David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding, and I want to buttress his argument, which is a very clear one. Obviously, we want to ensure that every American pays their fair share of taxes. We have had a dramatic increase in collection success by virtue of this program, and here we are gutting it because a very small group of people seems to oppose it. It happens to be union opposition. As a taxpayer, I pay my fair share of taxes. I want to make sure that every other American pays their fair share of taxes, and that is exactly what this 10-year-old program has done, and has done with success. Mr. Speaker, I really am very, very puzzled as we begin today with the debate on two rules that will lead to legislation being considered here on the House floor. The reason I am perplexed is we are dealing with two very important issues. The majority leadership clearly has its right and its responsibility to move their agenda. They want to do what they are planning to do now on this issue of private sector collection of taxes, and they want to dramatically expand housing programs. Those are the two things that the majority is planning to move to the floor today. But I just don't understand, Mr. Speaker. I just don't understand why it is that we are doing what we are doing. My friend from California, Mr. Cardoza, just described how the Rules Committee was run when I had the privilege of serving as chairman of the committee. He said we have what is a customary closed rule, I think is the term that he used. Is that the term? I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, they said, and I do remember this very well, but I think it's important for my colleague to repeat this, they said that they intended it to be here because they didn't want any physicians to have even the slightest interest in hospitals, so for that reason they were going to deny the opportunity for a health facility for a quarter of a million people in an area that is geographically the size of the entire State of Maryland in eastern Washington?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time in the 110th Congress that I have stood here taking out a 1-hour Special Order, and I don't do this very lightly and obviously I don't do it terribly often. But, Mr. Speaker, I am here to address an issue that, frankly, doesn't get a great deal of attention either in this House or among the American people. Last week my very distinguished colleagues, with whom I am pleased to serve on the House Rules Committee on the minority side, the gentleman from Miami, FL, Lincoln Diaz-Balart; the gentleman from Pasco, WA, Doc Hastings; and the gentleman from Dallas, TX, Pete Sessions; and I came together. And we, after a great deal of research, have compiled a report and unveiled this. This report, Mr. Speaker, is entitled ``Out of Order,'' and I would commend it to all of my colleagues. It is relatively short, about 10 or 11 pages, has got a number of graphs, and it is available for any one of our colleagues who would like to see this report. You can get it on the Web right now if you'd like, Mr. Speaker, at rules- republicans.house.gov. And I will repeat that again. It's rules- republicans.house.gov. And what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, over the next hour is we are going to hear about this report, and a number of our very distinguished colleagues who have, for lack of a better term, been victimized by the actions of this Rules Committee are going to share with our colleagues some of the experiences that they have had. Now, one might say that we are here whining or complaining about our mistreatment. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are here because the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike, were promised something much different than what they have gotten. We are not here to whine. We are not here to complain. We are here to fight on behalf of the American people's right to be heard, the right to ensure that our deliberative democracy is, in fact, that; that our process of representative democracy is able to flourish. And, tragically, if one looks at this report, over the last 9 months we have found that that has not, in fact, been the case. Now, many might argue these guys want to just talk about process. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues process is substance. It has been through this horrendous process that we have seen, in the farm bill, a massive tax increase that was written into place by the Rules Committee. We have found, through this Rules Committee, that they have prevented us from having the opportunity to bring gasoline prices down, and we all know that gasoline prices are incredibly high. How did they do that? By denying an opportunity for us to have an amendment that would have done what virtually everyone says is essential in our quest to reduce gasoline prices, and that is to increase refinery capacity. Unfortunately, the permitting process is so onerous that it has been literally decades since we have seen a new oil refinery put online. What happened? Right upstairs, just one floor above where we are now, Mr. Speaker, we saw that process utilized to prevent us from having the ability to even have a vote on whether or not we would create the potential to increase refinery capacity. And then in the dead of night, in the very dead of night on the so- called SCHIP bill, which virtually every single one of us want to make sure that poor kids are able to have access to health care, we want to do that, but we don't want us to proceed with something that was done in the dead of night at 1 o'clock in the morning by the Rules Committee, and that is take the Medicare Advantage program and basically throw that out the window, undermining the ability for senior citizens to have access to quality health care. And so this notion of our, as some have liked to say, whining about process is not the case. We are here fighting on behalf of the American people so that we can have some success with the process of representing them as effectively as possible. Now, we know that throughout the last couple of years and, in fact, at the beginning of this year, we, as Members of the United States House of Representatives, were promised an awful lot. And, Mr. Speaker, I know that often the other side will simply raise criticism about how we as Republicans managed this institution. And I have admitted that we have made mistakes. I admitted that we didn't do it perfectly. And I know we have three present members of the Rules Committee and one former member of the Rules Committee here, and I have acknowledged to them that we didn't do everything perfectly. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker: our discussion here is not about what we did. It is about what Members of the new majority promised they were going to do. I would like to share a couple of quotes, and we have got some charts here. I don't often use charts, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is important to point to some of the things that were said. Here is a quote from Steny Hoyer, the majority leader. Let's look at this, Mr. Speaker. In testimony that he gave before the Rules Committee on June 23 of 2003, he said: ``Mr. Chairman,'' I guess he was addressing me at that point. He said: ``The lack of a free and fair debate on such important matters is an embarrassment to the Members who are privileged to serve here. It demeans this House. It cheats the American people, and it offends our democratic traditions.'' So we were promised that there would be a new day, a new day when they became the majority. Let me just take a moment to look at the track record, and then I want to begin yielding to some of my colleagues. In the last 9 months, this Rules Committee has issued more than double, in fact, many more than double the number of closed rules than our Republican majority Rules Committee did. Now, Mr. Speaker, for those of our colleagues who may not have been following this all that closely, it means no amendments and very limited debate. So we were promised this new open process that was denied in the past, and yet they have come forward with more than twice as many completely closed rules, shutting out any opportunity for amendment. This Rules Committee has rejected more minority-sponsored amendments than the Rules Committee of the past did. And Mr. Speaker, this Rules Committee has, unfortunately, reduced by a full day the amount of time that Members and their staff have to review the bills and to submit their amendments. So they promised that all this great deliberation was going to take place, and they've actually cut nearly in half the amount of time the Members have to review and look at and offer amendments to measures. One of the most outrageous things of all, Mr. Speaker, one of the most outrageous policies to come forward is one which is a slap in the face at any American who has their Representative here trying to offer an amendment for them. For management purposes, if the Rules Committee obviously establishes that they are going to have some kind of structured rule, we have a deadline for filing, and that deadline is stated, for example, at 5 p.m. on a certain date. And we have instance after instance where Members have literally arrived at the door 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 minutes after 5 p.m. and they've been told that their amendment can't even be considered, can't even be submitted for the Rules Committee to consider. Now, I will say that this is something that has never been done in the 220-year history of this institution. The Rules Committee was established, Mr. Speaker, on the 2nd of April, 1789, which was the second day of the first Congress. Since that period of time, we have never had this kind of treatment of Members. And that's a new policy that has been put into place under this so- called enhancement of deliberativeness, openness, transparency, disclosure and accountability, and all of those words that we've continued to hear from so many in the past who have touted all the changes that need to be made. So let's see what we've got. Okay. We've got a quote from the very distinguished chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). Now, this was on the 20th of April in 2005. And in this quote, she was describing the job of ranking minority member of the Rules Committee in a press release that was put out. It is the job that I now hold as ranking minority member. And in this press release she stated, ``My job on the Rules Committee is to serve as the guardian of the democratic process in the House. That process and the democratic values of everyday Americans are under attack by an out-of-control majority. Someone has to step up to the plate and ensure that the business of this House is conducted in an ethical manner, without corruption and without arrogance. I didn't ask for that job, but I humbly accept the responsibility.'' Now, that's a statement that was made by the very distinguished present chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that when we look at this record over the past 9 months, it is, to me, a very, very sad commentary that every single American has had their rights undermined on dealing with substantive public policy issues. Just upstairs about 2 hours ago in the Rules Committee, we, unfortunately, reported out a rule dealing with a very important issue that we're going to be considering this week, and there were some questions that were raised. The minority was promised last August 2, 2 months ago today, that that issue would be resolved. And unfortunately, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), who serves as the ranking member of a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on the issue in question, which is one that we want to address, it's one that's getting a great deal of attention now, but what happened? The issue and the concerns that were raised in a bipartisan way were completely ignored; so, no opportunity whatsoever to address that. We offered two amendments upstairs to try and address those and, unfortunately, by a partisan vote we saw the American people, through their Representatives on the Rules Committee, denied that chance to have this issue dealt with in a bipartisan way, as had been promised in the past. There are a number of issues that I would like to get into to discuss. We know probably the one that has gotten the most attention within the last week had to do with the aftermath of the unveiling of our very important out-of-order report, which again I would say to my colleagues, I encourage them to look at this report. It's available at rules-republicans.house.gov. And any of our colleagues can go online right now and get a copy of this. And Mr. Speaker, I would encourage them to do that. After we unveiled this plan last week, Mr. Speaker, in which we talked about this problem, the Rules Committee took action which I find to be absolutely reprehensible, and there was bipartisan concern voiced over the action that was taken. We were considering a critical issue. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the other natural disasters that we faced in this country, the issue of flood insurance is one which clearly is not partisan at all. I mean, Republicans, Democrats, independents have tragically been victimized by these natural disasters. They've hit primarily the Gulf Coast, and my friend from Florida certainly has been often victimized by hurricanes in south Florida, and others have dealt with this very serious challenge. Well, there were a number of amendments that had been proposed. Our friend from Georgia (Mr. Price) is here, and he is going to talk about one. When the Committee on Financial Services went through its markup process, there was an indication provided, and I will let him expand on this, that the process of dealing with flood insurance would be addressed going through the process and that there would be opportunity for amendments to be considered. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services came before the committee on Rules and asked that a number of Republican amendments be made in order. Mr. Speaker, we couldn't believe what happened. There were 13 amendments made in order on that bill; not one single Republican amendment was made in order on that bill. And what happened? We saw bipartisan outrage. There were people, including the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, who could not support that rule. And that was unprecedented. I've been here 27 years and I've never seen a circumstance like that. And so what this shows, Mr. Speaker, is the Rules Committee is being used very arrogantly to undermine the rights of the American people to deal with an issue as critical as flood insurance reform. And so it saddens me that we've had to take this time out, it truly does, because I know that I would very much like to be able to work in a bipartisan way on all of these issues. I've continued to try and do that in the past, and I will continue, as all of my colleagues will, to strive for bipartisanship on behalf of the American people in the future. Let me say that I am very privileged again to be joined by my distinguished colleagues on the Rules Committee, and we now have two former members of the Rules Committee who have come to the floor as well. And I begin by recognizing my very good friend, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend very much, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) who was also victimized by this process.

Mr. DREIER. And what happened?

Mr. DREIER. So they had already the amendment electronic submitted before the 5 o'clock deadline; am I correct in saying that? Mr. PRICE of GEORGIA. You are absolutely right. The amendment was within the purview at that point of the Rules Committee. They had notice. Now, again, it is not that we were denied the amendment. It is that the American people were denied the opportunity to have a substantive amendment debated on the floor of the House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the President is going to veto that piece of legislation, and I believe he is going to do so because our amendment was not allowed to be acted upon by the House, because he supported the amendment that we would have offered, which was a very substantive amendment, a significant change in the flood insurance reform bill. As my friend from California mentioned, there were 13 amendments made in order to that bill, 13 Democrat amendments, no Republican amendments. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is all politics, that is all politics. Again, it doesn't harm us personally. What it does is disenfranchise nearly half of the American people, and that is why this matters. What it means is that nearly half of this body is not given the opportunity and the right that they were given in winning their election. We all represent essentially the same number of people. When the majority does not allow a certain Member or Members to offer amendments or to offer their best ideas, what they do is disenfranchise nearly half of the American people. I can only think of three reasons why that would be done. One, it is a broken promise. We have seen the promises. Two, it is for political expediency. Or, three, it is what de Tocqueville called the tyranny of the majority. That is what I believe we have, a tyranny of the majority that is running this House right now. It doesn't hurt me personally, but it hurts the institution, it hurts our democracy, and it disenfranchises nearly half of the American people.

Mr. DREIER. He was quoted as saying he believed it wrong that they were denied. Tragically, this was done in the aftermath of the unveiling of this report that we put forward simply stating the facts of what has taken place in the last 9 months.

Mr. DREIER. To reclaim my time, I will tell you we had a perfect example of that, as I alluded to earlier, and my Rules Committee colleagues know this very well. We were trying to deal with this military justice issue. The ranking member of the subcommittee said he was promised an opportunity to address these concerns that were there, and neither the committee nor the Rules Committee allowed that kind of free-flowing discussion to which my friend refers. I am happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, let me just say how much I appreciate, and, again, after having heard him, miss my friend from my Utah's very, very thoughtful and incisive insight on the Rules Committee. I mentioned earlier the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have dealt with this flood insurance bill. It should have been very bipartisan. We have two Members who were victimized by that right here, the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from New Jersey, and I am happy to yield to them. We just have a few minutes left. Obviously we could go on and on and on because there are so many Members. I am happy to yield first to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a hardworking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. DREIER. In fact, as I recall, the chairman testified and said he supported the notion of making the gentleman's motion in order.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say again we very much miss the gentleman from Georgia's active participation on the Committee on Rules. He was very, very helpful to us time and time again. It saddens me greatly that his constituents, the American people, are denied an opportunity to have thoughtful proposals even considered whatsoever by the Rules Committee, not even a chance to be denied for consideration here on the House floor. I know that I want to recognize my friend Mr. Sessions, who's here, but we also want to recognize another very distinguished former member of the Rules Committee. I again am saddened that he is not able to serve with us on the Rules Committee any longer. That's what happens when you go under the minority. We look forward to one day, I hope in the very, very, very near future, to his return for that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend from Utah.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dallas for his very thoughtful remarks and hard work. I recommend to my colleagues going to rules-republicans.house.gov to see a copy of this very, very important report that we have just unveiled, because it is on behalf of the American people, not any bipartisanship, the American people, that we are fighting on behalf of their rights.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by it, I will tell you. It absolutely intrigues me when my friends talk about process here.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, they said they would be out of business if this were to pass?

Mr. DREIER. Now, is this the report that our colleagues can actually get by going to rules-republicans.house.gov? Is that the same report?

Mr. DREIER. If I could just interject, I would like to make this point one more time. ``An open process will mean that more commonsense legislation written in the national interest will get to the House floor and be voted on,'' and here we are with twice the number of closed rules, shutting out any opportunity for amendment, limiting debate, preventing Members from having an opportunity to even submit their amendments to the Rules Committee, and that is what we were promised?

Mr. DREIER. If I could point out, let me just point to the statement that was made by the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, since my friend mentioned the word ``promise.'' I will point to this one first. It says: ``We promise the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.'' I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I would say parenthetically it is very interesting to note that this program that has passed, which has now been sent down to the President's desk, which he will veto tomorrow, is a program that actually does include an opportunity for benefits for people that are in this country illegally, which is incredible.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks. We have 25 minutes left, and we have a lot of our colleagues who need to be heard on this issue. I think the gentleman from Miami makes the point very, very clearly, the fact that this is not simply a technical issue. This is about the American people's rights being undermined by this new leadership here in the House of Representatives. It is very unfortunate. I thank the gentleman for his fine service on the Rules Committee and again for his thoughtful remarks. I am happy to yield to my very good friend from Pasco, WA, who labors long and hard on the Rules Committee, as well.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I would just like to ask my friend to repeat that again. We've got this chart here that shows this, that if you juxtapose the 109th and the 110th Congress, you can see that if you look at the number of closed rules, we have had a dramatic increase in the number of closed rules. I think it's even more than this chart has shown, more than double. And again, today, we just, in the last couple of hours, had more closed rules. And I'm happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER. I have got the address right here.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his dedication, his hard work, and thank God President Bush is going to veto that SCHIP bill tomorrow, because if we end up with that legislation potentially jeopardizing a quarter of a million Washingtonians' access to health care at that health facility, it is something that we all would find frightening, and clearly no one wants to see that happen. And yet they said, I mean none of us want to see it happen, but they said they intended to close down this facility.

Mr. DREIER. Is that in Pasco?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members be able to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.