will play in oversight, it will go a long way towards ensuring the kind of accountability that this institution has to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to call for a defeat of the previous question, and I intend to offer an amendment to the rule which will make in order an alternative offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). This alternative will stabilize the markets through privately funded mortgage insurance, using risk-based premiums with increased transparency. It will empower private investors to bring private capital off the sidelines to help us resolve this crisis. Most importantly, it will put in place strong oversight reform and corporate accountability. Many of these provisions were developed as part of Mr. Cantor's working group, and some but not all were included in the final package. By defeating the previous question, we will be able to consider the working group's complete package as an alternative. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the amendment that I will be offering here appear in the Record immediately prior to the vote that we'll be having in about 7 hours on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also yield my friend 10 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can make this in order. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I'm mad as hell that we are here. This is a very troubling moment in our Nation's history, and it's taken an awful lot of difficulty for us to get to this point. I'd respond to the remarks offered by my good friend by saying that there is enough blame to go around. I'm angry at Wall Street bankers. I'm angry at mortgage brokers. I'm angry at individuals who have chosen to live way beyond their means, creating an anger level among those very responsible Americans who are paying their mortgages, meeting their car payments, and their other responsibilities. And I'm angry at Washington, D.C., all the way around. Mr. Speaker, the underlying financial rescue bill that is before us this morning is the product of very difficult negotiations to address extremely challenging economic circumstances. Our economy, as we all acknowledge, is under tremendous duress right now, and it can be felt all across America by individuals and families from all walks of life. While the dire circumstances of recent weeks have dominated the headlines, working Americans have been witnessing our national economic woes for many months. Long before the fall of large investment banks or high profile bailouts, they felt substantial economic pressure. They have faced steeply rising energy and food prices, while fearing for their jobs and their homes. As housing markets have crumbled and the credit crunch has ensued, the gulf between Main Street and Wall Street has never seemed so huge. But, Mr. Speaker, the reality is the two have never been more closely entwined than they are right now. Foreclosures on Main Street caused the value of many Wall Street assets to plummet. The resulting credit crunch has paralyzed growth at businesses, large and small. This, in turn, has stunted job creation and driven up unemployment. The falling stock market threatens working Americans' pensions, retirement plans, and savings. From the very beginning of this process, Republicans have known that we needed to craft an effective rescue package that returns our entire economy to sound footing. We knew that we simply could take an approach that pits Main Street and Wall Street against each other. As housing prices have collapsed, job creation has stagnated and the stock market has fallen, we have all suffered. An effective economic plan is badly needed to restore our economy and create opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. We simply don't have the option or ability to save Wall Street without creating opportunity on Main Street and vice versa. This is not a battle of us versus them. Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that we are all in this together as Americans. Republicans also knew that we had to find a way to balance two powerful but opposing forces: the urgent need to act expeditiously, and the imperative to act prudently and effectively. We understood the urgency of our economic circumstances, but we also know that rushing into a flawed approach would benefit no one and risk plunging our economy into deeper turmoil. From the outset, we demanded strong protections for taxpayer dollars. We demanded transparency and accountability. We demanded that the financial burden of any assistance not ultimately lie with the taxpayers. We believe, Mr. Speaker, very strongly that these provisions had to be the pillars of any financial rescue plan, and we knew that we had the backing of our constituents in our efforts. Over the past week, like all of my colleagues I'm sure, I've received hundreds of calls, e-mails, and letters demanding that the taxpayers do not foot the bill for the poor choices of troubled businesses. I have to say that the most interesting thing about the concerns that were expressed to me was that they were clearly growing out of a true grassroots movement. There was no advocacy group motivating those who were contacting us. There was no organized effort on the part of special interest groups. I was hearing from hundreds and hundreds of working Americans who have been following the news reports and the negotiations. They felt very strongly that the initial proposal was simply unfair to the taxpayers. They told me in no uncertain terms that any deal without taxpayer protections, accountability and oversight was totally unacceptable, and with that, I'm in complete agreement. Mr. Speaker, for several days our Democratic colleagues proceeded with negotiations without any regard for exactly these kinds of provisions that Republicans were insisting on. As a result, the negotiations went nowhere. Republicans were resolute in their insistence that any deal must not leave the taxpayers on the hook for this $700 billion rescue plan. We are here this morning with a bipartisan package because we, as Republicans, remained committed to our principles and were finally given a seat at the table. The deal that has been crafted will allow the Treasury to unclog the financial markets and help begin the process of restoring our economy's strength and vitality, but it does so without providing a taxpayer-funded windfall for Wall Street. And I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This package moves ahead without providing a taxpayer-funded windfall for those on Wall Street. This bill requires companies to pay-to-play. There's no free lunch here. Any company that comes to us for assistance must cover their risk by paying insurance premiums, and their executives will not be able to walk away with extravagant compensation at taxpayer expense. This bill caps severance pay for participating companies. In the case of a total takeover, golden parachutes are banned entirely. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Treasury will also get equity in the companies that ask for help so that the taxpayers will reap the benefits of their assistance. There will be bipartisan oversight of this process every step of the way, so that Republicans can continue to ensure full transparency and accountability. Most important of all, the overwhelming message that has come from my constituents is that there must be no blank check. Treasury must report to Congress in order to keep the assistance program going; and, Mr. Speaker, after 5 years, if the taxpayers have lost a single penny in this process, the President will have to submit a plan to Congress to recoup the funds from the participating companies. In short, the taxpayers have a 100 percent guarantee that they will not be left holding the check for this rescue plan, and we felt very strongly about ensuring that safeguard. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all dismayed that we must take action at all. I don't believe any of us ever thought that we would face the grim reality of our current economy or the prospect of crafting a plan to rescue our financial markets. Because we, as Republicans, stuck to our guns, we have before us today a bill that will help to get our economy back on track without putting the burden on the backs of the American taxpayer. With strong oversight, accountability and a guarantee that the Federal Treasury will be fully repaid, we can restore confidence in our economy. We can put ourselves back on the path to growth and job creation. And perhaps most important, we can demonstrate to the American people that, when bipartisanship prevails, their demands are heard and implemented. I have to say that as we listen to these messages which have come from our constituents, as I said first and foremost, there has been this very strong and compelling argument that the taxpayer not be responsible for shouldering this responsibility, but there were a wide range of other concerns that came to the forefront. I have an e-mail that came into our office from a man in Arcadia, California, who wrote, I am writing to express my strong request that, with respect to the current financial ``bailout'' bill, you vote against it unless there's a provision that has been made to assure that those executives of companies that will receive funds in exchange for their under-performing mortgages, they are restricted in their ability to use government funds to pay excessive compensation. And, two, that you assure that proposals to load union representatives onto the boards of these companies as a condition of receiving funds is removed from the legislation. There is absolutely no reason to add union representatives to public companies. If the unions want representation, they should purchase enough stock to be able to elect a board member. This is a message that has come through consistently, and I'm happy to say, in this package, there is not going to be this government or union representation provided onto the boards of these companies. There was also, Mr. Speaker, great concern raised by many of my constituents that the organization known as ACORN, which is a very, very controversial organization under very harsh criticism for improprieties, was initially going to be receiving funding, and I'm very happy to report to our colleagues that not one penny will be going to that organization known as ACORN. There was another provision that had been included in the bill, Mr. Speaker, the so-called ``cram down provision,'' whereby we would see bankruptcy courts actually establishing something that the marketplace should do, that being the interest rates that are paid by those who hold mortgages. That is not provided. That is not going to be allowed under this provision. And, also, I have to say that there's a so-called mark-to-market accounting structure, which has dramatically diminished the value of properties, and I personally believe that the mark-to-market accounting structure should be completely abandoned. This legislation calls for a study which I hope very much will lead to that because it has played a role in creating some of the tremendous inequities that we see in our economy today. And as I mention in my statement, the notion that those on Wall Street, who are in many ways responsible for this, would somehow be able to continue receiving these golden parachutes, multimillion dollar packages of benefits, the fact that we will prevent that with this legislation is something that I think is very, very important as we proceed. And so, again, first and foremost, taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, should not be saddled with this responsibility. And this bipartisan package guarantees that they will not be saddled with this because of the fact that within this 5-year period of time the President, if one single penny of taxpayer dollars is found to have been utilized, there is a provision whereby the President of the United States must come to us with a package which will most likely call on those institutions which have been the direct beneficiaries of this program, will be forced to repay to the taxpayers those dollars. So let me say that, as we look at this package, Mr. Speaker, there have been very understandable concerns. We all hate, we hate the fact that we are standing here dealing with this. And again, I will say there is plenty of blame, plenty of blame to go around. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will want to expend time and energy blaming the deregulation and the policies that have been propounded over the past several years, but in the exchange that I had with the distinguished majority leader--now last night since it's 12:31 in the morning here in Washington--when I was last night in this exchange with the majority leader, we were talking about the challenges that existed in the post-depression era legislation that was moved forward. And frankly, we, in the past several years, have been living with very antiquated, post-depression era regulation, and we have even seen the marketplace change dramatically. And over the past couple of decades we have seen a band-aid approach to respond to much of that depression-era regulation with which we still contend. What is needed, Mr. Speaker, is a 21st century regulatory structure to deal with the freedom that exists in this 21st century marketplace. And that's why, while adequate accountability, transparency, supervision, and oversight is essential, I caution my colleagues who believe that with passage of this legislation they can embark on this very, very zealous quest to dramatically increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace. The rest of the world has recognized that freedom is the answer; freedom is the answer and free markets are the answer. And that's why I hope that, as we move forward from this package, we do not in any way take a retrograde step in our quest to ensure that we pursue that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my friend from New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. You're looking at him, Madam Chairman. Does the gentlewoman have any further speakers?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do so to remind my California colleague, my friend from Sherman Oaks, that the fact of the matter is when we look at the way the premiums are handled today through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that guarantees that our constituents who have up to $100,000 in those accounts with the full faith and credit of the Federal Government behind them, if in fact that FDIC fund is in any way diminished, what is it that happens? There is an increase in the premium spread among those financial institutions. Similarly as we look at the prospect and the guarantee in this legislation that the taxpayers will not be shouldering the responsibility of that $700 billion, what we have done is we have in place a mechanism whereby through the CBO reporting, the President is required to submit to Congress a plan which calls for an actual increase in that, primarily to be spread most likely among those who have benefited from the program. And with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, so I understand from the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules that she is the final speaker on the other side?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that a year ago this coming December, the structure that passed the United States Senate with this so-called not paid for is exactly what this Democratic Congress did to extend the alternative minimum tax, the R&D tax credit, and these other items 1 year ago. And so this is actually a change from what the Democratic Congress did a year ago to deal with this issue, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Let me yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say again that I believe that it is a mistake for us to be here imposing this martial law rule at a very precarious time in our Nation's history as we're dealing with the serious challenges that lie before us. I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if the previous question prevails, I will urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we will be in a position where we can bring up the very important item that will allow us to get AMT relief, allow us to provide incentives for alternative energy sources, and allow us to deal with things like the research and development tax credit, which are so important to this country. And while we do everything that we can to ensure we do not give a blank check to those on Wall Street, I do believe that the American people want us to take action that will responsibly deal with the very important credit crisis so that automatic teller machines will be able to get cash to individuals; so that the small businessmen and -women throughout the United States of America will be able to have access to credit so that they will be able to continue to thrive as businesses; so that the American people who, in fact, have met their obligation in paying their mortgage, that they won't be saddled with the responsibility for people who have been less than responsible. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and as I said, if in fact the previous question does pass, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding me the time, and I want to thank him for the very thoughtful arguments that he has made. It's no wonder that we have the lowest approval rating among the American people in the history of this institution. I don't know where it stands right now, maybe it's 12 percent, I remember seeing several weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago, that the approval rating for this institution was at 9 percent, 9 percent. I think that this measure right here is a perfect indication as to why the American people have such a low opinion of the United States House of Representatives and the Congress overall. We have been presented with a measure which would allow us to provide incentives for alternative energy sources, an opportunity to address the very, very unfair tax that has been imposed since 1969, started out taking on 155 people, now it's over 22 million Americans who are unfairly facing the alternative minimum tax, mental health parity, the research and development tax credit, which is very important to my State, a litany of important items. Unfortunately, we are not doing that. How do we do it? Just as our friend from Dallas said so thoughtfully, the majority leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, was able to move through the Senate by a 93-2 vote, 93-2 vote, the measure that would have allowed us to address these very important issues. Unfortunately, we have decided to pull a stunt, and it really can only be described as a stunt, because we know that what we are doing here is going nowhere, and we are doing this at 9:22 when the Philadelphia Eagles are playing, and we have got people focused on a lot of other things. But most important for this institution, we have the responsibility of trying to deal with the very serious credit crisis that exists in this country. We have chosen to waste time on something that is going absolutely nowhere, as everyone knows. Now, I will say that I feel very strongly about the need to ensure that we do not provide a $700 billion blank check to those on Wall Street who have played a big role in exacerbating the credit crisis that we have in this country. I have been hearing from the people whom I am privileged to represent in Southern California, and they join me in expressing their outrage, as I know Americans all across this country do. Why? Because there are people who are responsibly paying their mortgages. There are people who are responsibly meeting their financial obligations. To take their hard-earned tax dollars and utilize those dollars to bail out people who have been less than responsible is something that is outrageous. That's why, when we know it is essential that we take action and do something to deal with this credit crisis, we need to do it in a very deliberative nature, and we need to ensure that there is accountability, transparency, disclosure. We need to make sure that a blank check is not provided to those people who have engaged in such terrible, terrible behavior. That's what we should be dealing with at this moment, rather than proceeding with this measure that is going nowhere. I have to say that even as we look at this measure that is going nowhere, it is flawed in an important way. It's flawed in an important way in that it actually ignores a very important energy alternative. What is it that I have got in this vial? I would say to my friend from New York, it's something called green crude, green crude, which was developed by some professors from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, through a company called Sapphire Energy. Frankly, over the last couple of decades, a lot of effort has been put into looking at the development of algae as an energy source. Our colleague from San Diego, Mr. Bilbray, has just provided this to me. We have the potential to take algae, what people see growing in swimming pools, if those swimming pools aren't being cleaned, algae, and turning that through existing oil refineries, into gasoline to power automobiles to deal with the environmental challenges that exist out there. Guess what: This bill has no incentive whatsoever for pursuing the very important alternative energy source the people of California, and I believe the people around the country would like to see us pursue, that being so-called green crude. My point is, we have a very flawed measure before us, a very flawed measure, but at least we should be able to deal with the alternative minimum tax, the research and development tax credit, and some incentives for alternative energy, and mental health parity, by taking the measure that has passed the Senate by a 93-2 vote and just be done with it and expend our time and energy and effort deliberating over the very pressing credit crisis that exists in this country. My friend from Dallas is absolutely right when he says that we are going to call for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. The reason that we want to defeat the previous question is that we will be in a position, if we defeat the previous question, to do exactly what 93 of our colleagues in the other body have chosen to do, and that is take up a clean tax extenders measure. Now, I know, and I had an exchange with the distinguished majority leader, my friend from Maryland, a couple of days ago and the fact that there is a desire, even though Mr. Reid has said that he does not want to take up the measure out of the House, to deal with having this tax extender bill paid for. But the fact is, exactly 1 year ago, this coming December, when we looked at the extension of the alternative minimum tax, what happened, we chose to proceed basically as the United States Senate has today. I know that time and time again we hear arguments about how measures should be paid for. Yet if you look at what has been paid for and what hasn't been paid for, it's fascinating. The farm bill, for example. No pay-fors whatsoever, as we proceeded with the farm bill. If you look at the other items that have come forward, there is a pick-and-choose standard for what is going to be paid for and what is not going to be paid for. We know that the American people, 22 million- plus who are saddled with the penalty of the alternative minimum tax, very much want relief. We can do exactly what we did last year and take this unfair tax and make sure they are not saddled with that burden. We also know that the majority leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, has said very clearly that he is not about to take up this flawed measure from the House of Representatives. He has made it clear. I am standing here, as a Republican, making the argument that has been propounded by the majority leader, the Democrat, in the United States Senate. What we need to do is defeat the previous question. When we do so, we will be able to bring up the Senate measure, and we will be able to send that then to the President's desk, because I am convinced that we will have strong bipartisan support for that measure to deal with these important issues, not just the alternative minimum tax, but tax incentives for alternative energy sources, wind, solar and other very important items that my constituents in California and people across the country want, mental health parity, another important issue. Then, again, in our State of California, I know in the State of Maryland and other States in the country, all kinds of innovative, creative ideas are coming forward, and that with a measure that by a 93-2 vote passed the Senate to deal with the research and development tax credit, we will be able to move forward. Then we will be able to expeditiously proceed with the very important question of dealing with our Nation's credit crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, in this quest to defeat the previous question. If by chance the previous question passes, then I do urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would say the answer is yes.