David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution. Here we are dealing with these very, very serious and important challenges that exist all over the country. The gentleman has come forward with Democratic and Republican support for his effort, and it's being denied, once again, under a process that really undermines the deliberative nature of the institution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, it was not only this morning, but it was last night. It has been day in, day out in the Rules Committee. We have repeatedly offered an amendment that five Democratic Members of the Rules Committee have cosponsored as legislation that the gentleman has. Yet they have refused vote after vote upstairs in the Rules Committee to allow us to deal with this very important issue of secure rural schools. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished Rules Committee colleague, my friend from Tampa, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, even though we went through that little bump with my colleague from Pasco temporarily handling it. And I have to say that this is obviously a very solemn, serious and difficult time for our Nation as we are in the midst of facing a financial crisis the likes of which no Member of this House has seen, probably even our oldest Members have not witnessed. Maybe we have a couple of people. Maybe Ralph Hall lived during the Depression. But it is something that most of us clearly have never witnessed before. People are likening this to the economic challenges that we faced following the Second World War. And we are attempting, as we all know, in a bipartisan way to deal with this issue. Our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, is involved in these bipartisan negotiations so that we will be able to have a package emerge from this institution in a bipartisan way that will be able to stabilize the markets, respect the American taxpayer and ensure the kind of stability when people are seeking to keep their homes, run their small businesses and engage in the normal activities that exist in the United States of America. And it's with that as a backdrop, Mr. Speaker, that I have to paraphrase the statement of the former running mate of Ross Perot, the late Admiral James Stockdale, who, in the famous oft-quoted Vice Presidential debate in 1992, said: ``Who am I and why am I here?'' I would ask that somewhat rhetorically, Mr. Speaker, because we are here dealing with a very important issue. Of course job creation is priority number one. Making sure that we can stimulate our economy is a very, very important issue. But this is not the way to do it. And 1 hour ago, the United States Senate made that decision by defeating the motion to proceed in the Senate. So this is dead. The President of the United States put out a statement of administration policy in which he said that this measure would be vetoed if it were to get to the President. And it's not going to. And so that is why I ask, Who are we and why are we here? Because there is absolutely nothing but political posturing taking place. Mr. Speaker, it is being done in the most outrageous of ways in that we regularly show here something that was touted 2 years ago, but we never hear the majority Members talk about any longer, and that is a document called ``A New Direction for America.'' This document was designed to talk about the very important degree of openness and transparency that would exist if in fact the Democrats were to take control of the United States Congress. And unfortunately with where we are, we have completely eviscerated that entire concept of ``A New Direction for America.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all accustomed to hectic, get-out-of-town weeks. The heaviest lifting typically falls to weeks prior to district work periods, when we're all anxious to return home to hear from our constituents. But even under the circumstances, this week's proceedings are absolutely unprecedented. The emergency negotiations, as I mentioned, on a financial rescue package are very difficult. And they are very challenging. And we want to see it done in an appropriate way. But they have been made all the more frantic because they're set against a backdrop of a year's worth of unfinished business right here in the House of Representatives. The Democratic majority has unfortunately shirked virtually every one of its core duties and obligations as legislators. Our most basic and fundamental job is the responsible and efficient spending of the taxpayers' dollars. That is the single most important thing that we do here, is responsibly, with the power of the purse, spending these dollars. This is done through the passage of 12 appropriations bills as we all know. Now, Mr. Speaker, how many of these 12 bills has the House passed as we began this very difficult week? One. Only one of the 12 appropriations bills was passed. And how many have become law? Zero. Not a one. So we arrived at this last week of session for the fiscal year without enacting a single appropriations bill. The Democratic leadership had long since abandoned any plan for attempting to make progress on our constitutional power of the purse. Their solution? Write a bill to put off their duties for another 6 months. They can't be bothered to do their jobs now or after the election. They want to wait until the fiscal year is half over before finally getting to work. So we started this week after what amounts to a 9-month vacation from responsible legislating. The Democratic majority decided to take three of the 12 appropriations bills, one of which never even went through committee, and slap them together. They tacked on $55 billion in extra funding for various causes, extended their fiscal deadline for 6 months and sent it up to the Rules Committee barely an hour before we reported it out. The entire body of their appropriations work for the entire year was put together in one bill, the bulk of which was delayed by half a year. They were kind enough to give us an hour before meeting on the rule at nearly 11 o'clock at night. It was on the floor the next morning. And voila. They put the entire Federal budget to bed as far as they were concerned. But that was Tuesday. What did we do yesterday? The Democratic majority's flawed tax extenders bill, and a $100 million mistake. In their rush to pump out bad legislation, the Rules Committee ended up passing out a rule and bringing it to the floor for a bill that no longer existed. Democrats and Republicans were actually voting on two different bills. The discrepancy, as I said, was over $100 million in tax increases. Now to many in this institution on the other side of the aisle who have this sort of tax-and-spend mentality, $100 million in taxes may seem to be very insignificant. But not to the American people. Not to the American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, and certainly not at times like these. Fortunately this mistake was caught, and we returned to the Rules Committee to fix it. What other mistakes have gone unnoticed? We may never know until it's too late. But this is the very real risk when you jam through a flawed agenda in a frantic and haphazard way. And this bill is a perfect example of that. Having punted on appropriations and jamming through the tax extenders bill after two tries, now the Democratic majority is free to turn to everything else they meant to do this year. How do you do a year's worth of work in 1 week? For starters, you don't, Mr. Speaker. You just don't. There are a host of very critical issues that simply won't be addressed this week, such as our Nation's energy crisis. But you can certainly move things along by shutting down due process entirely. We did their hodgepodge appropriations bill without a single amendment or even a motion to recommit. We did their tax extenders bill without a single amendment either. Now we are considering a rule to waive the rules to allow the underlying bill to be expedited. Then we will consider a rule to bring up the underlying bill. Again, this is a bill that the President has said he would veto and a bill that is similar to it is not even going to get through the United States Senate. So once again, under a completely closed process, there is no opportunity whatsoever for Members to participate in any kind of real debate. What is the result of this haphazard way of legislating? First and foremost, there is clearly no deliberation. Now say what you want about this place, but the American people do send us here to think about, to discuss, to ponder and to try and work out a compromise in a bipartisan way as we proceed with what it is that we are trying to do. So no deliberation at all. I mean, there is no means for amendment. There is no means for open debate. Second, as we have just seen again from that tax extenders bill, mistakes are inevitable. This clearly goes beyond poor policy. And shirking our duties for another 6 months is clearly very, very poor policy. As yesterday's proceedings demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, we are also talking about the sloppy mistakes that are an inevitable result of shoddy work. The Democrats roundly criticized us for moving our agenda too quickly in the past few Congresses. They were particularly critical of not giving Members or the American people enough time to review legislation so this deliberative process could proceed. Now on this document which I pointed to when I first stood up here entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' this document, by the way, I would say to our colleagues, is still available on the Speaker's Web site. So if anyone would like to read a copy of ``A New Direction for America,'' I commend it to them. In this document, they promised this new direction, as I said. And it reads as follows: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. ``Rules governing floor debate,'' it reads, ``must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how ``2 hours'' equals ``at least 24 hours,'' which is what was promised in this New Direction for America by Speaker Pelosi. It is that kind of math, long on promises, short on results, that got us into our current financial crisis. Mr. Speaker, as we consider today's underlying bill, amusingly called a stimulus bill by the Democratic majority, the American people should know it was written through the night and sent to us at 9:43 this morning. Not even Republican appropriators had seen it, so not even members of the Appropriations Committee have seen it. I just had a chance to look through it, and we have some unbelievable things we have found in this. Members should know the Democratic majority is rushing to cover up 9 months of nothing with a flurry of activity in these waning hours of the 110th Congress. They are resorting to draconian measures and shutting out all meaningful debate in this charade. They are pushing off the real work for another 6 months. And they are producing such shoddy work that a $100 million tax increase is ``a mistake,'' and that kind of thing is appearing here. Mr. Speaker, this is one sorry week for the House of Representatives. I don't believe that the American people will be fooled. Now, of course, as my colleague talked about the importance of infrastructure construction, building schools, making sure that we provide relief to those who are truly in need and have suffered from the economic downturn that we all know is there, to do it in the way that is being done is, I think, a very, very sad commentary on this great deliberative institution. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. It is a martial law rule which is very, very unfair. We do need to, at the very least, give our Members an opportunity to have a chance to read this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to as I do this engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Hood River, Oregon, who has long been a great champion of something known as the Secure Rural Schools Program, something that has enjoyed very strong bipartisan support. In fact, five Democratic members the Rules Committee are cosponsors of legislation designed to address that. I will say that obviously we know that as we deal with this economic downturn, everyone has acknowledged it, there are many things that do need to be addressed. And we know that FMAP is one of them, dealing with Medicaid reimbursement to our States, infrastructure construction, as I said, working to do what we can to stimulate economic growth. We happen to believe very strongly that it is also essential for us to do all that we can to stimulate private sector economic growth. Now, I know that that term may be difficult for some in this institution to comprehend, but we do have a $14 trillion, that is with a T, a $14 trillion economy in the United States of America. We are the world's only complete superpower. And we are going through extraordinarily challenging economic times. But we need to remember that our goal with the package that we put together in dealing with this financial crisis will be one that is designed to create stability, security and confidence in our credit markets and in the overall financial system. No doubt about that. My State of California, the West and other parts of the country are dealing with the fact that the Washington Mutual Bank was just taken over, and I have to say having spoken with top leaders at J.P. Morgan, I am very grateful that all of those deposits are in fact secure with J.P. Morgan's acquisition having taken place there. But we know in other areas there is a lot of uncertainty. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we want to do what we can to put into place policies that will encourage private sector economic growth. Unfortunately, this so-called stimulus package that has been presented to us is one that is focused on public sector economic growth. Again, many parts of it we support. It is very key for us to have an infrastructure system in this country if we are going to encourage the private sector movement of goods in the country and for people to be able to move around. We know that these are very important items. But there are many, many other things that we need to do to deal with private economic growth. Now, I talked about the procedural problem that we have and the fact that this New Direction for America has been eviscerated by the actions that we are taking here, and that has been the case for the entire Congress, tragically. But we just now had, as my friend from Hood River said very well, received this at 9:43 this morning, so a number of us are having a chance to look at this. My friend just pointed to me on page 12, the fact that we have something in this bill known as the 21st Century Green High Performing Public School Facilities for the Department of Education, which would allow for the construction of so-called green schools, putting roughly $3 billion, $3 billion in this, to build schools in the Mariana Islands, Micronesia and other spots. And I know that the package that my friend from Hood River, Oregon, has been championing, working with our Rules Committee colleague Mr. Hastings on for secure rural schools, has a cost of about $3.1 billion over a 4-year period. So we are just finding these things out in this measure. To me, it is beyond the pale that they would come forward without allowing a single opportunity to work in a bipartisan way. I congratulate my friend from Tampa for talking about the need for us to work in a bipartisan way. She is absolutely right. I totally concur with that. Unfortunately, this legislation is doing anything but that. I would like to now yield to my friend from Hood River, Oregon, a great champion of the Secure Rural Schools Program.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to my friend from Tampa if she would like to explain exactly how this is going to be paid for.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks by talking about the fact that we are dealing with a very serious economic downturn and a financial crisis in this country, and very serious attempts are being made to work in a bipartisan way. We have Republican representation. I know Speaker Pelosi and those at the White House are working on this. Now, to liken this $60 billion package that was just dropped on us, which is designed to dramatically increase public spending, with the effort that Democrats and Republicans alike are pursuing to try and deal with the economic challenges that we face as a country when it comes to the confidence level of markets and people who are losing their homes, is just preposterous. I would be happy to further yield to my friend from Hood River.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker I reserve 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.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague; I understand that the customary 30 minutes was yielded to my friend from Pasco, Washington. And I would just like to state for the record that I will be managing the rule on this side, and so I would hope very much that my friend from Tampa might consider yielding to me.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would continue to yield. It's my understanding that there were a couple of items that were put in in handwriting from the Ways and Means Committee that were not reflected in what went forward to the Rules Committee. And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to inquire of the distinguished majority leader if he might enlighten us as to exactly what that problem is with which the Rules Committee is going to have to contend.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. It's my understanding that there also was a disparity between the bill that was included on the Web site as well as the bill that was submitted to the Rules Committee. So it sounds to me as if there is quite a bit of confusion around this. And I hope very much that this will be an issue that can be addressed. And I would say, if my friend would continue to yield, that to me this really underscores--and I know that we're in what we hope will be the last week of this session of this Congress--that moving rapidly like this does create the potential for problems. And so it seems to me that there may be a little more to this than appears right now, as I just heard that the Web site had something that was reported differently. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Chang Industry. Address of Requesting Entity: 968 West Palomares Avenue, La Verne, California 91750. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $3,200,000 to develop Fire Shield, an Active Protection System (APS) with the guidance of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center in Warren, Michigan. Fire Shield would be used to protect armored vehicles from the blast effects and the plasma jet of rocket propelled grenades (RPG) by detecting and destroying incoming projectiles. Approximately $112,000 is for identifying and refining the operational requirement; $2,120,000 is for system development; $320,000 is for materials and equipment; $648,000 is for testing and evaluation. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Tanner Research. Address of Requesting Entity: 825 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, California 91016. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,600,000 to complete development of a Dual-Mode Micro Seeker (radio frequency/electro- optical (RF/EO)) being developed with the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. This funding seeks to improve the accuracy of gun-launched and small missile interceptors used on current and emerging defensive weapons systems. Approximately 12 percent ($192,000) will be used for RF signal processing development; 34 percent ($544,000) for monolithic microwave integrated circuits and complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor integrated circuit development; 24 percent ($384,000) for EO avalanche photodiode (APD) circuit development; 18 percent ($288,000) for RF seeker integration; and 12 percent ($192,000) for EO seeker integration. The Dual-Mode (RF/EO) Micro Seeker will provide ground- based defensive systems with low-cost gun-launched and small missile interceptors with the accuracy needed to counter incoming rocket, artillery and mortar threats. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Air Force, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advanced Projects Research, Incorporated. Address of Requesting Entity: 1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite B, La Verne, California 91750. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $800,000 to continue testing and development of the Wavelength Agile Spectral Harmonic (WASH) Oxygen Sensor with the guidance of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The WASH Oxygen Sensor intends to measure oxygen concentration in military high- performance fuel tanks. This Cell Level Battery Controller monitors and controls charge and temperature at the cell level of military battery energy storage systems. Approximately $76,800 will be used for project management; $117,400 for engineering analysis; $220,000 for engineering design; $146,800 for hardware fabrication and assembly; $176,000 for test engineering; $9,500 for material and hardware; and $53,500 for subcontracts. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air Force RDT&E account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Air National Guard, Operation and Maintenance account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Gentex Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 11525 Sixth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $800,000 to supply Air National Guard aircrews with approximately 888 MBU-20A/P Oxygen Masks with Mask Lights. The oxygen mask's unit price is approximately $900 per unit. The MBU-20A/P was approved for fleetwide implementation in an effort to standardize to a common enhanced oxygen mask. Approximately, 34 percent ($272,000) of the funding is for manufacturing labor; 4 percent ($32,000) is for sustainment and systems engineering support; 6 percent ($48,000) is for inspections and tests; 20 percent ($160,000) is for general and administrative; 35 percent ($280,000) is for material; 1 percent ($8,000) is for packaging handling shipping and transportation. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air National Guard, Operation and Maintenance account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Air National Guard, Operation and Maintenance account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Hope. Address of Requesting Entity: 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, California. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 for the Advanced Molecular Medicine Initiative (AMMI), which is being developed under the guidance of the Naval Medical Research Center in Silver Spring, Maryland. This funding will be used for AMMI, an innovative molecular-targeted therapy that allows for a more effective and less toxic treatment of cancer at the molecular level by targeting drugs specifically to the affected cells, rather than the conventional entire body approach. Approximately 25 percent ($500,000) is for research; 18.75 percent ($375,000) is for genotyping; 12.5 percent ($250,000) is for microarrays; 18.75 percent ($375,000) is for proteomics; 12.5 percent ($250,000) is for X-ray crystallography and 12.5 percent ($250,000) is for computing. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Navy, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation account.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her very thoughtful contribution, and let me just respond to a couple of points. First and foremost, I place human life first, at the top. And so I think it's absolutely essential, I would say to my friend from Ohio, that she know that that is priority number 1. Human rights are priority number 1. And the fact is, we have seen Colombia, as a nation, in a 5-year period of time, go through a more positive transformation than any nation in modern history. And the fact that the Colombian Government, under President Uribe, has stood up and fought very, very vigorously in behalf of bringing to justice those who have been responsible for any killings. The demobilization, taking people who have been part of the FARC and the paramilitaries and bringing them into society, Democrats and Republicans alike have seen that time and time again as I have in two recent trips that I have taken to Colombia. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the reason I mentioned the State of Ohio is that I want to do everything that I possibly can to create more good jobs for the constituents of Ms. Kaptur and other Ohioans throughout the State. Whirlpool is a very important Ohio company, and this agreement will allow workers for Whirlpool to create products that can be sold into Colombia. And so all I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that by virtue of having this date, it is a slap at the American worker and it is undermining our chance to get this economy growing again by prying open these new markets so that we can export our goods and services into the country. Mr. Speaker, again, there are good things in this measure, but I am strongly opposed to this rule, the structure around which we are considering it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I have to say that it is very sad that we are here at this point, having gone through the past several Congresses with the then-minority maligning us for not having completed our work. In the last Congress, I am happy we were able to actually pass out of the House 11 appropriations bills. In this Congress, one appropriations bill, this session of Congress has passed out of the House. It is unfortunate having been maligned so viciously for such a long period of time that here we are using a structure which is one that was used only once in the 109th Congress, and it is a structure that denies any Member an opportunity to provide even the slightest opportunity for an amendment. No motion to recommit, no substitute, no amendment at all. This is actually concurring in a Senate amendment with an amendment which is a procedure that has now been used 15 times in this Congress to completely subvert the rights of the minority to do anything, to have, as I say, one bite at the apple. It saddens me that we are doing that again. And I think back to the promises that were made 2 years ago right now when we were in the midst of the 2006 campaign. We were promised that if we in fact allowed Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, it would be a whole new day and the kind of horrible action that we had seen in the past would be history. What we were told, Mr. Speaker, is we would not see closed rules. This happens to be the 63rd closed rule that we have had in this Congress, the largest number of closed rules, again preventing any Member from having any opportunity to offer any amendment at all. Not one single amendment allowed, and this is the 63rd closed rule. Mr. Speaker, never before in the 230-year history of the Republic have we had the number of closed rules that we have had in the 110th Congress. And then you look at the promises for things like not meeting after 10 p.m. in the Rules Committee. Last night we met right up until midnight. You look at all of these promises that were made, and it is sad that the only statement that I regularly hear from my good friends on the other side of the aisle is how horrible we were. I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee, and we continue to hear, well, you did this and how horrible it was when you were chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, they never once talk about the promises that were made to be different. I never, never thought that they would be as bad as they have been when it comes to this process of deliberation. Frankly, where we are right now with this rule for consideration of this measure is exactly that, denying any opportunity whatsoever. And again, it is the 15th time in this Congress where we have concurred in a Senate amendment with an amendment which again shuts out--and, by the way, we never, we never contemplated doing this, Mr. Speaker, in the consideration of an appropriations bill. Appropriations bills, as we all know, are regularly considered under by and large a completely open process. Having said that, I will say, and we had our exchange with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee last night, there are some things in this bill that I am very, very happy about. My distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx, along with our colleagues Mike Pence, Tom Price and others, and I was privileged to be here on one occasion, they were here virtually every single day during the month of August. Why? Well, to refresh the memories of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and yours as well, at the very end of the month of July just as Congress was getting ready to leave for the month of August, we were arguing that we should in fact have a debate and a vote on considering a wide range of proposals that the American people had said that we should at least have a vote on that would allow us to see the price of gasoline come down, that would allow us to see the cost of the price of natural gas come down, and allow us to vigorously pursue important alternative energy sources--wind, solar, biodiesel, green crude, nuclear. We said in late July that we should have a debate and we should not leave the Congress, we should not leave Washington until we completed that. And so on the last day, by a one-vote margin, the minority was denied an opportunity to be able to even speak, to even address this issue. So we all know what happened right after. Even when the gavel came down and by a one-vote margin the majority chose to cut off specials orders that would have simply been an opportunity to talk about the need for looking at alternative energy sources and allowing for exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR and other areas, what happened, well, Members on our side of the aisle took to the well, when the lights were dim and there were only tourists who were here in the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, that went on during the entire month of August. During the entire month of August. And the American people were able to come in, fill this Chamber, even though the lights were out and the microphones weren't working, and Members on our side, led by Virginia Foxx and the others whom I have mentioned, they talked about the need for us to have an all-of-the- above solution to the problem of high gasoline prices and overall high energy prices. We are still dealing with that serious problem. I see my fellow Angeleno, Jane Harman, here. In Southern California, we pay very high prices for gasoline and people drive great distances. I know that her constituents, just as mine are, are very, very concerned about high gasoline prices. They still want to see the cost of gasoline go down and do what we can to get gasoline costs down and deal with transportation and a wide range of other issues. I was really struck when, over that August break, Santa Barbara's County Board of Supervisors--Santa Barbara, California, and to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, 39 years ago, one of the most horrendous oil spills took place off the coast of Santa Barbara. Seals, birds, it killed, all kinds of devastation, because of this horrible oil spill that took place 39 years ago. And yet, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is the members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors have recognized that the technology that exists in 2008 is dramatically advanced from that that existed 39 years ago when we saw that horrible oil spill. They know that today we have safety valves and lots of other advances that have been made that will work to ensure that we would not see that kind of accident. And so what has happened, even in Santa Barbara County, California, the County Board of Supervisors voted to allow exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf. They said that they don't have the power to do it, but they voted in favor of doing that. And so, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say that one of the good things in this measure is that we are going to, with its passage, see the expiration of that moratorium that was put into place following the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. It's existed for a long period of time, but the American people recognize that we can, in an environmentally sound way, in a safe way, engage in this kind of responsible exploration. I also want to say that as we look at this overall energy issue, there are many other things that need to be addressed that are not being addressed. Yes, we are taking some of these things in a piecemeal way. Why? Because both Democrats and Republicans alike have heard from their constituents about the need to deal with high energy costs and so some of these things are being addressed. But we have been arguing, Mr. Boehner and others, that we need to have this all-of-the-above solution. And so I want to say again to my colleague, Virginia Foxx, and to the others who virtually every single day during the month of August, came here, stood in a dark Chamber without the benefit of a microphone talking to a place filled with tourists who were here and getting a very, very positive response, thank them for continuing to keep this issue in behalf of the American people on the forefront, in the forefront in this debate. I will say that again there are other items in this measure that are important. But one thing that I find particularly troubling is the date at which time this continuing resolution will expire. I happen to believe that, as we look at the economic challenges that we are facing, and we all know that we've had meetings with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and a wide range of other people who are involved in trying to responsibly deal with a rescue package that we are going to have to face, I have grave concerns about what I've seen, but it is an issue which we need to address. Creating American jobs and getting the economy growing is the single most important thing that we can do to deal with the fiscal crisis that we face right now. Economic growth is the key. And that's why I'm troubled with this March 6, 2009, expiration date, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because by virtue of our taking this action, we, I believe, will, for all intents and purposes, not have a chance to vote on a very, very important agreement, a trade agreement that is designed to pry open new markets, to create jobs right here in the United States of America. And I'm talking, first and foremost, about the very important Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the State of Ohio is a State that has suffered from the economic slowdown. There are great products that are made in Ohio, in Illinois and other States that have been suffering. Caterpillar tractors, Whirlpool washing machines and refrigerators and all. Those things could be sold in great numbers to the 40 million consumers in Colombia, tariff-free, if we were to actually pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Unfortunately, extending this continuing resolution to March of next year, I believe, will play a big role in diminishing the prospect for a so-called lame duck session that would allow us to do that. This is a slap, not only at Colombia, our strongest ally on the South American continent, but at all of Latin America, and, Mr. Speaker, it is a slap at any country in the world that might be contemplating embarking on negotiations with the United States of America in its attempt to deal with this.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I suspect that after many decades of stellar public service, this will be one of the last times that we see our good friend from Buffalo (Mr. Reynolds) who served ably as a member of the Rules Committee for many years and now as a member of the Ways and Means Committee actually manage a measure on the floor. I would like to thank him for his wonderful public service and to say that we are very pleased to be here with this very important measure. I don't want to be the skunk at a picnic, but I have to point to a couple of very, very important issues. I listened to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) talk about the fact that Mr. Neal has moved forward with a measure that is paid for. The fact of the matter is we are waiving PAYGO on this provision which will allow us to deal with this patch for the AMT relief. We all know back in 1969, 155 millionaires were the target of the alternative minimum tax, as was pointed out by my friend from Houston (Mr. Brady). The fact is, the indexation has created a situation whereby millions and millions and millions of Americans are now saddled with this responsibility. Madam Speaker, what we heard time and time again was that in this new Congress, we were going to have everything paid for. I find it interestingly ironic that here, as we deal with the alternative minimum tax, this measure, we have suspended the rules and waived PAYGO on this. Yet we did not choose to do that when we dealt with the very important issue that the American people wanted us to try to address, and that is to bring gasoline prices down with a responsible energy bill. We chose to waive it for the farm bill. Unfortunately, again, on the gas issue, we didn't waive it there, and we are waiving it again here. I would also like to point to the fact that my good friend from New Jersey talked about the fact that his State, I guess, has the third highest number of people impacted by the alternative minimum tax. The issue of repealing the alternative minimum tax is a high priority for many of us. I believe that it should be completely eliminated.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. Let me say that I believe it's important for us to remember that a very short 8 years ago, in 1999, the House and the Senate passed a repeal of the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, President Clinton at that time chose to veto that measure. We can get into the issue of paid for or not paid for, but it's interesting that the measure we are considering today is basically under the same structure that we in 1999 passed the repeal of the alternative minimum tax out under and President Clinton chose to veto it at that point.

Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Jersey.