David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the extension of the e- verify program, which I have supported since it was initially created under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Since that time we have continued our fight to strengthen our immigration laws. Unfortunately when we had the debate in 1996 my colleagues did not approve an amendment to make our Social Security card counterfeit- proof. Since that time, I have worked with my colleagues in a bi- partisan way to ensure that we improve our employment verification system and Social Security cards so that neither is susceptible to fraud. To achieve this goal I have introduced H.R. 98, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Social Security Protection Act with my colleague from Texas, the distinguished chair of the House Intelligence Committee and former Border Patrol Agent Silvestre Reyes. This bill would go a long way to address the employment magnet that draws illegal immigrants to the United States. It is important to note that the bill before us commissions further studies on the e-verify program. We know from a 2005 GAO study on e- verify that the system is still susceptible to fraud and cannot identify when multiple people are using the same Social Security number. The raids conducted of Swift Meatpacking plants in 2006 showed the ease with which fraudulent Social Security numbers were used to gain unlawful employment. Swift was an e-verify participant and yet was found to have been employing several hundred illegal immigrants. While I support this measure to extend the program, I hope very much that we can have a more open debate on the need to prevent fraud in our employment verification system. Only when we address the need to improve the security of the Social Security card and employment verification system will we be able crack down on the employment magnet that draws people to this country illegally.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this disgraceful rule. To illustrate just how bad this rule is, and to provide some context, I'd like to discuss a few telling numbers. I'm just going to throw these numbers out there for consideration: 12, 7, 4 and 9. That's 12, 7, 4 and 9. These numbers are significant, and let me tell you why. The first number is 12. The House has 12 appropriations bills that it must consider in order to fund the Federal budget; 12 bills to consider in order to responsibly exercise our constitutional power of the purse; 12 appropriations bills that cover the priorities that are first and foremost in Americans' minds. We've now reached the final week of July and the Democratic majority has brought up its adjournment resolution. Traditionally, this is the week when the House wraps up its versions of these 12 appropriations bills, or at least a majority of them. The idea is to finalize or make significant progress in our most important duty as legislators before adjourning for a month of recess in August. So now that we have arrived at the end of July, how many appropriations bills remain for the House to consider? Twelve. Every last one of them. Today we are considering our very first one of 12. The Democratic Majority thought, what the heck, why not squeeze one in before heading out of town. So, we're starting our job right about the time we've traditionally tried to finish it. And speaking of tradition, one of the longest-held traditions in this body is the practice of considering all regular appropriations bills under a completely open process. This is one of the few opportunities in the House where all Members, majority and minority, have the unfettered ability to offer any amendments they see fit. These amendments are of course subject to points of order, and ultimately a vote. But Members have had the opportunity to offer them and make their case. Which brings me to the second number on my list: the number 7. We would have to go back 7 years to find any example of restrictions on a general appropriations bill. In 2001, the Rule providing for consideration of the Foreign Operations bill had a pre-printing requirement. This restriction was entirely unopposed. Not one voice of opposition was raised, and the Rule passed by voice vote. And what was the reason for this restriction? We had a very busy week, in a very busy month, and we all agreed--Democrats and Republicans--agreed to expedite the procedures. Considering we passed 9 of 13 appropriations bills prior to departing for August recess that year, I suppose you could say the unopposed restrictions were justified. Seven years passed before any restrictions were again imposed. Until today. Today the Democratic majority is apparently exhausted by their efforts to name post office buildings and avoid meaningful action to bring down energy costs. They are in such a rush to get out the door for a 5-week recess that they insist on bringing up their very first appropriations bill under a restricted Rule. They are denying Members the ability to freely bring their amendments to the floor and have their voices heard. And to add an element of the absurd, they are actually calling this an open rule. With straight faces, no less. What's the reason for this closed process? I don't doubt expediency plays a part. When you're rushing out the door, you prefer not to get bogged down by open, substantive debate. But the full explanation lies in what the Democratic majority hopes to avoid--any possibility that Republicans will seek to offer energy-related amendments to the underlying bill. Which brings us to the third number on my list: the number 4. Americans are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gas. The mutually reinforcing trends of high gas prices and high food prices have strained working Americans enormously. They know Government policies bear much of the blame, and they rightly expect this Congress to do something about it. Republicans have tried every means possible to force this Democratic majority to consider real solutions to our energy crisis. But we have faced nothing but roadblocks. And now, the Democratic majority is using every trick in the book to get out of town without ever scheduling a meaningful vote. And on their way out the door, they are trampling on the rights of Members to an open and fair appropriations process. And this brings us to the fourth and final number: the number 9. The latest polls show Congress' approval rating at an abysmal 9 percent. All but 9 percent of the American population thinks we are failing at our job. Frankly, I'd like to know who this 9 percent is who supports what we're doing. Under the Democratic majority, we are failing in our duty to address Federal spending. We are failing in our duty to find a workable and effective solution to the energy crisis we face. We are failing in our duty to have open and honest debate on the challenges we face. And just this afternoon, we had a vote on a resolution to adjourn, despite all of these failures. Mr. Speaker, the numbers don't lie. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1384 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6108) to provide for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Mr. Rahall of West Virginia or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, obviously, through this extraordinary process, there is such a demand for time. We have so many committees of jurisdiction. It is a real challenge. We have only 14 minutes remaining; is that it?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to my friend that we have been constantly arguing that we're willing to sit down and talk about this and debate these issues at any time. And we're willing, and the two top dogs on the Ways and Means Committee have both said they're willing to do that; and we've been willing all along. And that's exactly what this provision is all about. The fact of the matter is the tax cuts that have been put into place dramatically surge the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. We all know that. And we have a responsibility to look at anything we possibly can to bring about a fiscally responsible Medicare program and we're going to do that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. DREIER. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we very clearly have an opportunity before us. We have an opportunity to defeat this rule so that we can do what it is that we came here to do. We have had a wide range of recommendations that have come here from the Medicare commission. And we have a proposal that is before us submitted by the majority leader and the minority leader as required under this law. It made two very important recommendations dealing with liability reform in ways which we could bring about fiscal responsibility of Medicare. That's what our charge is. That is what our job is as Members of the United States Congress. The action that we are about to take in this House is to simply sweep it under the rug and pass off to the future what we were sent here to do right now. We're rapidly approaching the date by which time we need to begin taking action. That is July 30. And our colleagues, unfortunately, have chosen to turn their back on those who want to bring about a fiscally responsible solution to a challenge that we all know is looming. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule so that we can move ahead and do the right thing for our seniors and for future generations. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. May I just inquire how many speakers are on the other side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, so may I inquire again as to how much time is remaining on each side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I just inquire of my friend how many speakers he has on his side. I have got to say that before I do, Mr. Speaker, we have the Committee on the Budget, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, the Rules Committee, all of which have jurisdiction on this. We've been limited to 30 minutes of debate on this side, and I just wondered if he might be interested in propounding a unanimous consent request that we extend the debate by maybe 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. DREIER. The gentleman is going to have to object. I was asking unanimous consent if we might.

Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. You yield to me, and then I would be happy to yield additional time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say we have a wide range of choices as to how we can cut spending. At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished friend, the gentleman from Springfield, our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 10 seconds, Mr. Speaker, to say to my very good friend that if, in fact, he is willing to have a debate any time on this issue, what he needs to do is vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can proceed with that debate. At this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, my friend from Dallas, Mr. Hensarling.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Midland, Michigan, a hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I would be happy to yield additional time if my friend would yield to me.

Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend who is a former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. DREIER. That is exactly what my friend is arguing, and I am here and willing to do just that, on this issue and every single other issue.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Westchester, Ohio, our distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished ranking Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Shreveport, Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend, my Rules Committee colleague from Fort Lauderdale, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I have to say that I rise in strongest possible opposition to this rule. Only under this new majority, Mr. Speaker, could an attempt to ensure fiscal responsibility be described as nothing more than a procedural gimmick, and only under this new majority, Mr. Speaker, can we once again be taking action that totally subverts what we're all about here, and that is an open and fair debate. At issue today is a provision enacted by Republicans to ensure that Medicare is administered in an effective and a responsible way. When we created the prescription drug benefits for seniors, we included a provision to require regular reports on how Medicare is funded. We wanted to know, is the Medicare trust fund sufficient to cover the costs? Or are we drawing from the general Treasury to pay for it? And if we are, how much? If two consecutive reports indicated that over 45 percent of Medicare's costs would come from the general Treasury over the next 7 years, Congress would have to act. We did not mandate what steps Congress would have to take. We simply required that solutions be examined, debated and brought to a vote, something that seems to be anathema to this new majority. We believed this provision was critically important because we, as Republicans, have two very important goals for Medicare. First, it must effectively provide health care coverage for our seniors. Second, Mr. Speaker, it must be run efficiently and responsibly. Today we are confronting exactly the scenario that concerned us and led to this point. We have had two consecutive reports indicating that Medicare will exceed the cost threshold for years to come. In accordance with the law, the President submitted a proposal to restore fiscal discipline while ensuring that seniors continue to receive high quality care. Under the rules of the House, we are approaching the deadline to consider the proposal. But this new majority leadership, unable or unwilling to address runaway costs, simply wants to make this attempt at good governance go away, completely vanish. The rule before us today would quash the provision requiring us to consider a legislative fix. It allows runaway entitlement spending to continue unabated. Naturally, our good friends on the other side of the aisle are going to try to distract us from the facts today. They are going to rail against the circumstances, as we have already heard from my friend from Fort Lauderdale surrounding the original prescription drug vote in an attempt to obscure the real issue. This is a favorite trick of theirs, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic majority leadership cannot defend their own actions, so they stir up fights about Republicans. They can thunder away about 5-year-old fights all they want, but it won't absolve them of the actions that they are trying to take here today. Today they are in charge. They are responsible for their actions as the majority. They cannot distract the American people from the fact when they were presented with a proposal for reforming the cost of Medicare, they decided to change the rules and ignore the problem. That's exactly what is happening here. Mr. Speaker, we have a legislative fix that was submitted by the President of the United States and introduced by the majority and the minority leaders as required by the fiscal discipline procedures put into place by Republicans in this important bill. It recommends two steps to rein in skyrocketing costs. One, it lowers the government subsidy for prescription drug coverage for high-income seniors to save $3.2 billion over 5 years. Second, it reforms the medical liability system and puts patients before trial lawyers, saving nearly $4 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know that that is the panacea, but those are a good start and those are the proposals that the majority leader and the minority leader introduced as required under this law. I know some people may not like those savings. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are enamored with the present liability system and believe that we need more litigation, not less. Others may feel that everyone, regardless of income, should get the full prescription drug subsidy. There may be disagreement on these issues, but they are worthy of consideration and debate, which is what this institution is all about. Debate is exactly what was envisioned by this proposal. It provided for at least ten separate alternatives, each debatable for up to an hour. My friend is absolutely right, it could take 10 hours, but God forbid we spend 10 hours discussing an issue as important as this. We imposed no restrictions. Any proposal for reining in costs could be considered and debated. This is a foreign concept in the 110th Congress, but we actually believe that open, rigorous debate is the key to finding solutions to our most difficult challenges. Unfortunately, the rule before us today continues a very troubling pattern: the Democratic majority leadership would rather duck and cover than stand and deliver on a very important issue for the American people. In case the American people haven't noticed, Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has been locked in a legislative holding pattern. We have at least five appropriations bills which have been ordered reported by the Appropriations Committee. How many have been considered on the floor during this very important traditional appropriation month? Not a single one. Zero. Nada. None. The same is true for real energy legislation. Oh, we've had fig leaves on the floor like the one we had just a couple of hours ago. But the majority is not interested in debate on these measures. They bring controversial energy legislation that no one has ever seen to the floor, and then they impose ultra-restrictive rules so that Republicans, or Democrats, cannot offer their own ideas. These flawed bills fail, of course, but the Democrats get to avoid a real debate on the important issues of conservation, alternative energy sources, and yes, new domestic supplies of oil. This pattern continues today with this rule. Instead of having a real debate on legislation to reform the Medicare program, we are using the rules to completely avoid the program altogether. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is simple. The Democratic majority leadership is more concerned about protecting their Members from tough votes than engaging in the honest and open debate they promised the American people when they won the majority nearly 2 years ago. They are more interested in maintaining their electoral fortunes than tackling the tough business of actually governing. Now if press reports are to be believed, the Democratic majority plans to avoid the most basic responsibility we have as legislators: making decisions about our spending priorities. Instead of doing the business of passing appropriations bills and considering legislation on key issues like how we can get gasoline prices down and how we deal with Medicare, they are going to punt all of the tough choices until the next administration. I am just shaking my head and asking, Mr. Speaker, what is it that we are doing here and what is it that we are afraid of when it comes to doing our work in this 110th Congress? We have an opportunity right here and right now to break this pattern. If we defeat this rule, we can have a real debate on alternatives to reform Medicare spending. We can start the business of governing and have a real debate on the real issue of fiscal responsibility, which is exactly what this provision is all about. But if we pass this rule, it is another blow to responsible government. It is another example of how far the Democratic majority leadership has fallen from the principles that they ran on and promised the American people nearly 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule.