David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I see my good friend, the majority leader, is leaving the floor, but I would simply like to say on this issue, I do very much appreciate my good friend having yielded me time for our exchange. But I would like to say that, as the gentleman just said, there is the prospect of pulling this rule. It would be my hope that tomorrow, which is when suspension authority under the rules of the House will begin once again, that the measure that has passed by a 93-2 vote in the United States Senate, again, Democratic majority leader Harry Reid has moved this measure and----

Mr. DREIER. I will in just one moment. But what I would like to ask the majority leader is if we would be able to, under suspension of the rules, bring up that measure so that the very important energy incentives for alternative sources, the alternative minimum tax, mental health parity, and the issue of the research and development tax credit, that those items could, in fact, see whether or not, by a two-thirds vote, Democrats and Republicans could come together to deal with that need that the American people want, especially relief of those 22 million Americans who are unfairly saddled with that AMT.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say that I don't know exactly where that stands at this point.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield.

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

Mr. DREIER. The last point that my friend just made had to do the with issue of regulation. And if one looks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the fact that there have been calls from this side for adequate oversight, which raised consistently by our friends on the other side were arguments against that.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just take on this issue of regulation, if I might, Mr. Speaker

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say, and I know that's obviously the position of the majority leader, but I would hope very much that if we would agree to bring that measure up under suspension of the rules, that we would be in a position to have that bill. And I know the majority leader would be able to do that. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that on the issue of regulation, which my good friend from Maryland raised, there is a lot of talk about the fact that there has not been enough regulation. I will say that I believe that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is something that was very important and has played a role in exacerbating the economic challenges that we have, number one. Number two, my friend referred to Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. And we, today, Mr. Speaker, continue to live with what is little more than a Band-Aid approach to dealing with very antiquated, early, 20th century regulation that was put into place following the Great Depression. And much of that regulation played a role in exacerbating the Great Depression. And while we have attempted, Mr. Speaker, to deal with changes, it is very, very apparent that the marketplace has moved dramatically ahead of the regulatory structure. And so what we need, and I know what Senator McCain and what we believe is essential, is that we have a 21st-century regulatory structure to deal with the 21st-century economy and 21st-century markets that exist today. That is something that I hope will be the silver lining to emerge from the very dark cloud of the economic challenges that we have today. And I also have to say in response to an argument propounded by the distinguished majority leader, that if we believe that the economy is in great shape today, take no action. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the majority leader, that no one, no one believes that the economy is in great shape today, and we all are trying to work in a bipartisan way to make sure we deal with this credit crisis. And while I am virulently opposed to any measure that would provide a $700 billion blank check to those on Wall Street who are, in many ways, responsible for this problem, I do believe that it is essential that some action be taken to ensure that ATMs are able to get their cash out, so that small business men and women will be able to have credit so that their businesses can thrive, so that we are able to get our economy growing again. So I will say, Mr. Speaker, that economic growth is absolutely essential. And it is true that we are in the midst of an economic slowdown today, but it is also apparent that, following the tremendous challenges that existed in the early part of this decade that began with the tragedy of September 11 of 2001, we have enjoyed strong, bold, dynamic economic growth up until recently. And so the notion of arguing that all of the policies that have been put into place, tax cuts that have stimulated economic growth are somehow responsible for the economic slowdown today is preposterous. We need to look at the fact that we have had an antiquated regulatory structure that should have been providing adequate oversight in dealing with this issue, and I join with my colleague in urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can bring up the Senate bill. And if that passes, a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would continue to yield.

Mr. DREIER

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

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, Ms. Slaughter, and I rise in opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, we are in week 4 of the National Football League season. The Washington Redskins have just defeated the Dallas Cowboys, the Kansas City Chiefs have just defeated the Denver Broncos; and we are, as a Nation, facing one of the most serious financial crises that we have ever faced. In fact, it's a crisis that only a few of our very, very senior Members who lived back in 1929 have ever experienced. And what is it that we're doing here right now, Mr. Speaker? Well, we're considering a measure that will allow us to bring to the floor any item whatsoever for same day consideration, but in fact, we're not using this measure that is before us to deal with the very serious and important legislation that the American people very much want us to address. I am vehemently opposed to any measure that would provide a blanket guarantee to bail out the people on Wall Street who have engaged in outrageous behavior jeopardizing the credit structure that exists here in the United States today. And we know the kind of impact that it's having on our markets, we know the kind of impact it's having on the global economic markets, and we know that some action must be taken. And what is it that we're doing here? Well, we're considering a same day rule. And I should say to the distinguished Chair, my good friend from Rochester, that I appreciated her compliment on my fine work in the 109th Congress, and I find it fascinating that my work product from the 109th Congress is now being held up as a model for the action that is taking place right here this evening. I guess we're going to consider under same day something that's being discussed upstairs in the Rules Committee right now, the so-called tax extenders legislation. And it's legislation that we could very easily dispense with. We could dispense with it, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of taking up a measure that by a 93-2 vote passed in the United States Senate. Seems to me that a 93-2 vote would be pretty bipartisan, nearly a unanimous vote, to deal with the very important issues that the American people want to address when it comes to the tax side. The outrageous alternative minimum tax that began in 1969 to go after 155 millionaires has now expanded to include 22-plus million Americans, and they are being unfairly taxed. They want us to address that measure. My State of California is very important when it comes to the issue of looking at technological advances, and making sure that we extend the research and development tax credit is critical. Pursuing alternative energy sources like wind and solar, biodiesel, the kinds of creative green crude, the notion of looking at algae and utilizing that through present oil refineries today to try to bring down the cost of gasoline for the American people and for those around the globe who are seeking to decrease energy costs. Well, I will tell you, we could deal with every single one of those items if we were to simply take that measure that has passed the Senate by a 93-2 vote. We could bring it up, and it would pass nearly unanimously, I believe, in this House if we were to do it. But instead, rather than focusing our attention on this very important credit crisis that needs to be addressed based on analyses provided by virtually everyone so that we are able to bring about the kind of stability that is necessary, or at least attempt to do that, whether it's from Wall Street to Main Street, from San Dimas Avenue, where I live, to 5th Avenue and every area in between, we very much need to do that, Mr. Speaker. And instead, we're going to be addressing--and the Rules Committee, as I have said, right now is holding a hearing on an item that will never go anyplace. So that's why it's a real insult to the American people that we are here right now doing what we're doing. But unfortunately, it is a pattern that we have seen in the 110th Congress. And while again, I'm proud that my record has been held up as a model, whatever criticisms that may have been leveled towards my record in the 109th Congress, the activities that we've seen in the 110th Congress really, really, really go beyond the pale. In fact, I just read a speech that was delivered by our Rules Committee, the second ranking member behind Ms. Slaughter, our good friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, who, on the 29th of September, 2006, virtually 2 years ago, he gave a very strong speech right here on the floor in which he began to level criticism about the number of closed rules, the number of restrictive rules, the lack of open rules that existed in the 109th Congress. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this 110th Congress has transcended dramatically the number of closed rules, the fact that there are fewer open rules, the increased number of restricted rules. In fact, right now we're on the 65th, headed towards the 66th closed rule in the 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker. Again, while we were criticized harshly in the 109th Congress, today what we're seeing is the highest number of closed rules in any Congress in the 230-year history of this great institution of ours. So I have got to tell you that I am not about to support any kind of package that provides a blank check of $700 billion to those people on Wall Street who are responsible for the outlandish, outlandish behavior that's gone on and the problems that have existed. But I do believe that action does need to be taken. Action needs to be taken so that we can, in fact, stabilize the credit markets and bring about stability. That's what we should be doing at this moment, Mr. Speaker. That's what we should be doing right now. We should not be wasting time on this kind of effort when we can very easily get a measure that by a 93- 2 vote has passed the Senate and that the President of the United States is prepared to sign so that we can provide AMT relief to those 22 million Americans who desperately need it, so that we can make the research and development tax credit extended, so that we can have creative, new ideas, so that we can deal with incentives for alternative energy sources to play a role in bringing down the costs to the American people and those around the world who are looking for alternative energy sources that will be generated right here in the United States of America. And so, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am very saddened that we're taking the action that we are, and I hope very much that we can defeat this rule so that we'll be able to bring up that proposal that, again, will provide that kind of relief, and it will get the measure to the Senate, it will get the measure to the President's desk. And we know very well the Democratic majority leader, the majority leader in the United States Senate, our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Reid) has made it clear that he's not about to take up this measure from the House because they've passed, by a 93-2 vote, the item that the President of the United States is prepared to sign so that we can meet the President's goal here. So I hope that we can defeat this rule. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. 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, 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 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. 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 also yield my friend 10 seconds.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are, as I pointed out at the beginning of the debate on this issue, faced with a very serious economic downturn. A crisis of confidence exists in our financial markets. An attempt is being made in a bipartisan way to deal with that at this very moment. We all hope that there can be a resolution that ensures that taxpayers are not going to be unfairly saddled with a responsibility, and that the government is not going to expand its reach any further. As we look at those bipartisan negotiations going on right now between the two bodies, including the White House, Democrats and Republicans alike, it seems to me that we need to recognize that what we are engaging in here is little more than posturing. Yes, we all acknowledge that there are things in this measure that are very important that we need to address, but this is not the way to do it--in an overnight package that was presented at 9:43 this morning, 46 pages long, rammed through the Rules Committee with a partisan vote, and already terminated in the United States Senate, and with the President of the United States stating that if he were to get this measure, he would, in fact, veto it. So I wonder why it is that we are here. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has twice this week, before the Rules Committee, said that the most famous line from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech was, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'' but, he said, the line that got the greatest ovation was, ``We must take action.'' It is very clear that we do need to take action. But action should not be taken in a way that completely undermines the deliberative process. There were mistakes that were made in the past Congresses, and I will acknowledge that. Some of those mistakes that were made led to the establishment of this document called ``A New Direction for America.'' This ``A New Direction for America'' has just been obliterated. It is absolutely worthless, because it has been thrown out the window, a commitment made that has been ignored. I want to say that I hope that we can defeat this rule. We are going to try to defeat the previous question. Recognizing that this Nation needs to use more of its natural resources while looking to the future with renewable sources of energy, Republicans are advocating an all-of- above approach. We believe that this legislation will lower the price of gasoline, which is what fuels America's cars today. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow a resolution which will prevent Congress from skipping town until we pass comprehensive legislation that will bring down the high cost of energy for American consumers. My colleagues will have the opportunity to support giving States the opportunity to explore and extract energy resources right off their own coasts, opening America's Arctic energy slope, extending renewal energy incentives, supporting research for alternative clean fuels, and minimizing unnecessary litigation that delays or prevents American energy production. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous materials inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.