David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

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.

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

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. DREIER. Madam Speaker, all of us are watching the news, concerned about the economy and our financial markets. The regulators of our financial services companies, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the banking regulators are all using the tools they have at their disposal to make sure small investors and depositors are as safe as possible in this environment. Among the most important duties that fall to our banking regulators is the protection of deposits. Average families and small business owners alike all depend on the Federal safety net to ensure that their savings are safe. Sometimes, ensuring the safety of those deposits requires regulators to step in when a bank or thrift becomes insolvent. For instance, in my own district, I have nearly 10,000 IndyMac depositors. The FDIC acted quickly to resolve this institution and is running it until that bank can either be returned to business as a safe institution, or its assets, including the deposits, can be transferred to a stronger financial institution that can meet the demands of its depositors. While Congress has taken steps over the past several years to ensure that the deposit insurance system is strong--and it is--the IndyMac situation demonstrates that every bank failure is different. Therefore, the regulators need as much flexibility as possible to ensure that they can respond to whatever the market throws at them. That is why today I am introducing the ``FDIC Flexibility Act of 2008.'' After talking with the widely respected Bill Seidman, the chairman of the FDIC during much of the response to the savings and loan crisis, I believe that some well-intentioned provisions of the law may actually make the FDIC's job of resolving troubled institutions harder, not easier. The bill will repeal the ``low cost solution'' provisions which require the FDIC to always choose the solution with the lowest cost to the banking fund when resolving an institution. The problem is that what might be a low cost solution for a particular institution might not always be the best or fastest way to ensure that depositors have access to their funds. If depositors can't get access to their money, this can cause a crisis of confidence in the entire banking system, and put other institutions in jeopardy people start runs on banks. Sometimes, the best way to resolve an institution may not be the absolute cheapest--such as selling the failed institution to a stronger bank at a discount--but it will increase confidence and stability in the banking system as a whole, and reduce exposure over the long-term. I don't believe that this is the silver bullet to resolve every crisis we're facing, nor is it the only answer to the problems of resolving failed banks. But I think we need to have the discussion about what kinds of tools our regulators need, and with an advocate as widely respected as Chairman Seidman, this is a good place to start.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as we all know from listening to our colleagues and, even more importantly, from listening to the American people, the United States is currently facing a host of critical and complex challenges that have an enormous impact on our daily lives. Fuel prices have skyrocketed, creating a ripple effect throughout our entire economy. We pay ever increasing prices at the pump, at the supermarket and nearly everywhere we buy the everyday goods that our families need. We all feel the strain of these rising prices. At the same time, we see our economy softening because of the housing crisis. The threat of radical extremism persists throughout much of the globe, including, of course, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where our brave men and women in uniform are fighting. We, of course, constantly face the problem of illegal immigration, which exposes the weaknesses of our borders and further strains our economy. Madam Speaker, these challenges are as diverse as they are complicated. They did not develop overnight, but have arisen over time. They contribute to a growing and pervasive frustration by the American people. These challenges are daunting, but they are far from hopeless. I believe the key to finding the solutions to the challenges of the 21st century is not to view them as isolated problems. We need a broad, visionary approach that sees these issues for what they are: the interconnected challenges of a smaller and smaller world. Growing demand for energy in both China and India, combined with volatility in the Middle East, central Asia and the Niger Delta contribute to rising gas prices here in the United States. Natural disasters combined with rising fuel prices contribute to a global food crisis that threatens a billion people. Weak and corrupt governments perpetuate poverty in the developing world, which is exacerbated by the growing food crisis, contributing to growing unrest and ripe conditions for radical extremism. Every single day, Madam Speaker, every day, people who have not been screened for a criminal or for a terrorist background enter our country through porous borders. Of course, we know all too painfully well the cabal of 20 hijackers from 7 years ago this coming September 11. They fed off the deep discontent that poverty and ignorance breed. They trained in Afghanistan, received funding through international financing schemes. They entered the United States by way of a broken immigration system and perpetrated, as we all know, the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. These issues are not isolated from each other. Any 21st century agenda for America must recognize the fundamental nature of these issues and take a comprehensive view towards solving them. I believe this demands an approach that looks inward as well as outward. First and foremost, we need to look at how American policy is affecting American problems, and we need to find an American solution. Second, we need to look at the reality of this interconnected world about which I've spoken and give our approach a global view. Our energy crisis provides a good illustration of exactly what I mean. There are a number of contributing factors that are driving up prices, as I've mentioned. There is growing demand abroad. There is volatility in many oil-producing regions, but we are also suffering because we have failed here at home to develop our own domestic solutions. Technology in the oil and gas industry has become so advanced that we can explore and drill without damaging our environment. Yet we have vast resources untapped in ANWR and way off our shores. An increased supply of oil does very little good without the capacity to refine it. Yet we have not built a new refinery in three decades. We all know that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, most cost- effective energy source known to man, and yet we have also not built a new reactor in three decades. Furthermore, despite the fact that we in the United States and in my State of California are the world's leaders in innovation, we have not invested nearly, nearly enough in new green technologies that diminish our dependence on fossil fuels and allow us to use the energy we have more efficiently. Madam Speaker, these are American failures. We need a comprehensive overhaul of our national energy policy to increase our domestic production, improve efficiency, and make us more self-sufficient. But at the same time, there is no escaping the global oil market and the reality that prices are driven by global factors. By promoting our own responsible energy agenda, we don't extricate ourselves from the global market. We shape it, we shape it, Madam Speaker, through our leadership. By increasing supply while diminishing demand through technology improvements, we can help to stabilize and reduce global prices. By neutralizing the acute crises caused by out-of-control prices, we can help to reduce the volatility that drives up prices to begin with. In other words, we need a uniquely American solution without losing sight of our place of leadership in this interconnected world. Madam Speaker, the same is very true for the problem of illegal immigration. Failure on this issue is a failure of our border security. We cannot address this problem without addressing our borders. The solution begins with substantial resources for the border patrol and increased technology, including fencing along our border. We simply must strengthen and modernize our first line of defense. Yet we would be hopelessly shortsighted if we didn't recognize that the problem does not begin, the problem does not begin at the border. It begins in the poor villages of our neighbors to the south. Nowhere else on Earth do a developed and a developing country share a 2,000- mile border. Nowhere else on the face of the earth is a border of 2,000 miles existing between a developed and a developing nation. As we seek to hold back the tide of illegal immigration with a strong border, we must also endeavor to diminish the flow of that tide in the first place. In the long run, Madam Speaker, growth and opportunity in Mexico is the key to ending the scourge of illegal immigration. As their economy grows and jobs are created, the desire to attempt to cross our border will greatly diminish. Because of this, a permanent solution to the problem demands that Mexico pursue sound economic policies so that there is opportunity on both sides of the Rio Grande. Our policy toward Mexico must be focused on encouraging them to be accountable to the Mexican people for making the necessary economic reforms which will lead to this important growth. And because strong economies require strong institutions, we must also encourage them to pursue efforts to build their own capacity. Greater bilateral engagement will ensure Mexico's continued effort to liberalize their economy, to modernize and train their law enforcement and judiciary is important, to build the capacity of their Federal, State, and local government institution is also key, to strengthen the rule of law and provide an environment where economic opportunity can flourish is critically important. It will also ensure that we have an able and effective partner in our efforts to stem the illegal flow of people and narcotics across our border. Madam Speaker, we have already seen, and this doesn't get much attention, but we have already seen some positive results from our engagements. Mexico has taken a number of important steps toward reform, liberalization, and institutional capacity building. President Felipe Calderon put forth a bold reform agenda in his presidential campaign. Since then, he has taken very positive steps in instituting economic reform, strengthening the rule of law, and very important--and they're suffering greatly from this as you know, Madam Speaker-- combating corruption. But we know very well that a great deal of hard work lies ahead for Mexico. Millions, millions still live in poverty, and good jobs are all too rare. Many key institutions are still very weak, exposing shortcomings at all levels of government. The criminal justice system in Mexico is still woefully strained in its efforts to combat the illegal trafficking of drugs, guns, and people. These remaining challenges have left us no choice but to get tough on the issue of border security. But they also demand that we recognize that fundamental reform in Mexico is absolutely essential to tackling illegal immigration in the long run. Again, these are solutions, Madam Speaker, that demand a robust agenda here at home with a view toward the broader international context out of which these challenges arise. The need for development, opportunity, and growth abroad extends well beyond illegal immigration into the tremendous threat we face from the spread of radical and violent extremism. When confronting any national security threat, we know that our Armed Forces are the guarantors of our security. We need a strong, modern military to protect our homeland and fight our battles overseas. But the terrorists' designs of radical extremists will never be thwarted through military might alone. Their ability to perpetrate attacks originates with their efforts to exploit the frustrations and disaffection in the developing world. Madam Speaker, with over a billion people living on less than $1 a day, the potential for exploitation is virtually limitless. Poverty breeds hopelessness, ignorance, and intolerance. These circumstances are made possible by weak or corrupt governments. They do not have the ability to strengthen the institutions that make economic opportunity possible or provide a voice for their people's frustrations. The result, as we all have tragically found, is fertile ground for terrorism. Development is the only long-term sustainable solution because it is the only approach that addresses the root problems. We must pursue greater economic engagement so that new opportunities can be created, and we must also work to strengthen institutions so that governments are more accountable and economies are more open. In March of 2005, I had the great privilege of joining with my colleague, David Price, under the leadership of Speaker Hastert and now Speaker, then-minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, as we founded the House Democracy Assistance Commission. I had the privilege of leading the Commission when we were in the majority. Today we continue that very able work under, as I said, my colleague, Mr. Price. Our Commission endeavors to engage in precisely the kind of capacity building that I have been discussing. We work with 12 legislatures around the world in new and reemerging democracies providing guidance and training in legislative functioning. Our mission, Madam Speaker, within the broad goals of capacity building, is very specific: to strengthen the representative bodies of these fledgling democracies so that they effectively meet the needs of the people they represent. A strong, effective legislature is critical to enacting the economic policies that create both growth and opportunity. It ensures a check on an overreaching executive branch, and it gives a voice to those with grievances, all of which contribute to a vibrant, a very vibrant, prosperous, and peaceful democracy, all of which are necessary to ensure that radical extremism cannot take root. Madam Speaker, clearly our struggle against terrorism demands a global development agenda. Once again, we see that the solution to the challenges we face requires that we look inward as well as outward. We cannot guard against terrorist attacks without a strong national defense, but we cannot overcome terrorism without engaging worldwide. The challenges of the 21st century are not isolated problems, and we cannot hope to address them by isolating ourselves from this interconnected world. Of course, moving forward on these great challenges also demands that we, as Americans, find common ground. In many ways, we, as a Nation, are currently grappling with very fundamental philosophical questions on the problems that we are confronting. A central question we all have is how to apply our core American principles to the new challenges that we face. How do we secure ourselves against new threats without diminishing the civil liberties that we hold so dear? How do we wage a war against Islamist extremism without appearing to treat those of the Muslim faith with the very intolerance that fuels extremism? How do we end the scourge of illegal immigration while continuing to be that shining city on a hill to the many legal immigrants who have always helped to make this country the great Nation that it is? How do we engage in the worldwide marketplace while ensuring that Americans can successfully compete in a very dynamic economic environment? There are those who say that America is bitterly divided today over these questions. Madam Speaker, it's certainly true that there is great diversity of opinion in how to address the security and economic challenges that we face. But if we are willing to engage each other in honest and open debate, this diversity of opinion is our great strength, not our weakness. As we face these substantial new challenges that I discussed, we need that great clash of ideas just as our founders intended. Unfortunately, resorting to inflammatory talking points has supplanted sincere and honest debate. The shrill voices of ``talking heads'' are no substitute for true engagement. Madam Speaker, I believe Americans have grown weary of politics-as- usual, of the endless fighting that takes place right here in Washington, DC, but not because of the existence of opposing views. Americans have grown weary of the obstinacy, the hardened positions and intolerance of differing opinions. The refusal to truly engage in an open and substantive way is something that has frustrated most Americans. Now, Madam Speaker, in a country of over 300 million people there will never, there will never be uniformity of opinion, but there can and should be a deep respect for the clash of ideas and an interest in reaching broad consensus on the great issues of our day. Madam Speaker, this is the essence of the United States of America. And it is the essence of what we just celebrated earlier this month on July 4th: the freedom of ideas, all ideas to be debated, debunked, or developed in this messy process of democracy. I truly believe that our country will rise to the challenges we face today just as we have always done. We will accomplish this through open, sometimes heated and passionate, but always respectful debate. We will accomplish it by applying the core American values that we have long held while maintaining a global perspective on the challenges of the 21st century. Whether the issue is soaring gas prices, illegal immigration, terrorism, or any other challenge that we face, we must set our priorities as Americans. But we must tackle our problems with a worldwide focus, boldly asserting our global leadership role. By doing so, we will make our borders safer, our economy stronger, and our future ever brighter for our children.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Big D for yielding me time and for accurately pointing out the size that we are looking at exploring in an environmentally sound way in Alaska is the size of the Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. I have often said the Dulles International Airport. It's a pretty small area, and I think we need to do that. I just don't get it. I have enjoyed listening to a load of our newly elected friends from the other side of the aisle over the past hour and a half as we have debated the motion to instruct conferees come to the floor and talk about the need for us to increase exploration. Obviously these newly elected Members have been hearing from their constituents just like virtually everyone has. I appreciate the fact that they have had their ear to the ground, and they have heard the hue and cry from the American people that we need to do everything we can to address this problem. The thing is, this bill, as was correctly stated by my friend from Dallas, is nothing but a reaffirmation of current law, and it is called the DRILL Act. The thing that is very perplexing about this is that we are trying to have an all-of-the-above solution, which does include drilling in an environmentally sound way, and yet this bill, which was introduced late last night, just provided to members in the minority again very, very late last night, was cobbled together. We had a Rules Committee meeting yesterday, and no one knew what it was. We offered, at that juncture, a bipartisan, and I stress a bipartisan, package of legislation which has been introduced, considered. A number of those measures are right here in the well with discharge petitions, and these measures are provided, having gone through an airing by Members of this body, and, yet, we are not given a chance to do that, to have a vote on it. Now, again, this is called the DRILL Act, but fact of the matter is, the structure around which we are considering this measure should be we are afraid to vote on the potential for drilling act, is really what it is. Why? Because we know full well that this procedure, known as suspension of the rules, is really building on what is taking place in our House Appropriations Committee right now and virtually every other committee in this Congress; and that is, we are afraid to have any kind of debate, discussion or debate or vote on the issue of drilling. Now, I am one who believes, as our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said, that we need to pursue alternative energy sources, renewable energy, we need to do everything we can to encourage conservation, and we have a lot of very interesting proposals out there to do that. But I think common sense says that, for the next few decades, even though we need to do everything we can to wean ourselves off of our reliance on fossil fuels, we have no choice. And so that is why, when I listen to my colleagues say that we should pursue the petroleum reserve and get 10 billion barrels, why don't we also look at ANWR to go for 10 billion barrels? Again, I believe that the American people want us to come together to address this. As we listen to the horror stories of what has happened, one of the most telling came to me from a grandparent who said that, in one of our town hall meetings, they can't afford to pay for the gasoline to drive to visit their grandchildren from the San Gabriel Valley of California down to Long Beach. And the notion that this dramatic increase in gasoline prices is literally dividing families is something that I think we, as Democrats and Republicans, should come together to address. Now, as we listen to our need to expand drilling and to encourage big oil to do that, I think we need to look at the fact that, for at least a decade and a half plus, we have been trying to encourage things like exploration in ANWR. And what has happened? Well, in the other body we had members of the Democratic Party filibuster this measure. I also have to say that in 1995, 13 years ago, we all know that we were able to get through both Houses of Congress, through both Houses of Congress, a measure that would allow us to, in an environmentally sound way, explore that tiny area in Alaska. And what has happened as a by-product of that? Well, unfortunately, then-President Clinton chose to veto that measure. USA Today, which is hardly a Republican publication, had an editorial just a few weeks ago in which they said that if that measure had been signed, rather than vetoed by President Clinton, we wouldn't be standing here having this discussion that we are now. And so that is why we have come forward, and Mr. Sessions is going to move to defeat the previous question so that we will have an opportunity to make in order legislation like the very thoughtful proposal from our Democratic colleague, Mr. Boucher, the gentleman from Virginia, who has, as a hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, come up with a way in which we could proceed on this. A lot of thought has gone into this, a lot of work. And this was introduced a while back. There are five other bills, along with Mr. Boucher's, that have been introduced. And all we are saying is, why don't we have a debate on those and have an up-or-down vote, so that we can, again, pursue what we describe as our all-of-the-above solution to what is obviously a very serious problem that is having a ripple effect across our entire economy, and, in fact, as we all know, across the global economy. And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can come forward with a measure that will allow us to do what it is the American people want us to do; work together, Democrats and Republicans alike, for a solution to this very, very pressing problem.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, last Friday marked the passing of a tremendous life. Ambassador Roy Huffington lived 90 very full years. He was larger than life. Roy was an entrepreneur, a veteran, a philanthropist, a husband and father, and a patriot. To me, he was a dear friend. He first served his country in the Navy in World War II. When he returned, he struck out on his own in the energy business and pioneered the development of the industry in Indonesia. He was enormously successful in everything he did, and he used his success to give back to society. The charities he founded and supported raised millions for good causes. President George H.W. Bush appointed Roy as Ambassador to Austria in the early 1990s, a critical time for the region. His tenure saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginnings of real democracy in Eastern and Central Europe. Roy used his position to forge relationships between Eastern and Western Europe and to encourage the investment that was necessary to build up former Soviet states and create new opportunities for the people who had lived so long under tyranny. He continued this work until his passing. I have fond memories of times we spent together in Davos at the World Economic Forum. He never missed one of those annual meetings. I had the privilege of getting to know Roy and his wonderful wife Phyllis as we campaigned for their son, our former colleague Michael, as he was running for the United States Senate. Roy and Phyllis were incredibly warm, boisterous, funny and down-to-earth. When Phyllis passed away 5 years ago, everyone who knew her felt the terrible loss. Roy's unexpected passing on Friday was a tragic loss for the family and friends who loved him. We take comfort in the fact that he lived every day with a tremendous zeal for life.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, last week the House went on recess to spend time in our districts commemorating our independence as a Nation. These celebrations every 4th of July are always a time to remember and honor the history of this great country. We think of the great moments when the United States of America shone as an unparalleled leader in liberty and achievement; the brave men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, followed by the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift; the Wright Brothers becoming first in flight; or, of course, Neil Armstrong taking that giant leap for mankind. Perhaps above all, though, Madam Speaker, America's great moments have been expressions of great ideas. Our Nation was born out of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. It established an enduring national philosophy based on the truth that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Since that beginning, bold ideas have defined our Nation; the idea that government must be of the people, by the people, and for the people; the idea that checks and balances must be built into the very structure of government to ensure its responsiveness to the American people; the idea that every man, woman and child has the right to freely practice their faith; the idea that all ideas should be allowed to be freely expressed. This is our history and our heritage. But Independence Day is not just a time to reflect on our past. It is also an opportunity to consider where we are headed. I believe that today, we as Americans are currently grappling with very fundamental philosophical questions, and answers to these questions will present complex challenges in their implementation. A central question is how to apply our core principles to the new challenges that we face. How do we secure ourselves against new threats without diminishing the civil liberties that we hold dear. How do we wage a war against Islamic extremism without appearing to treat those of the Muslim faith with the very intolerance that fuels extremism. How do we end the scourge of illegal immigration, while continuing to be that shining city on the hill to the many legal immigrants who have always helped to make this country the great Nation that it is. How do we engage in the worldwide marketplace while ensuring that Americans can successfully compete in a very dynamic economic environment? Madam Speaker, there are those who say that America is bitterly divided today over these questions. It is certainly true that there is great diversity of opinion in how to address the security and economic challenges that we face. But if we are willing to engage each other in honest and open debate, this diversity of opinion is our great strength, not our weakness. We as a Nation are facing substantial new challenges that demand a great clash of ideas, just as our Founders intended. Unfortunately, the recitation of inflammatory talking points has supplanted sincere and honest debate. The shrill voices of talking heads are no substitute for true engagement. I believe Americans have grown weary of politics as usual, of the endless fighting that takes place here in Washington. But not because of the existence of opposing views. Americans have grown weary of the obstinacy, the hardened positions and intolerance of differing opinions, the refusal to truly engage in an open and substantive way. Madam Speaker, in a country of over 300 million people, there will never be uniformity of opinion, but there can and should be a deep respect for that clash of ideas and an interest in reaching broad consensus on the great issues of our day. This is the essence of the United States of America, and it is the essence of why we last Friday celebrated our Nation's independence, the freedom of ideas, all ideas, to be debated, debunked, or developed in this messy process of democracy. Madam Speaker, I truly believe that our country will rise to the challenges we face today, just as we have always done. And we will accomplish this through open, sometimes heated and passionate, but always respectful debate. The celebration of our independence is always at least a temporary unifier of America. But this year, we cannot afford to confine this unity to one day, the Fourth of July. I believe we should use this time to renew our belief in a country that is bound together, not driven apart, by the clash of ideas out of which our great country was born.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Colonel Paul J. Kennedy. Colonel Kennedy is taking command of the Second Marine Regiment, Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune North Carolina on July 17, 2008 after serving two years as the Director of the Marine Corps House Liaison Office. Since June 2006, he has very ably served as a direct link between the Marine Corps and the House of Representatives, providing Members of this body the information necessary to effectively equip, maintain and support the United States Marine Corps, and ultimately provide and ensure the nation's security. I know that everyone of my colleagues who had the pleasure of working with him shares the deep respect I have come to hold for Colonel Kennedy, and has trusted his straightforward and dependable assistance. His candor and knowledge have been key in maintaining superb relationships on both sides of the Potomac. He has demonstrated a unique ability to translate the language of the House of Representatives to the language of the Marine Corps and vice versa, enabling him to provide Members of Congress with a keen understanding of the issues that affect the men and women who wear a Marine uniform. Over the course of two very busy years, Colonel Kennedy successfully planned, coordinated and escorted over 30 international and domestic Congressional and Staff Delegations. I had the opportunity to work closely with the Colonel on many of these Congressional Delegations as part of the House Democracy Assistance Commission, as we have worked to strengthen legislatures in emerging and re-emerging democracies around the world. HDAC works directly with the Members and staff of these institutions, and our Members must travel to places as diverse as Afghanistan, Mongolia and East Timor to conduct these programs. The technical and logistical support he provided in traveling often to remote or dangerous regions ensured that our delegations were always conducted safely; professionally and effectively, and afforded us the ability to focus entirely on the quality of our programs with these legislatures in burgeoning democracies. But just as important were his insights into conflict and post-conflict regions, based on his first- hand observations from the field. They were an invaluable asset to our delegations. Colonel Kennedy also took a number of delegations to Iraq and Afghanistan, helping to educate Members of Congress on the successes and challenges facing our service men and women who are currently in harm's way. Due to his professionalism, dedication, experience and knowledge, Colonel Kennedy became the most sought-after military escort for delegations traveling into Central Command. He has made lasting contributions to the House of Representatives. I wish the Colonel the very best as he pursues other duties within the Marine Corps. He will be missed tremendously. Colonel Kennedy's 23 years of service have included: Executive Officer of a Weapons Company; Instructor at The Basic School and the Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Virginia; a Weapons Company Commander and Battalion Operations Officer in Camp Pendleton; Recruiting Station Commander in San Francisco, California; Plans Officer for Pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom and Plans/Future Operations Officer for the First Marine Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom; Battalion Commander for Operation Iraqi Freedom II; and Director of the House of Representatives, Marine Corps Liaison Office. Colonel Kennedy has received the Legion of Merit with combat ``V'', Bronze Star, two Meritorious Service Medals, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals and the Combat Action Ribbon.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin for the second time today by expressing my great appreciation to my very good friend and colleague, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it was interestingly enough on February 5 of 2007, February 5 of 2007, which is exactly 500 days ago--500 days ago President Bush made a request of this Congress to provide supplemental funding for our troops to ensure that they have all the tools necessary to prosecute these struggles going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, 500 days, a long period of time. But Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I believe that we've finally gotten there. As I listened carefully to the statement of my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, I have to say that I completely concurred with the first third of her statement in which she went through a very accurate description of exactly what this supplemental appropriations bill consists of. I could not disagree with her more on the second third of her presentation, and on the last part, I have sort of a mixed view. When it comes to the first third, I will say that, again, I completely concur. This measure is designed to ensure that we get to our men and women in uniform the tools that they need, the resources that they need to continue this struggle. It ensures that the request and the directive by Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raising very serious concern about the prospect of not being able to have the resources necessary is addressed. She also in her remarks talked about the need to deal with the economic challenges that we face, and I completely concur. When we saw the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 22 years, a half a percent increase in the unemployment rate, it's clear that we want to ensure that those Americans who are very much in need are going to be able to have their concerns addressed by providing with that 20-work week requirement, which we've gone back to and which we supported in the early part of this decade in 2001 and 2002, that that requirement will continue to be in place. So I wholeheartedly support that effort for the 13-week extension. And she also talked about the need to ensure that we provide the resources for the veterans. For those men and women who have been engaged in this struggle and have come home, it is absolutely crucial that we do everything that we can to provide those very important resources for those brave and courageous men and women who have served in our Armed Forces. Now, Mr. Speaker, when it came as I said to the second third of Ms. Slaughter's presentation, I could not disagree more vigorously. She referred to the term ``political progress'' as being one of posturing. Well, I've got to say if we look at the independent assessments that have been provided by even some of the most harsh critics, some of the harshest critics of this war, there has been acknowledgment that this surge has worked. All one needs to do is this week look at lead articles in both the Washington Post, hardly an entity that has been sympathetic with this effort, and the Associated Press. Both of those entities have strongly come forward and pointed to the tremendous progress that has been made not only, not only militarily but the political progress which has been made as well. And so I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues who have worked in a bipartisan way. I see Mr. Obey here. He just testified before the Committee on Rules and talked about his concerns, and he talked about the need to make sure that we move forward. Our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, has also worked very, very diligently on this, and I have to say it's interesting as we mark today the 500th day since the President made this request for supplemental funding for our troops, it's fascinating that this all came together within what is just about a maybe 28-, 29-, 30-hour period of time. So I think that it's important for us to get this done. It's important for us to address these concerns which include the much- needed relief to those victims of the floods in the Midwest and the strengthening of the levees following Hurricane Katrina, and I believe that we have a wonderful indication of bipartisanship at its best here. I am very pleased to finally take up a Rule for a Supplemental Appropriations bill that is based on bipartisan compromise that gets our troops the funding they need. And most important, it is a bill that the President can actually sign. I just wish we could have done this months ago. Mr. Speaker, the request for supplemental funding for our troops came to us on February 5th of 2007--exactly 500 days ago. Since that time, we have heard hours of testimony from our military commanders, warning us in clear terms of the strains on our troops from the failure to fund them. For months, we have heard of impending layoffs of military contract employees. Of vital programs getting cut off or put on hold. The message was very clear: our armed forces in harm's way needed emergency funding in order to effectively continue their jobs. But what did they get from the Democratic Leadership? Endless political posturing. Funding bills that were purely political documents, with no hope of being enacted. I find it very troubling that this partisan process could drag on for so long. I find it very troubling that it took so long before there was an attempt at bipartisan negotiation to craft a good bill that provides for our troops and will be enacted into law. After months of posturing, once the Democratic Majority finally reached across the aisle so that real progress could be made--how long did it take to reach a workable compromise? Mere hours. Once the dialogue began, Republicans and Democrats quickly came to a solution--a bill that funds our troops, while also addressing other priorities in a responsible way. Today's underlying bill fully funds our armed forces. It will provide a new education benefit to veterans, without raising taxes. And it will extend unemployment insurance in these uncertain economic times, without eliminating key provisions to prevent fraud and abuse. This is a compromise that Republicans and Democrats can support, fulfilling our duty to the men and women who are in harm's way. This is a duty that we as a body must take far more seriously than the last few months have demonstrated. When we are bogged down by the Democratic Majority's political gamesmanship, there are real-world consequences to these actions--or lack of action. As we have heard from our military commanders over the past weeks and months exactly what these consequences are, one of the most troubling revelations came just last week. Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that our commanders had run out of funds to pay for development projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is perhaps the most perverse outcome of the Democratic Leadership's failure to fund our troops. Regardless of where you stand on the war, we all know and agree that the fight against extremism demands more than a purely military solution. Our armed forces are working to provide a security environment that allows for development to take place--and they are succeeding. But if we squander this opportunity, we will never succeed in the long term. We will fail to win hearts and minds, and we will fail to provide an alternative to terror and extremism. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan need to see that our fight is not against them. They need to see that we support democratic institutions and the good governance that ensures peace, liberty and opportunity. Without our development efforts, our military efforts can have no hope for sustainable success. By stonewalling the troops' funding, the Democratic Leadership not only shortchanges our troops, they are blocking our efforts to assist in the development of the foundation for lasting peace. This is an unconscionable policy. Especially at the very time that the seeds of reconciliation are starting to take root. For months we have known that the surge has succeeded in reducing violence. Even the war's harshest critics have begrudgingly conceded that violence has been significantly reduced. But they called it an empty victory, saying that the improved security situation has failed to bring about political progress. But today, that is changing. Monday's lead AP story was ``Iraqi violence down, confidence in government up.'' Tuesday's Washington Post announced ``Calm in Iraq Spurs Debate; Decline in Violence, Focus on Politics May Signal Turning Point.'' These are stories not just of reduced violence. They tell of the political reconciliation and progress that is now being made possible by the increased security. Iraqis are gaining faith in the Maliki government. And minority Sunni parliamentarians are heartened that a Shiite government would go after Shiite terrorists with the same zeal they go after Sunni terrorists. Of course, this progress is fragile. Tuesday's terrible attack in Baghdad reminded us that while violence is diminishing overall, the danger of large-scale attacks remains very real. Furthermore, the political progress is still in its infancy. The Post story goes on to say ``analysts question whether the limited political accommodation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can be sustained if the U.S. withdraws its forces quickly.'' It points out that Iran would love to fill any void that we create, and that Iraqis fear today's calm is simply the calm before the storm. Clearly, our mission is not complete. But demonstrable progress is being made. After years of terrible violence, setbacks and enormous challenges, many of us have become desensitized to any signs of progress and improvement. But they are there. The tragic part is that any delay in providing critical funding puts this fragile progress in jeopardy. Today's underlying bill is urgently needed. While I am deeply sorry it has taken this long, I am truly pleased to finally have a bipartisan bill that will deliver our troops the vital resources they need. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Ames, Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. At this time, I am very happy to yield to one of our top experts on Veterans Affairs, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that deals with this issue, my friend from Chattanooga (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to simply congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement. The fact that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to ensure that the Sean Walshes and the other men and women in uniform who have sacrificed for this country are going to have what they are due is, I believe, a great testament to what we are doing in this House.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it was February 5, 2007, February 5, 2007, exactly 500 days ago, that President Bush made a request for supplemental funding for our men and women in uniform to ensure that they have the resources necessary to successfully prosecute this war. That is what we are here doing this evening now. We are here because we have actually seen, based on reports that have come from some of the harshest critics of this war, that we are making progress. All one needs to do is look at the Washington Post the day before yesterday, the Associated Press story that has been referred to by a number of my colleagues. Time and time again we hear of the success that is being made in our effort to ensure that we are able to continue to enjoy our freedoms and that we have a world that has a greater degree of stability. Only the United States of America, only the United States of America, is in a position to do this. Sacrifice has been made. Time and time again our colleagues have talked about the number of lives that have been lost. As I listened to my friend from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel), he was referring to one of his constituents, I was immediately reminded of one of my constituents whom I refer to on a pretty regular basis here. It was in the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004 that J.P. Blecksmith tragically was killed. His father, who was a former Marine from San Marino, California, has, on repeated occasions, to me said if we don't complete our mission, my son, J.P., will have died in vain. War is an ugly thing, but it's not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war is worse. Those were the words of a very, very famous writer who wrote them following the Civil War. We are in the midst of a painful struggle. But on this issue, I am very happy that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to deal with this. I congratulate my colleagues, Messrs. Obey and Lewis, for working together on this, and Mr. Boehner, who has provided great leadership in this effort. We need to ensure that our men and women in uniform not only have everything that they need to successfully prosecute this war, but we also need to make sure that they have the tools necessary as they come back into our society. We have for years seen great warriors come back to the United States of America and work to make their country an even better place, and I believe that the provisions that we provide in here with these GI benefits will go a long way towards doing that. The American people are hurting. We saw, as has been repeatedly said, the largest increase in 22 years in the unemployment rate, going up a half a percent. That's why, again, we have come in a bipartisan way to ensure that those who are truly in need, those who through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, are able to see an extension in their unemployment benefits. Again, I think that what we are going to be doing here in the next few minutes is we are going to be casting a bipartisan vote which will be done in the spirit of what the American people want us to do, and that is to get things done, deal with very, very important issues and problems that we face. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. I will simply say that there were very important reasons that we did not support it: a massive tax increase that was imposed on working Americans and job creators. This measure that we are going to be considering later today is one that I believe we can have support from the United States Senate on and support from the President on. And we know full well that had that measure passed this House that we would have ended up right where we are today because the President would have vetoed the bill if it had gotten there, and most likely, would have not gotten through the Senate. So I thank my friend for yielding. Let's move ahead. We have a bipartisan compromise right now, and I believe it is beneficial.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I want to begin by expressing my great appreciation to the very able and distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, my dear friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I will say, Madam Speaker, that I stand here with somewhat mixed emotions. While I am happy that we are going to finally ensure that our men and women in uniform who are on the front lines ensuring the safety of our fellow Americans are going to have the funding that is necessary, I'm saddened that we are here at this juncture considering this measure under a process which was not at all necessary. Madam Speaker, if we had, literally months ago, months ago, come to this point, we could have, under regular order, very easily provided the necessary troop funding that is out there, dealt with the issue of unemployment benefits, which is going to be addressed, and ensure that we're not going to put into place a massive tax increase on job creators here in the United States. So I will say, Madam Speaker, that we want to do everything that we can to, as expeditiously as possible, meet the demand that has been set forward by our leaders on the frontline in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope very much that my colleagues will join with me. It's not normal that I would support this structure that would allow for same- day consideration of the measure, but I believe it is imperative that we get funding to our troops, and I believe that the measure that we're going to consider in just a little while from now will allow us to do that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If I could ask my friend to further yield, I will say absolutely not. I will tell you that what I was talking about was the tax that is imposed on those people in upper income brackets, 82 percent of whom are small business owners in this country. That's the tax that we were talking about in the last measure, and that played a big role in leading those of us who want to ensure that we get this economy growing again that we would not, in fact, impinge on that by imposing that tax increase. So I will say to my friend, let's move ahead. Let's make sure that we get the important funding to our troops so that we can be successful in ensuring our safety, and I thank my friend for yielding.