David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it's just one simple bite at the apple, something we always guaranteed the Democrats when we were in charge. It's one amendment. We're just trying to help the Democratic majority become the majority that they promised that they would be. It's not too late. Let them do it, Madam Speaker. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, my friend from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I notice my colleague doesn't spend any time at all talking about the rule which is being considered at this time and shutting down democracy which we all aspire to in Iraq and other places in the world. With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the author of the very important measure that will be made in order if we are able to defeat the previous question, a clean supplemental, my good friend from Redlands, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me say in the name of saying they are taxing the rich, the facts show it. Eighty-two percent of the people who fall in that category are small businessmen and women. That's just the facts. With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), the ranking member of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee of Ways and Means.

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

Mr. DREIER. In light of the fact there is much more time remaining on the other side, may I ask the distinguished Chair if she might proceed and yield some of her time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I understand that my good friend from Cleveland was unable to get time from his side of the aisle. And so at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cleveland, the Democratic Presidential candidate, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. DREIER. Yes, we have a couple of speakers and then I am going to close.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Let me yield to my very good friend from Wichita, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and who has worked long and hard here, for 1 minute. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I would just like to remind my colleague that 82 percent of the people who fall in the category about what she has just mentioned are small business men and women. And I think we need to realize this is a small business tax. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield for a question?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by expressing my great appreciation to my very dear friend, the distinguished and very able Chair of the Committee on Rules, my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter). And with all due respect to my distinguished committee Chair, I am compelled, not surprisingly, to rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule. Over the last 1\1/2\ years, my colleagues Messrs. Diaz-Balart, Hastings, and Sessions have stood right here at this lectern and opposed many, many deeply flawed rules. We began this Congress very inauspiciously as the leadership jammed through the opening week agenda before even bothering to set up the Rules Committee, allowing Ms. Slaughter to become Chair of that committee. From the very outset, there has been no pretense of concern for due process, not an inkling of respect for the rules of this House. While we started at a low point, we have sunk lower and lower with each subsequent rule. One by one the Democratic leadership has trampled the rules and traditions of this body in an effort to shut down debate, cut both Republicans and Democrats out of the process, and jam through poorly constructed bills that rarely, rarely, if ever, become public law. I frequently marvel at each new low and assume that we have reached the rock bottom. As we have considered new forms of restrictive rules crafted under an ever-more restrictive process, I have often thought, ``This one takes the cake. The Democratic leadership couldn't possibly stoop any lower than this.'' Until the next comes, shutting down due process to an even greater degree. So this time I'm not going to say that this rule is the absolute bottom of the barrel. I don't doubt that with a little more time and effort, based on the track record we've seen, the Democratic leadership will find a way to trample the rules and traditions of this House even more thoroughly. I will say that this is clearly the worst example that we've seen in the last 17 months since they have been in charge. But before I get into the details of this egregious rule, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to discuss why it even matters what kind of a process is used to craft legislation and hold votes. I know the inner workings of the Rules Committee are thought to be so arcane that even some of our colleagues consider them to be a little too ``inside baseball.'' In fact, the distinguished Chair just spent all of her time talking about the bill itself. She didn't talk about the fact that they're trampling on the rights of Republicans and Democrats. Start talking about rules and procedure and regular order, and most Americans' eyes, and even some of our colleagues', start to glaze over. So to illustrate why process matters, I will use another set of rules that are more widely understood as an example. Even before the advent of the television show Law & Order, most of us were familiar with the basics of our criminal justice system. We're all familiar with our basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. We cannot be held without a charge. We're protected from self-incrimination and unlawful searches and seizures. We must be read our Miranda rights when placed under arrest. These basic rights are fundamental, fundamental, Madam Speaker, to American democracy. We know that there can be no justice without a fair process, and we know that the protection of the rights of the individual is more important than the outcome of any one particular case. The Bill of Rights and the laws that have been enacted to uphold it aren't just a cryptic system of rules and regulations. They guarantee, Madam Speaker, they guarantee our civil rights and they guard against tyranny. Without a fair process, power is abused and rights are abridged. Process matters, Madam Speaker. Process matters because process is democracy. The rules of the House were established for the very same reason. They ensure that the American people, through their elected representatives, have a say in the crafting of laws that govern them. The rules guard against abuses of power, and they ensure that the legislative process is transparent and fair. Thwarting due process is not just arcane political maneuvering around obscure, complicated rules that no one should care about. It subverts the principles of representative democracy. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, the rule that we are considering at this moment very clearly subverts the principles of representative democracy. The Democratic leadership's casual disregard for these rules and principles has faced growing criticism in the media. Last week the Politico accused them of ``breaking promises,'' promises for an open legislative process that followed regular order and the rules of the House. Not surprisingly, the paper cited today's underlying bill, the supplemental appropriations, as Exhibit A in the Democrats' assault on an open and inclusive process, which was promised at the beginning of this Congress. That's not my saying that; that's an independent newspaper that made that statement. Even before the new lows of the supplemental, another publication, Investors Business Daily, reported recently on the leadership's ``widening power grab,'' accusing them of ``anti-democratic'' behavior, running a ``dictatorship,'' and ``showing little or no concern for holding actual votes or building consensus on issues.'' Now, Madam Speaker, those are pretty harsh charges coming from a newspaper that is clearly a very independent publication. And they go on to say that this is all being done in an effort to ``manipulate Congress.'' Madam Speaker, ``dictatorship'' and ``anti-democratic,'' those are pretty harsh words, but they are clearly warranted. The process used to craft the underlying supplemental appropriations bill has been atrocious. Committee work was completely abandoned. Without a single hearing, without a markup, without so much as consulting Mr. Lewis and the committee members, this bill was concocted behind closed doors. Zero input, zero deliberation, zero consultation. The Senate, of course, won't stand for that kind of treatment and intends to hold a markup later today before proceeding with its floor debate. But the Democratic leaders in this House apparently deem this to be a lesser body, with no right to due process. The Democratic leadership intended to bring this bill up last week. They had to pull it from the schedule because fiscally conservative Members within their own caucus were outraged at the contents. A week later, Madam Speaker, a backroom deal has now been struck, bringing the remaining Democratic Members on board. How? Bringing Members on board by imposing a tax on small businesses in this country, which is exactly what this is. You see, Democrats love to stir up class warfare by justifying the small business tax as just a tax on the rich. Unless, of course, we are talking about millionaire farmers, and then they like to give them massive government payouts, which is what they did just yesterday in the farm bill. To add to their inconsistency, they actually waived their own PAYGO rule to fund the farm bill subsidies, and today they refuse to waive the same PAYGO rule and use it as an excuse to levy massive tax increases on small businessmen and women in this country. Only in Washington would such logic be employed. We became aware of the rough outline of this tax increase, along with every other provision of this bill, only through press reports. Some have reported a $183 billion price tag on this bill. Others have said it would be costing at least $250 billion. Various outlets reported on various provisions. But we didn't get a chance to see for ourselves what was in this massive bill until 3 p.m. yesterday. In fact, the distinguished former Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the now ranking member, my good friend, Mr. Lewis, came before us. Within the hour before that 3 p.m. meeting, he had just gotten the copy of the measure. Most egregious of all, we're not actually considering a bill here today. We will be voting on three amendments to a Senate amendment to an old House bill that has already passed but was never enacted. Did you catch that? If it sounds gimmicky and underhanded, that's because that's exactly what it is. In fact, this morning I heard our colleague Mr. McDermott on National Public Radio, where he said the crafting of this is tantamount to John Kerry's very famous line in which he said ``I voted for it before I voted against it.'' The Democratic leadership knows that a vote on their full package would never pass; so they plotted a way around an actual vote on final passage. For anyone who missed that, let me repeat. The House of Representatives will not be permitted a vote on the full underlying proposal. When Investors Business Daily calls this a dictatorship, they seem to have a point. So what exactly is in this $183-250 billion bill that comes to us without any due process and will pass without a vote? Who can say for sure? But I know that at least $62 billion in new entitlements are included; $11 billion in unemployment insurance, and our friend Mr. Weller will be talking about this in a few minutes; and at least $51 billion in benefits for veterans. Clearly, these are very, very important issues that need to be addressed. I don't doubt that the Democratic majority will try to claim that Republicans don't care about our veterans or those facing economic hardship. We hear that time and time again. To the contrary, these are such critically important issues for us that we passionately believe that we must address them in a serious and deliberative way. It is simply not good enough to slap together a proposal without a single moment of testimony or debate, throw some money at our problems, and call it a day. The very critical issues addressed in this bill, from funding for Iraq and Afghanistan to international food assistance to the tremendously important domestic programs, all of these deserve a substantive, deliberative process. We should have an opportunity to examine which of these are truly emergencies and which should be included in the regular appropriations process. And all of them should have the benefit of an open debate to ensure that we are addressing our priorities effectively. This rule allows for none of this, Madam Speaker. It thwarts the rules and traditions that were put in place to guard against abuses of power, and it blocks consideration of even a single amendment, including the very thoughtful and responsible alternative proposed by the man sitting to my right here, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Lewis. He's offered a clean supplemental appropriations bill which simply provides our troops the funding they need without bogging it down with all kinds of unrelated items or adding new policy that prevents them from carrying out their mission. Our hope is to get this critical funding to our troops before Memorial Day, which is fast approaching. That's not an arbitrary deadline and it's not a gimmick. Our military commanders have told us that they desperately need this funding now, and we want to be able to go home for Memorial Day and tell our veterans and our military families that we passed a clean bill that funds our troops and their mission. We want to tell them we crafted a bill without regard to politics, without regard to providing political cover or fodder for political ads. We simply gave the troops the funding they desperately need. Now, Madam Speaker, that's exactly what the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lewis, should be able to provide, and I'm going to seek an opportunity for him to do just that. But, unfortunately, the Democratic majority can't advance their flawed policies without shutting down the process. So they prefer closed rules to open debate. They prefer backroom deals to the transparent committee process. They prefer hollow, ill-gotten victories that die after the House vote to substantive, bipartisan legislation that is enacted into law. That's exactly what we need to do, Madam Speaker. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness we share the news of the passing of Clay Westerfield Whitaker, M.D., father of Representative Mary Bono Mack, on May 13th after a long and valiant battle with prostate cancer. It was an honor to have known Dr. Whitaker and it is a privilege to serve with Congresswoman Bono Mack who is a testament and tribute to her father. From the talks I had with Dr. Whitaker, I know how proud he was of her great work. Born in Greenville, Kentucky on April 17, 1924, Whitaker was the son of Eva Nell Hunt Whitaker and Levi Whitaker. The youngest of six siblings, all of whom preceded him in death, he was only five years old when his father, a physician, died at the age of thirty. Whitaker's mother, now a single parent, worked hard to make ends meet during the years of the Great Depression. When speaking of those years, Whitaker often said, ``We didn't think we were poor; we just didn't have any money.'' His mother understood the importance of a good education, and along with his sisters, he was admitted to Berea College in Kentucky. At Berea, he met the love of his life, Karen Lee Taylor. Together, they enjoyed music and an active campus life until his college education was interrupted when he entered the Army Air Corps during WWII. Assigned to the 8th Air Force, 95th Bomb Group, 334th Squadron stationed in Horham, England, Whitaker served as a B-17 waist gunner and flew 19 missions over Germany. After victory had been achieved, Whitaker wrote to his college sweetheart asking for her hand in marriage when he returned to Berea College. Upon returning home, Whitaker was greeted at the train station by his sister and future bride, Karen. As he stepped off the train, his sister informed him that his wedding was scheduled for the very next day, June 30, 1944. So began a lifetime of mutual devotion. Whitaker completed his college education at Berea with a degree in chemistry and applied to Western Reserve medical school where he earned his M.D. in otolaryngology (ear, nose & throat) and then set-up his medical practice in Cleveland, Ohio. While living in Cleveland, he and Karen had four children, Stephen, David, Katherine and Mary. In 1963, Whitaker moved the family west to Los Angeles where he accepted a position as co-chair of the ENT department at L.A. County-- USC Medical Center. As professor of ENT, he remained at USC until 1983 when he moved to Asheville, North Carolina, to chair the ENT department at the VA hospital and establish an ENT program at that facility for Duke University. He held that position until his retirement from the practice of medicine. Whitaker loved the outdoors, especially hiking, camping and the Land Rovers that transported him to the backcountry. He loved classical music, the arts, sciences, literature, cars and vintage war planes. But most of all, he loved his family. Known by family and friends as a man of immense generosity and compassion, he was a remarkably selfless and humble individual. His quick wit and keen sense of humor enlivened many family and social gatherings, and he was deeply respected in the communities in which he lived. Preceded in death by his beloved Karen, Whitaker is survived by his four children, Stephen Whitaker and his wife, Teri, of Bruceville, Indiana; David Whitaker and his wife, Carol, of Sealy, Texas; Katherine Whitaker of Asheville, North Carolina; and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs, California, and her husband, Congressman Connie Mack. He is also survived by eight grandchildren, Laura Kenney and her husband, Doug; Daniel and Christopher Whitaker, Cameron and Ian Whitaker, Teresa Shuford, and Chesare and Chianna Bono, and one great grandson, Thomas Kenney. Our deepest condolences go out to our colleague Mary Bono Mack and the entire Whitaker family.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And I thank him for his very thoughtful statement, as always, in his management of the rule. I want to begin by extending congratulations to all of those who have worked long and hard on this important conference report, Mr. Cardoza, and I see Mr. Hastings here, I know are strong supporters of it. And I know that there is, in fact, some bipartisan support for this measure, but I will say that I personally am troubled with it and I am going to be voting ``no'' on the conference report when we get to that point for a number of reasons. I do feel very strongly that as we look at the international food crisis that exists with over a billion people on the face of the Earth facing either malnutrition or out-and-out starvation, it seems to me that we need to take very strong and bold steps to address that. I don't think that dramatically expanding the food programs and feeding is the solution to the problem of a billion people who are facing malnutrition and starvation. I happen to think there are a number of very important factors that unfortunately this farm bill doesn't address. First and foremost, it's key, as we look at the fact that developing nations in the world have failed to open up their markets so that they can get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, they are preventing us from having the opportunity to address that crisis of starvation and malnutrition. Similarly, we in the United States and the European Union have unfortunately provided two-thirds of the farm subsidies that exist in this world. And guess what? That creates a great distortion and further diminishes the opportunity for those developing nations to address this very important malnutrition and starvation crisis facing one billion human beings. And so I just don't believe in any way that this measure effectively addresses that. And I think, again, as a number of people have said, if we were to see the European Union diminish its level of subsidization, then we would do that. I was very happy in the Rules Committee last night that for the first time our good friend from Minnesota, the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, did indicate that he would ultimately support that. In the past he hasn't, as I know he has said publicly and in conversations that I've had with him privately on that. But nevertheless, it's imperative for us to show leadership on the issue of dramatic taxpayer subsidization of the agriculture sector of our economy. It is just plain wrong. And I hope very much that my colleagues, based on that, if they sincerely want to address this starvation crisis facing a billion people, they will oppose this measure. Now, there was an interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, that took place earlier on and has been going on. And Mr. Hastings made a very, very compelling argument. Now, this is all inside baseball. I know our colleagues understand it, and there are maybe some outside of this Chamber who are following this debate. And it looks like it's very arcane. I mean, we've got copies of the rules manual and we're looking at this whole question of PAYGO and 2007 versus 2008. Well, this comes down to a very simple and easily understood issue, and let me put it this way: Yesterday we had a debate on whether or not we should, in fact, prevent 70,000 barrels a day of oil from going into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And the idea behind that was, of course, if we do increase the supply of energy, prices might come down. Well, guess what? The people whom I represent in southern California would very much like to be able to pay maybe $2.50, $2.75 a gallon. And you know what? If you go to last year, they were able to pay significantly less than $4 a gallon for gasoline. Well, how does that relate to the debate that we're having right here? Very simply. What is it that our colleagues in the majority are calling for? And that is, to use last year's numbers, to use last year's numbers, not this year's numbers, in this debate. So that's what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker. It is just plain wrong. I would like to pay 2007 prices when I go to the pump and fill up, and unfortunately I can't. And you know what? This majority should recognize their responsibility in the exact same way. Now, as Mr. Hastings said, last night in the Rules Committee I offered what I thought was a very thoughtful amendment to the rule. Everyone continued to say this is PAYGO-compliant, this complies with PAYGO. Well, in one single sentence in the report, Mr. Speaker, they, in fact, provide the most confusing explanation. It says, ``Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, the conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget neutral with no net increase in direct spending.'' What does that mean? So it begins by saying there is a violation, and then it says there isn't. I mean, it is so confusing. Now, the amendment that I offered said, okay, if the majority is, in fact, complying with the PAYGO requirements, what they should do is they should say that they don't need to protect the item, clause 10 of rule XXI, which very clearly states that they must be using this year's numbers. And so, Mr. Speaker, as you said in your ruling--or your predecessor in the Chair said, Mr. Pastor, who was serving as acting Speaker at the time, we're having a debate on this. And it's obvious that it can be confusing. But I bring it right back to the issue of the desire that the people who we represent, that they would love to pay last year's gasoline prices, but it can't be done. And in the exact same way this is being mishandled. It is just wrong. And so procedurally we're bringing up a bad conference report. And so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, which, also, is a lockdown rule, I should say, and very, very unfair in its treatment of the rights of the minority--not that anyone cares about that. But procedurally and institutionally I think that there should be some concern about the fact that it's a lockdown rule, and if it does pass, it will allow us to bring up what I think is a bill that has some good things in it, but on an overall basis will not deal with the very important challenges that we face. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the conference report.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the remarkable career and accomplishments of Philip G. Bardos, born into a Greek immigrant family on March 14, 1927. His life has been one of service to our nation, to the State of California and to every community in which he has lived. He deserves our honor for his military service, contributions to our space program and defense technologies, entrepreneurial success, work as an educational leader and untiring efforts as a volunteer for innumerable organizations and worthy programs. Born in Pennsylvania to George and Victoria Bardos, an immigrant couple from the island of Rhodes, Phil is the eldest of their six children. Toward the close of the Second World War, Phil was drafted into the United States Army and at the end of the war, was appointed to the United States Military Academy by Congressman Thomas F. Morgan, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On June 24, 1950, after graduation from West Point with a bachelor of science degree, the new second lieutenant of infantry married the beautiful Sandra Mitchell, the lady who has been his support and inspiration ever since. But the call to duty came early in their marriage. From late 1951 to 1953, Phil saw combat and was wounded in the Korean War. After recovery from his wounds, Phil served as an aide-de-camp to LTG William Lawton, Chief of Staff of the Far East Command. On his return to the United States, he served in the President's Honor Guard, 3rd Infantry Regiment at Fort Myer, Washington DC., from 1956 to 1958. During these years he was one of the officers assigned to duties in President Eisenhower's office and as an aide at State dinners. Although Phil resigned from the Army in January 1960, he continued to serve in the Army Reserves and retired after thirty five years of service as a lieutenant colonel. Long after Phil and others of his West Point class had retired, he authored Cold War Warriors, a book published in 2000 that chronicles the accomplishments and achievements of the Class of 1950. In the 1960s, Phil put his West Point science and engineering training to work in the burgeoning field of space and defense technology. From 1960 to 1963, he was employed by Bendix Corporation in North Hollywood, California as an assistant chief engineer for the Mercury program, the first man-in-space program. From 1963 to 1965, he was employed by Northrop Corporation as manager of the Tactical Analysis group for drones. And then, from 1965 to 1967, he worked at the Bell & Howell subsidiary, Consolidated Electrodynamics Corporation, in Pasadena, California. In the next stage of his career, Phil became an entrepreneur, forming a highly successful management consulting business, Bardos & Associates, in 1967. Later, he purchased a small high technology company, Torr Vacuum Products, built it up and then sold it to a large conglomerate in 1986. Despite the intense pressures of business life, Phil has always found time for involvement in public affairs. After an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1964, he threw himself into volunteer activities for the GOP. Working closely with the indomitable Margaret Brock, he served as president of a Republican volunteer organization for Los Angeles County and as chairman of various fundraising events, including a dinner for Ronald Reagan in Los Angeles in 1965. In 1971, Phil was elected to the Los Angeles Unified School District Board and re-elected in 1975. He twice served as president of the board and is credited by many with steering L.A. schools through one of their most difficult periods. Those who worked with him on the Board remember his calming influence and his ability to develop balanced solutions when emotions were running high. Phil served as president of the Great Western Council of the Boy Scouts of America from 1974 to 1979, and was honored with the prestigious Silver Beaver award. He was appointed by Governor George Deukmejian to the Board of Trustees of the California Community Colleges in 1987. Appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to the Committee of Bar Examiners in 1989, he was elected to serve as chairman of the body, the only non-lawyer ever to do so. In 1992, he was Vice President for planning of the organizing committee for the United States World Cup Soccer. And, most recently, he has served as a volunteer member of the Operation First Response for assisting U.S. wounded military personnel. Phil's career is a chronicle of accomplishment and success, but it is his family that has always been closest to his heart. He is immensely proud of the two sons, Tom and Paul, whom he and Sandy raised, and right to be so, for they have followed in his footsteps. Both were Eagle Scouts and both are successful entrepreneurs and owners of their own businesses. And now, Phil has the pleasure of seeing his grandchildren launch their careers. Madam Speaker, this country will always be great so long as we have individuals of the caliber of Phil Bardos to dedicate themselves to a life of service to their Nation, state and community.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I want to begin by saying that I agree with many of the points that my dear friend from Atlanta, Mr. Scott, has made. He has put forth some very thoughtful arguments. And he is absolutely right. He comes from Georgia. I come from California. We're in the midst of a very serious housing crisis. In fact, the foreclosure issue is one that has impacted my State of California, and I know it has impacted Georgia and other segments of the economy. But I have to say, as I listened to my friend's remarks, I was really struck with the fact that he failed, Mr. Speaker, he failed to look at the overall picture. It is true, there are Americans who are hurting. But to describe the economic challenges that we face today as the worst economic times since the Great Depression is, at least, a slight exaggeration.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the second point that he made, which I think is a very important one, is to say that this is the number one issue facing Americans. Now in the debate on the last rule, our friend from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings) pointed to a survey that was done, I think it was a CNN survey or some other survey, in which they talked about the priority issues. Guess what issue number one is? Its the issue that our friend from Dallas was just talking about, gasoline prices. That happens to be, Mr. Speaker, the number one issue, and you have to go down the list to get to this as a priority issue. All I'm arguing, and I'm not saying that this isn't, Mr. Speaker, a very, very important issue. It impacts the people whom I'm honored to represent here in a very negative way. But what needs to be recognized is, we have to look at where we are. We had anemic growth the last quarter, six-tenths of 1 percent. What that means is that while we may be possibly at the beginning of an economic recession, while we had anemic growth, it was not negative growth, which it takes, as my friend, Wharton-educated, has just pointed out, two quarters of negative economic growth for us to be in the midst of an economic recession. That is not to in any way diminish, Mr. Speaker, the pain that so many of our fellow Americans are feeling at this point. Now let me just say about this issue. The President of the United States very much wants, as he said to Republican Members today, to have a bill that he can sign. And I've just spoken with my very good friend, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who last night in the Rules Committee came forward with a very thoughtful alternative. That alternative focuses on strengthening a number of the very important existing programs that we have. They include, reform of the Federal Housing Administration, FHA reform legislation which we've worked on; the government-sponsored enterprises, GSE reform, very, very important; the FHA secure program; Hope Now. There are a wide range of programs that are out there. And we've regularly encouraged our constituents who are facing the challenge of foreclosure to call that 800 number that has been put forward, because I know full well, from having spoken with many lenders, there is a desire not to take back these homes. My friend from Atlanta was absolutely right when he closed his statement by saying that the priority is to make sure that these Americans are able to stay in their homes. We want to make sure that they stay in their homes. And guess what? To the surprise of many, these lenders don't want to take these homes backs. They don't want the responsibility of being saddled with them. And so the issue of forbearance is something that I know for a fact lenders want to engage in with these borrowers. But as my friend from Dallas has pointed out very well, we have before us a structure which is very unfortunate. Yes, we know we went through the committee process. We know that we have seen a very fair process by the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. But, unfortunately, what we're doing here is taking up a Senate amendment. So while tomorrow, if we consider this wartime supplemental, for the first time ever we are going to be completely ignoring the committee process, the subcommittee, committee process. And, of course, we'll look at the prospect of taking a shell bill here and denying the minority an opportunity for a motion to recommit. That's why so many members of the Appropriations Committee have been here demonstrating their outrage on this process. But on this bill what we're bypassing is floor consideration of the measure because we're simply taking a Senate amendment. Now what does that do, Mr. Speaker? Just as the proposed plan to deal with the supplemental appropriations bill, it denies the members of the minority a right to offer that very important cherished motion to recommit. And so I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I'm very, very troubled with this process, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his helpful contribution. We have heard countless members of the Appropriations Committee come to this floor and demonstrate their outrage. And why? Well, for the first time in the history of this institution, 219 years old, for the first time in the history of the institution, we are bringing up tomorrow, in the Rules Committee I suspect today, I don't know if we have a meeting scheduled or not, we are bringing up a wartime supplemental under a process which doesn't ask, as my friend from Tampa said, for hundreds and hundreds of amendments. We are simply asking for one simple bite at the apple, Mr. Speaker, a motion to recommit which was promised at the beginning of this Congress which was designed to be a great, new, open Congress with an opportunity for regular order to proliferate and succeed. And, unfortunately, what we are doing with this process is completely obliterating the right, as my friend from Houston said, of millions and millions of Americans to be heard. We have seen the committee process completely abrogated as we look at this wartime supplemental, and now here we are saying that there won't even be an opportunity to consider, that sacrosanct one opportunity for Members of the minority to be heard. It is an absolute outrage that this would proceed, and that is why so many of our Members have demonstrated their concern.