David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds, if I might, to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I was seeking to get the floor from my very dear friend from Florida to simply say that all we were asking for was nine amendments. Unfortunately, the process that was so eloquently outlined by our friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is exactly the process that is being used on the next foreclosure bill that we have. Having completely denied the opportunity for the hearing process, and as we go through every single step that should be part of this measure, the minority is going to, unfortunately, not have a chance whatsoever to offer its motion to recommit. We are not asking for hundreds of amendments, Mr. Speaker, we are simply asking on this bill for nine amendments. When only a third of our amendments were made in order, three-quarters of their amendments were made in order, let's have a little more fairness.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to Messrs. Clay and Shays for their leadership on this and, most important, to our good friend, Don Young, for having stepped forward to author this resolution. And I want to say that as I listened to our friend, Don Young, talk about Charlton Heston, I was struck by a story. Don began by taking the acting career, which, since I represent Los Angeles, I'm particularly proud of people who have great acting careers, and Mr. Heston was certainly one of those. I was struck by the fact that Don Young drew from that to the fact that he focused on reality. And as he was saying that, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded of a story that Mr. Heston used to enjoy telling with regularity. When he was in the midst of rehearsals for that famous movie, Ben Hur, he would regularly say to people around him, I really want to make sure that I do this right because I want to make sure that I win this race. And he was constantly assured that he was going to win the race because the outcome was clearly predetermined. But he understood full well that there was a great disparity between the roles that he played, as a great actor, and the fact that the reality of life is something that is much different, and it does take a great deal of vigilance and hard work. Now, all of my colleagues have spoken about the role that he played as a civil rights leader. Mr. Young has talked about the fact that he played such an important role in preservation of second amendment rights, which was very important. He was always involved, Mr. Speaker, in public policy issues. Again, as a Representative from Los Angeles, I had the opportunity to regularly discuss with him issues, and he exercised his first amendment rights with me with great regularity. He would call. And I will say that even though he was ill, I had the privilege of talking with him about, I think it was a year and a half, 2 years ago. And I knew that he had been ill, but he still was asking me questions about things that were going on here in this institution, making sure that we were staying on the right path. And so it's difficult to imagine a greater patriot than Charlton Heston. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that still, to this day, our thoughts and prayers are with Lydia and the wonderful Heston family. And I know that at this moment he's probably up there playing tennis, which was one of his great loves, and looking down and working to make sure that we, as Members of the United States Congress, and as leaders in our great Nation, do everything that we can to preserve these very, very precious liberties that he loved so dearly. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, and the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, for introducing H. Res. 1079, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month 2008. As a co-sponsor of this resolution and a member of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, I am proud to support this measure. Almost a decade into the 21st century, we are finding that more Americans have access to financial services and products than ever before. With the click of a button, consumers can perform a variety of financial activities over the Internet, from paying bills to managing investments. Technology has allowed more people to enjoy the benefits of access to capital and today, half of all American households own equities. This growing number of ``investor class'' Americans are participating in financial markets through retirement plans, investment vehicles or Internet trading accounts. Yet, many Americans are concerned about our economy. Uncertainty has not only had a big impact on housing markets, but has also resulted in a great deal of volatility in stock markets both in the United States and abroad. The need for financial literacy has never been greater than it is right now. While sound financial and investment decisions are necessary for creating economic booms, they are absolutely essential in weathering the busts. As working Americans, small-business owners and the ever-growing investor class address these current economic challenges, they must have the right tools to make the best decisions for their own financial security. Therefore, it is fitting that this resolution reaffirms the important role that financial literacy plays in helping individuals evaluate the complex financial choices that they encounter and further recognizes the need to begin teaching financial management skills at an early age. By educating our youth to understand money, savings, credit, debt and risk, we will not only be providing lifelong skills, but also can ensure that individuals will have the tools necessary to make informed decisions in this evolving 21st century economy. It is also important to note that efforts to enhance financial literacy are not confined to our own country. Earlier this month, governments throughout Europe declared their commitment to promoting financial education. The private sector is also actively engaged in enhancing economic literacy throughout the developing world. For example, Citigroup and the Citigroup Foundation have provided more than $22 million in support of financial education programs that have reached millions of people in more than 40 countries. These activities include community development projects to support the expansion of thrift and credit-based cooperative groups in India and the development of a microfinance industry in China. As we strive for expanded trade and investment with our global partners, it is clear that growth in world markets is increasingly linked to growth in our own economy. In other words, financial literacy abroad allows us to reap the benefits here at home. Ultimately, expanding access to the financial system and knowledge of its workings provides individuals with greater choice and lower costs when managing finances, building wealth and making investments. These activities in turn lead to increases in economic activity and growth that benefits our entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of financial literacy and support this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion. My friend has outlined very clearly exactly where we are. And I will tell you from the perspective of the House Rules Committee, while we have not been enthusiastic supporters of this PAYGO procedure, I will say that while my friend used the tax analogy, as I listened to the exchange between the distinguished Republican whip and the majority leader, I couldn't help but think about the gasoline price issue. It would be tantamount to one of our constituents or any of us being able to go up to a gas pump and say, ``You know what? I'd like to pay the price of gasoline as it was 6 months ago as opposed to where it is today.'' This is not the way this should be done. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come together in support of this motion. I rise in support of this motion. We don't actually know what's in the Farm Bill Conference Report, because the Conference Report has yet to be finalized, which is precisely why we are here seeking to instruct the conferees on the part of the House. But if press reports are accurate, the Conference Report could be in violation of clause 10 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, known as the PAYGO rule. Now, I am not a supporter of the PAYGO rule. Ostensibly it is intended to impose fiscal discipline--a worthy goal that I share. But in reality it does nothing more than mandate tax increases. If the Democratic Leadership were to recognize this reality and propose a rule change to eliminate PAYGO, I'd support it. So far, they have not yet recognized the error of their ways, and PAYGO is a rule of the House. At issue here is the number that is used as the baseline for determining deficit neutrality. The rules of the House are unambiguous. The most current baseline estimate must be used. Clause 10 of Rule XXI provides: ``the effect of a measure on the deficit or surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget relative to the most recent baseline supplied by the Congressional Budget Office.'' This does, after all, make perfect sense. If out-of-date and irrelevant numbers can be used, the rule would be a complete farce, even to those who support it in principle. In the case of the Farm Bill, the most up-to-date estimate was released on March 3, 2008. And yet it has been rumored that the Farm Bill's authors may choose to use the fiscal year 2007 numbers. This would be akin to pulling up to the gas station and rather than having to pay the current 2008 price of $3.62 per gallon, you tell the gas station attendant that that price doesn't apply to you, and you get to pay the 2007 price of $2.97. If Democrats insist on following this path, their bill will be in violation of PAYGO. And if the Rules Committee chooses to waive PAYGO, I suspect they would have trouble garnering enough support to pass such a rule within their own caucus. While the Democratic Leadership has proven they have no qualms about breaking House rules, or circumventing them altogether, a number of their Members are committed to the current incarnation of PAYGO. The Democratic Leadership knows that failure to comply with this rule is a non-starter for a large bloc of their caucus. So if their solution was to simply cook the books, pretend their bill was PAYGO compliant, and hope no one noticed, then I'm sorry to say, we noticed. To all of my colleagues who support PAYGO, and to all of my colleagues who oppose PAYGO but also oppose budget gimmickry and backroom deals to thwart the rules of the House, I urge you to join me in supporting this motion. Let's send the Farm Bill conferees a strong message that a budgetary shell game will not get them their 218 votes. And let's send a message to the Democratic Leadership that they can't piously claim to follow the rules, while perpetrating an end-run around them.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my friend from Dallas for his very thoughtful statement. He has made the case that we want to defeat the previous question on this so that any Member, Democrat or Republican alike, would have the opportunity to offer their thoughtful proposals as to how we would deal with this issue of skyrocketing gasoline prices. I represent Southern California, and I will tell you that it is a major concern of my constituents. And I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as we have seen this dramatic increase take place over the past year plus, year and a half, agree it is very, very troubling. And I was struck. I've had the benefit of looking at the advance copy of Mr. Sessions' closing remarks. His thoughtful staff has coined actually a very, very apropos phrase here in describing what we have as the Pelosi Petroleum Price Increase--PPPI. And I think that really does coin it very well, because we know that 2 years ago tomorrow, Speaker Pelosi made this statement: ``The Democrats have a commonsense plan to deal with skyrocketing gasoline prices.'' Now since that period of time, and I just was struck, I saw a cartoon in today's USA Today in which they go through this litany of proposals. We're telling Big Oil to make sure that they bring prices down, and proposals are thrown out in this cartoon, saying, Why don't we deal with the question of nuclear energy? Absolutely not. Why don't we look at clean coal? Absolutely not. Why don't we look at possibly responsible, environmentally sound exploration in ANWR? Absolutely not. Why don't we look at using the cleanest, safest, most cost effective energy source, that being nuclear? We haven't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years. Absolutely not. Why don't we increase our refinery capacity? There has not been a single new refinery built in 30 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of proposals that we very much hope we will be allowed to offer. The way to do that is to defeat the previous question on this rule so that we can say to our constituents, we are going to take firm, bold, dramatic steps to decrease the cost of the gasoline that they are putting in their cars every single day. I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank him for his very thoughtful comments.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. ``A commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gasoline prices.'' That's what my friend from Pasco just quoted my California colleague, our distinguished Speaker, as having said 2 years ago tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, if we look at what has taken place over that 2-year period of time, we know, and I will tell you that as a driver and a representative of people who drive the freeways of southern California, we've seen gas prices skyrocket over the past 2 years. There's no plan put forward. We're very proud of the fact that we have a plan. I just had the privilege of talking to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) about some of the challenges that we face. Obviously, I believe that environmentally sound exploration in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, is the responsible thing for us to do. The Outer Continental Shelf is what we need to pursue. There's this potential of a great new shale find in North Dakota. And then one of the interesting things that Mr. Shimkus and I were just discussing is the fact that it, of course, has been three decades, three decades, since we have seen the construction of any new refinery in this country and, of course, three decades since we have seen the construction of any nuclear power facility. We all know that nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most cost-effective energy source around. These are the kinds of responsible things that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently stood in the way of every single one of those very responsible measures. And pursuing alternative sources is something else that we strongly support. Coal to liquid, those are the kinds of things that we need to be doing. Now, what is it that we are doing here with this rule? We are, of course, talking about small business issues, but we know the overwhelming concern of our constituents today is this problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices. So when we move to defeat the previous question, Mr. Hastings, my friend from Pasco, is going to seek to offer an amendment to this rule. The amendment will simply say that any Member, any Member, who has a proposal that will deal with providing a commonsense plan to address the problem of skyrocketing gas prices will be able to offer that amendment here on the House floor. So all we're asking our colleagues to do is to amend this rule by defeating the previous question so that we will be able to deal with one of the most pressing concerns that our constituents are asking us to address. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we will allow our Members to step up to the plate and offer these very, very thoughtful solutions or anything that our friends on the other side of the aisle might seek to offer as an amendment that would, in fact, allow this to happen. I thank, again, my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. And it is very interesting. We have heard the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, talk about the need for trade adjustment assistance, a second stimulus package. And Madam Speaker, I would argue that the Colombia free-trade agreement, which will create an opportunity for more U.S. workers to sell their goods and agricultural products into Colombia is, in fact, trade adjustment assistance itself. And I would argue that this agreement, job creating, is in fact an economic stimulus package in and of itself. So if the commitment is to trade adjustment assistance and economic stimulus so that we can create more jobs in the United States of America, the answer is, pass the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. DREIER. So basically this would best be described as a win-win all the way around. It's a winner for the cause of democracy and freedom and the rule of law in South America, which we all know is very important. It's a winner when it comes to stopping those drug traffickers who are selling drugs, poisoning our children and grandchildren. And then we look at the opportunity created for the United States of America, our workers. They're greatly benefited by this. And that's why I continue to try to figure out why it is that anyone would oppose this. I mean we use the term ``no brainer'' to describe this. It really is a no brainer. We used that in the debate last week. I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery, and a couple of others have said this is a no brainer. And these editorials that have been written, I think we probably should share some of the words of these publications that often criticize Republican policies who have come forward with this. I know a number of things have been put forward. But one thing just today, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial that was in strong support of a letter, an open letter, that came from former senior administration officials from the Clinton administration and Democratic Members of Congress, and it was signed by 35 of them, former colleagues of ours who are Democrats. And it includes people, by the way, just some of the signatories of this letter, the former Commerce Secretary William Daley, who is from Mr. Weller's State that we talked about; Stuart Eizenstat, a very prominent brilliant economic mind; General Barry McCaffrey; our former colleague who was a Republican Senator but went on to be the Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, Bill Cohen, signed this. So a lot of people have signed this letter. It says: ``We believe this agreement is in both our vital national security and economic interests. We feel that the treaty should be considered as soon as possible.'' I remind people it's not actually a treaty; it's an agreement. ``We feel that the treaty should be considered as soon as possible and that any obstacles be quickly and amicably resolved.'' The letter cites ``an overwhelming national security imperative'' and that ``President Uribe has been a strong and faithful ally. To turn our back on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would be a severe blow to that relationship and would send a very negative message to our friends in a volatile region? The letter praises Colombia for its ``dramatic improvement in security'' and for being ``a model of open market democracy that supports fundamental U.S. national interests'' and points out that these are ideals that many in the region ``openly scorn,'' of course, referring, as my friend just said, to Hugo Chavez. The letter goes on to praise Uribe personally for his ``great personal courage'' in aggressively going on the offensive in fighting narcoterrorists and dramatically increasing drug interdiction and eradication of criminals to the United States, or extradition of criminals. Eradication of criminals too, we want to do that. It also praises his substantial progress in the issue of violence against trade unionists, pointing out that Uribe has provided special security protection to some 9,400 individuals. This number says including 1,900 trade unionists. I said 1,500, and this letter that these officials of the Clinton administration and former Democratic Members of the United States Congress said 1,900 trade unionists have been able to receive this kind of protection. And that's why I implore my colleagues in the Democratic leadership to bring this up for a vote. Mark my words, and I would ask any of my colleagues who are here if they disagree with my assessment, if after we go through these arguments, which we have begun talking about tonight and we talked a little bit about last week, is there any doubt that we would have strong bipartisan support with many Democrats joining with us in support of this? I would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues who have any thoughts or comments on that at all. I suspect you might agree with me, but if you have any thoughts on it, I would be happy to. Mr. Brady, you look like you would like to cast your vote.

Mr. DREIER. I believe he's called the Fiscalia.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution, Madam Speaker. And one of the issues that has come to the forefront, and I would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues who would like to comment on this, has been this notion that the Colombian Government is somehow murdering union leaders. We have continued to hear this. And it is true. In the past it's been absolutely outrageous to see the treatment. But in the last several years under the leadership of President Uribe, very important steps have been taken to bring to justice any of those who have been responsible for the heinous act of murdering these union leaders. And the government has done something which is totally unprecedented. The government does not want to see union leaders killed; so what do they do? There are 1,500 union leaders who enjoy full security protection paid for by the Government of Colombia. And yet we continually hear arguments put forward by our friends at the AFL-CIO that ``the Colombian Government is murdering our brothers.'' I mean I've heard that chant over and over and over again. Because, of course, as these very thoughtful arguments that my colleagues have put forward are there, the only response that they can have is the Colombian Government is murdering, is murdering, our brothers. I would be happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. My friend makes a very good and important point here. And I was talking to my colleague, Dan Lungren, who served here, I was pleased to serve with him during the 1980s when we were in the midst, and I know my friend from California came in 1986 to this institution. We have spent time, energy, resources and weapons in dealing with the expansion of Communism in Central America as we were providing resources to the Democratic resistance in Nicaragua known as the Contras. And we regularly hear criticism from Democrats that what we should be doing in Iraq is we shouldn't be using weapons, we should, in fact, be engaging and using trade and other things. And what is it we have here? We have Democrats, the Democratic leadership, unfortunately, saying that as we seek to build a stronger relationship with a country that is standing up to narcoterrorists, that is standing up to the expansion of Hugo Chavez on their borders trying to extend into the country, and they are saying ``no'' to this. They are saying ``no'' to this because somehow they believe it is going to hurt U.S. workers. To me it is absolutely outrageous that this has taken place. And Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my colleagues for the time that they have spent here this evening. And I hope very much that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership will, in fact, schedule a vote on the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement before the August recess. Let's begin the process of debate and voting right now. I thank again my colleagues, Madam Speaker, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. And that's a good thing.

Mr. DREIER. That's right because, as I pointed out earlier, the private sector unions, and Mr. Weller and I had this exchange, are very supportive of this. And I suspect that on your trip, you had a chance to meet with a number of those union leaders. Let me just say that one Member who is here that we haven't heard from is the distinguished gentleman from Iowa. Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to yield to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time so I could propound a question to my friend, and I don't mean to interrupt his very thoughtful statement. But as I listened to the arguments that have been made by Speaker Pelosi and others against this, they said we have an economy that is weakening. We all know that is the case. Our economy is facing very serious challenges. Here again, this is Tax Day, April 15, and it is hard for people to make ends meet. It has become more difficult. So the argument has been made. I hear Speaker Pelosi regularly say we need to focus on American workers and their concerns rather than some kind of agreement, and so we should put off this agreement until our economy is stronger. And I just don't quite understand that. And I wonder if my friend might enlighten me on exactly what the point of that statement is. And I further yield.

Mr. DREIER. Share one of those stories.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. My friend is absolutely right. And I will tell you, these meetings are always, for me, I've participated in several of them, very emotional. As I said in my opening remarks, I remember very vividly seeing this young, I mean, a kid, he said he was 18 years old when he watched the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the FARC, which we all know that acronym, they came in and they murdered his mother and father right in front of him. And of course he was, like any of us would be, so angry and so bitter that he joined with the paramilitary and began being, as you said so well, Mr. Carter, a guerrilla fighter. And he was able to become productive because of the trade schools that have been put into place. And the patriotism that these young Colombians have for their country and their desire for a peaceful nation is so great. They were forced into this because these narcoterrorists in the FARC were resorting to murdering their parents. And so many others have been tragically murdered there. To see this take place and to hear those individual stories, they are very, very emotional. In fact, as you listen to these people, I mean, I'm getting emotional thinking about it because of the fact that these young people who have been forced into this are now becoming productive members of society. And the notion of our not doing what we can to bring about peace and stability in this hemisphere is, I think, very, very distressing. I am happy to see that we're joined by the very distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Ways and Means Committee, my California colleague, Mr. Herger. And I would be happy to yield for some comments to my very good friend.

Mr. DREIER. So maybe there would be more than 11,000 workers if this agreement were to go through.

Mr. DREIER. Beautiful area.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to pose a question, if I might, to my friend. As we hear this 73 percent support level in Colombia, we know that the opposition here in the United States to this is being led by the AFL-CIO and organized labor. Now, I'm sure that my friend has seen in Colombia, as I have, that the private sector unions in Colombia are strongly supportive of this agreement. Is that the case or not? I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me express my appreciation to my friend for pointing to these editorials because, as I said a few minutes ago, we've done a great deal of research. We've been trying desperately to find an editorial anywhere in this country that has been written in support of the egregious action taken by the Democratic leadership in this institution, undermining the ability to open up this very important new market for U.S. workers, agricultural products and manufactured goods. We hear from California and Illinois and other States as well. And I actually have, I think, about 15 of these editorials here with some incredible quotes that are pretty damning. And again, these come from publications that are hardly considered Republican mouth pieces. You know, we had this very harsh criticism level at the President of the United States, and he somehow was trying to ram this thing through and rush it. We know that this agreement, the negotiation began 4 years ago, it was completed 2 years ago, and a year and a half ago it was signed. There have been constant attempts to bring this up; 27 meetings held with the Democratic leadership by this administration, and yet, as has been pointed out in these editorials, this terrible action was taken. I'm very pleased that one of the great free traders in this institution who represents the very important port town of Houston, Texas, has joined us, another hardworking member of the Ways and Means--I guess we've got three members of the Ways and Means Committee here, so I'm particularly pleased to have members of that very, very important committee with us, including my good friend, as I said, from Houston, Mr. Brady.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I hope that you can stay for a few minutes because I know we would like to get in some other questions. When my friend began discussing the fact that a delegation came from Colombia of union leaders to the United States, I thought that you were going to mention the fact that a delegation of Members of the United States Congress went last week to Colombia. One of those who went was the distinguished secretary of the Republican Conference, our very, very good friend, Judge John Carter, a gentleman from Texas. And I would love to hear his thoughts, having just been in Colombia a week ago, on his trip. And I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, did you have a chance to visit Medellin?