David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. DREIER. I will say in response to the assessment that the gentleman provided of my service as chairman of the Rules Committee, I never reported out a rule that shut down the entire process, which is exactly what this rule is doing. With regard to self-executing items--

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to yield the gentleman from Dallas an additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I mentioned the fact that this is the 27th year for the two of us to be serving in this great institution. If one goes back and looks beyond last year but instead at the appropriations process which during our 27-year period has been considered under an open process, there are times when we would be here late at night voting on appropriations bills in the past. It has allowed Members to work their will as they have gone through this. So while you have looked at the precedent of last year as part of this agreement that you and Mr. Boehner had, the concern that I have is that this is setting a precedent for the future, which is a very, very troubling one. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I know that my very good friend, the distinguished majority leader, as am I, is an institutionalist. He is just a little junior to me in this House. I came here just a few months before he did in his special election in 1981.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, never before have we had an action such as this, self-executing six amendments in passage of the rule and completely shutting down the process. Mr. Speaker, never before has this been done. I have a litany of colleagues who share my outrage. They want to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just say, were there six amendments that were self-executing in the passage of any of those rules? Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Hobbs, New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order. I would just like to buttress the arguments that have been provided by my friend from Dallas. It was about 1 o'clock this morning that the Rules Committee convened, after having had this package for a half an hour. And I know my very dear friends on the Rules Committee, who probably haven't gotten a heck of a lot of sleep last night, remember very well that into the evening I had been handed by members of my staff a list of some of these hospitals that were specifically raised, that the concern that was raised by my friend from Dallas. And I've got to tell you that as I look at the hospitals in the Nashville, Davidson, Murfreesboro area in Cumberland County, Tennessee, and Marionette, Wisconsin and Michigan and Chicago and Massachusetts and New York, Clinton County, New York, we, Madam Speaker, don't understand what these are. As my friend has just said, there are no names attached to this whatsoever. And we were promised this great new sense of openness and transparency and disclosure and accountability, and none of that has happened here. And so I join my friend in saying that what we should probably do, if we are going to proceed here, is take a breather. I think that would be the right thing for us to do.

Mr. DREIER. ``Madam Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process. The underlying bill will harm every single one of the 40 million Americans served by Medicare. At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. ``When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half of the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration.'' Madam Speaker, as eloquent as that statement was, it wasn't mine. That statement that I just read was in fact the statement delivered right here on the floor on June 26, 2003, by the now distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, my very good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). It was offered during the debate on the Medicare prescription drug bill and the modernization act which passed and has provided access to affordable prescription drugs for seniors for the past several years. Madam Speaker, if these words that I just offered from the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee from back in 2003 were true then, they certainly are true now. As Mr. Sessions said, last night, the Rules Committee met for 2\1/2\ hours in the dark of night to try to figure out the intricacies of this bill, just shortly after we as Republicans, the minority, received the final text. What became clear last night is even the authors aren't clear about the effects of this legislation. We had an in-depth discussion about specialty hospitals and whether this bill would deprive 150,000 constituents, our friend from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings), a hardworking member of the Rules Committee, 150,000 of his constituents, whether or not it would prevent them from having access to hospital care. First, our witnesses said, no, it wouldn't. Then they said, yes, it would. Then they said the hospital deserved to be closed because the physicians who own the hospital and serve that community were trying to ``get away with something.'' Now that is the round-and-about discussion we had on what is taking place in eastern Washington. That is just one isolated issue. You can just imagine how many more there are in this monstrosity of a bill. And the majority's answer to that question: Deny all amendments. Prevent anyone from having an opportunity to improve the bill. Yes, Madam Speaker, we have the latest manifestation of the new Democratic philosophy described so eloquently in the Rules Committee last week. It was declared by one of our Rules Committee colleagues: If you have a problem with a bill, then no amendments for you. It is a circular logic at its worst. I feel compelled to point out that even on the much-maligned Medicare prescription drug legislation that we had, we gave the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) a substitute. What do we get on this bill, in a word, we got absolutely nothing. No substitute, nothing. Madam Speaker, there was no need to bring this bill before the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. this morning. The chairwoman of the Rules Committee began the 110th Congress by stressing that we would end the committee's so-called ``California hours'' that I imposed on them and have our meetings in the daylight. Well, I have to say, Madam Speaker, at 2:30 this morning the sun was not out. I have to say that this measure is one that clearly we support, SCHIP, but not this very undemocratic process and this horrible measure.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and appreciate his very thoughtful remarks on this. I was talking earlier about these earmarks that have been included in this measure that have no names attached to them whatsoever. They cover the States of Tennessee and Michigan and New York and other spots, and we don't have any comprehension of them, and I guess that's allowed. Now, it wouldn't have been allowed in the last Congress, because when we passed earmark reform; Madam Speaker, let me just explain to my colleagues who may be a little confused on this, that when we passed earmark reform in September of last year we said that there should be full disclosure, a full listing, full transparency on all appropriations bills and on all tax bills and other authorizing legislation. Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, when we came forward, and of course we were maligned for having passed that earmark reform in the last Congress, but when we finally came forward and rectified the structure that allowed people to only send a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee if they wanted to raise concern, but they had no ability whatsoever to raise concern or raise a point of order on the House floor about an earmark, we saw that, finally agreed to it. But guess what, Madam Speaker? Unfortunately, the authorizing legislation including tax bills was completely omitted, completely omitted from this transparency plan that we had in the 109th Congress. And so that's, I guess, why it's allowed to include all of these hospitals in this measure without having any names attached to them, without any opportunity whatsoever to raise questions about them; and so I continue to support the effort of my friend here.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I want to say what a privilege it is for me to be, as always, on the floor with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my good friend from Detroit (Mr. Conyers) and, of course, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, my friend from San Antonio (Mr. Smith). Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the distinguished Chair go through the litany of items that are included in this measure, I couldn't help but think it's virtually identical to what we passed in the last Congress. I know there are a number of things we came to agree upon, and so that's why I rise today in somewhat quiet resignation over this so- called Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. I am not opposed to the bill. I am not opposed to the bill because, frankly, there is nothing to be opposed to. The bill that I sponsored that Mr. Smith referred to in the last Congress was repeatedly referred to by our leadership colleagues on the other side of the aisle as a sham. They regularly said that the items that frankly were just outlined by Mr. Conyers in this bill that he is describing, when I offered it, it was described as a sham. But my colleagues, unfortunately, while we were successful during the House consideration of the bill to bring it up to the sham level from its initial sub-sham status, I would argue that this bill is not much better overall on the substance, and it is far, far worse on the process, which is a big part of the responsibilities that I have. The new majority, as we all know, promised us open conferences, with meaningful participation by the minority party. What we have here is a willful effort to avoid a conference entirely without any participation by Republicans or public disclosure of the language. Now, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules just last week complained to me about how the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee never told his ranking member about where and when conferences on tax bills were meeting. Well, I have got to hand it to the new majority. They have come up with a novel answer to that problem. Don't hold conferences at all. That way, you aren't even bothered with having to file a conference report. That's right, the most open Congress in history, which is what we have continued to hear this one described as, has not made the text of its ballyhooed lobbying bill available to the public or rank-and- file members anywhere, anywhere that we could find. As late as 8:30 this morning, we checked the Speaker's Web site, the majority leader's Web site, the Judiciary Committee's Web site, even Thomas. It was nowhere to be found. We were able, we were able, though, to get a copy of it. Guess how? We got it from a lobbyist. When I say that there was no participation by Republicans, I mean none, none whatsoever. As I said, I have the greatest regard for my friend from Detroit (Mr. Conyers) who works so ably as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate his support for my amendment that I offered on floor. However, you can imagine my surprise when I discovered late yesterday that there were changes in my amendment in the document that we have in front of us. Now, these changes aren't bad changes. I am not going to complain about the changes that were made. They probably actually improved the amendment; that's what the legislative process is all about. But if the majority really wanted to declare a new day and live up to the promises of inclusion, calling me, asking me my thoughts on the change might have been a step in the right direction; but apparently the majority just couldn't be bothered with that at all. There is a great deal missing from this bill that a majority of the House, including 138 Democrats, voted for, things like a reverse revolving door, requiring a lobbyist to disclose earmarks that they are lobbying for, and an end to the State and local governments lobbying loophole. Despite promises to the contrary, they haven't extended our earmark rules to cover authorizing and tax bills, which is one of the last things we did in this Congress. Unfortunately, we have yet to bring the new majority's level up to ours on dealing with that disclosure on authorizing and tax bills. As the majority pushes this bill through without any input from Republicans, they are responsible for its content. They are responsible for its content, not us. I mourn this missed opportunity for bipartisanship, which we continue to hear about on a regular basis, and, frankly, grieve the broken promises which, not just Republicans, but the American people have been subjected to.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions on this. She is so expert, as a member of the committee, having worked long and hard on this. I would like to ask if she is aware of any cases where American lives are already at risk because of the fact that we don't have the ability to monitor, in foreign countries foreigners who are engaging in these kinds of conversations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very thoughtful colleague from Orlando (Mr. Keller).

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would like to actually say that clearly the gentleman from Santa Clarita (Mr. McKeon) is going to be about talking about this issue, assuming we do move to the bill. But I will say that we are going to, as we did in the case of the last bill, seek to defeat the previous question so that we will have a chance to deal with an issue that is critically important, critically important to the security of the United States of America and our allies. We, for literally months, have been saying that we need to take the very antiquated, 1978, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and have a chance, have a chance to improve and update that so that we could bring that three-decade old legislation into the 21st century with the tremendous technological changes that have taken place. We have been imploring Members of this House to move legislation so that those who are in the intelligence field, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, will simply have the opportunity, have the opportunity to monitor foreigners on foreign soil without going through the long process of seeking a court order to not, not in any way, engage on the monitoring of telephone conversations of Americans, but of terrorists on foreign soil who want to kill us. Mr. Speaker, since my colleague from Albuquerque has authored legislation, we will seek, if we can get our colleagues to vote against the previous question, to make this critically important legislation in order, rather than waiting until, rather than waiting until after the August recess. Tragically, we have just gotten news that the scheduled briefing for the Intelligence Committee that was to be provided at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning by the Director of National Intelligence has just been postponed until after the August recess, more than a month from now. I believe that we have created some very serious problems here. Mr. Speaker, I yield further to my colleague for some remarks on this.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Santa Clarita, California, the former chairman, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of that, it is absolutely imperative that we defeat the previous question on this rule so that we will have an opportunity to deal with this horror that will allow us to have a chance to save American lives, as the gentlewoman has just said. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, discrimination is wrong. And I, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are horrified, absolutely horrified at the thought of discrimination taking place. And like Lilly Ledbetter, we want to ensure, as she very selflessly said, that as we look to future instances of potential discrimination, that no one is ever treated as she was. But I will say that this rule and the underlying legislation are a very, very bad signal in our attempt to address this question. From a substantive point, this bill is only the most recent salvo in the Democratic majority's assault on entrepreneurship and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. From a process standpoint, this bill continues their assault on this institution and, by virtue of that, the rights of the American people. After a campaign last November that was founded on a commitment to openness, deliberativeness and responsible legislating, this bill and the process by which it has been addressed are just another example, another addition to the ever-growing list of broken promises that have been made to the American people. In crafting the underlying bill, the Democratic leadership all but abandoned the committee process itself. It shunned the input of experts, raced to bring their shoddy, sloppy work to the House floor, and shut down, by virtue of what we are doing, any possibility of meaningful debate by denying any amendments whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, the most unfortunate part is that far from being an anomaly, this process, as was evidenced by the last rule that we just debated, is emblematic of what this Democratic majority has been doing. Now, as my friend, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), said in management of the last rule that was just before us, the Democratic majority has considered twice as many measures under closed rules as the Republican had by this point, July 30, in the last Congress. I say that because we, as Republicans, were constantly maligned and berated because we had closed rules. Yes, we did have closed rules. Some were warranted. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We may have overreached in some of the closed rules that we had. But I find it very interesting that as we saw that level of criticism leveled at the Republican majority, a promise was made to the American people that there would be greater openness and opportunity for more deliberation and a degree of accountability the likes of which did not exist when Republicans were in charge. What is it that has happened, Mr. Speaker? We now have twice as many closed rules as we had at this point, July 30, at the beginning of the last Congress. This rule seems to keep up that new philosophy that the Democratic majority has articulated more than once last week in the Rules Committee. The statement was as follows: if you don't support the bill, you shouldn't be given the opportunity to amend it. If you don't support the bill, you shouldn't be given an opportunity to amend it. That is what has regularly been propounded by our colleagues upstairs in the Rules Committee. Apparently, you have to be a ``yes man'' if you want to have an opportunity to be heard or participate in the legislative process. You have to make an absolute commitment that you are going to support the legislation if you want to have a chance to improve it. That is exactly what happened in an exchange with the distinguished former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the now ranking member, my California colleague, Mr. McKeon. Of course, they tried to conceal their bad policy and sloppy work by claiming this bill is about ending discrimination in the workplace. As I said, we all want to ensure that we end discrimination in the workplace. We are all horrified by any instance of discrimination in the workplace. They claim that it is about righting wrongs, that the Supreme Court overturned long-settled protections in the Ledbetter case and that this bill simply restores the proper legal precedent. Well, Mr. Speaker, those claims are patently false. This bill would introduce utter chaos into the courts. Utter chaos. It is so vaguely and so poorly constructed that it would open the floodgates of dubious, dubious claims and frivolous lawsuits. The distinguished ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee simply tried again to offer an amendment that would have dealt with this vagueness and that would have addressed the sloppy assembly of this legislation. And because he didn't make a commitment that he would support the legislation at the end of the day, he was denied, as was every other Member who wanted to have an opportunity to amend the legislation, they were denied a chance to do that. The result of what it is that they are doing would be to obfuscate real cases of discrimination. Again, we want to ensure that any instance of discrimination is addressed. But what they are doing here, Mr. Speaker, would obfuscate real cases of discrimination and cripple business owners, who are the job creators in our economy. Now, this may be a trial lawyer's dream, but it would be a nightmare for any small business owner, not to mention anyone with a legitimate case of workplace discrimination Again, we want anyone who has a legitimate case of workplace discrimination to be able to come forward and to address that grievance. Obviously, preventing discrimination and punishing it when it happens are critical goals of our labor laws. We all share a commitment to combating discriminatory treatment of any worker. It is precisely with this goal in mind that our laws have been designed to deal with discrimination in a timely and expeditious way. No one benefits when we allow violations to continue on indefinitely with a completely open-ended potential for years or decades to go by before the issue is addressed. Virtually no statute of limitations at all is the potential problem with this legislation. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, we have to guard against an unlimited window for the introduction of those claims. As I said, frivolous, unfounded complaints are already a huge drain and take focus away from the very legitimate and important cases that are out there. Mr. Speaker, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause last year in a mere 5.3 percent of the 75,000 complaints it received. Again, I believe that Lilly Ledbetter was absolutely right when she talked about the need to ensure that those who face discrimination in the future, in fact, do have an opportunity to have their wrong righted. The EEOC, by its own numbers, receives 20 times as many unreasonable complaints as legitimate claims. Let me say that again: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated that they receive 20 times as many unreasonable complaints as legitimate claims. Furthermore, it found absolutely no cause whatsoever in over 60 percent of the cases that have been brought forward. This means that a large majority of its work is already wasted in investigating entirely unfounded complaints. Now, Mr. Speaker, the tragic thing is that with this legislation, the waste and abuse will increase exponentially. We have already seen the impact of frivolous lawsuits on competitiveness of American entrepreneurs and business owners. I am sure we have all read about the District of Columbia, the D.C. ``pants suit,'' the family-owned dry cleaner that faced a $67 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. That family has been nearly ruined by hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills, even though they won their case. This is the ultimate nightmare for any business owner, let alone the small family-run business that bolsters our economy and our communities, as well. Mr. Speaker, this bill protects neither those who suffer from discrimination nor the innocent who are wrongly accused. Furthermore, the claim that long-held and long-settled legal precedent was reversed by the Ledbetter ruling is utterly spurious. The very plaintiff, the alleged victim in this case, Mrs. Ledbetter, asserted her case based in part on the wildly disparate rulings on the legal matter at issue in her lawsuit. Her attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that there was ``considerable conflict and confusion.'' Again, in arguing on her behalf before the United States Supreme Court, her attorney said that there was ``considerable conflict and confusion.'' Mr. Speaker, what is more, this legislation goes far beyond the limited scope of the Ledbetter case, far beyond that case. While that case dealt solely with the issue of intentional discrimination, the underlying bill expressly removes this distinction and in fact opens the floodgates on nonintentional disparate impact discrimination cases as well. The bill's authors admit as much in their own committee report. So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democratic majority claims this bill simply restores the precedent that was reversed by the Supreme Court, they are wrong. When they claim this bill will give greater protection to those who suffer from workplace discrimination, they are wrong. This bill is wildly ill conceived, based on specious claims. It would turn discrimination litigation into the Wild West of jurisprudence. It would inflict irreparable harm on countless businesses and take precious resources away from real cases of discrimination. I will say again, Mr. Speaker, we want to do everything that we can to ensure that everyone who is victimized has their opportunity to be heard. But this legislation would take the resources to allow that to happen away from those who really face discrimination. Unfortunately, but predictably, this is the kind of bad policy that inevitably comes from bad process. By irresponsibly and hastily throwing this legislation together, the Democratic majority has concocted a bill that would accomplish none of what they claim it will. Instead, it would unleash a flood of unintended consequences that will hurt the very people they purport to help. They will be hurting the workers of this country. They will be hurting the people that they purport to help. Once again, that sloppy work has produced very, very dangerous policy. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and, just as was the case in the last measure, I am going to, as Mr. Sessions did, encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Why? So that we will be able to do something that I know they will argue, as Ms. Castor did when we were debating the last rule, is completely unrelated. What it is we are going to offer if we are able to defeat the previous question is a chance for us to take steps to ensure that terrorists do not have the tools to kill Americans. By that, I mean we are hoping, if we can defeat the previous question, to ensure that the very thoughtful legislation that has been introduced by our colleague from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) will be able to be considered. What does that do? It finally gives us a chance to modernize the nearly three-decade-old, very antiquated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have seen such tremendous, tremendous changes in technology. On a daily basis we see that. We all know about those changes. Moore's Law made it very clear that you see in a 6-month period all kinds of equipment being outdated and antiquated. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen terrorists have the ability to take advantage of the tremendous changes, and all we are asking is that the recommendations that have been put forward by the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, by the Director of the CIA, Mike Hayden, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, that we see a chance for the concerns that they have understandably raised on the inability to make sure that we can monitor the actions of foreigners in foreign countries, that we have the ability to do that. That is all we are asking. I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so we will be able to make that in order, and to ensure that as we look at this legislative process and move forward, that we don't continue with this very, very dangerous pattern that we have had. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I am really confused with the argument that has just been propounded because the gentleman says every time there is a concern, we bring up the issue of frivolous lawsuits, and the gentleman has just talked about one of the worst cases of a frivolous lawsuit, the $57 million case that was brought against a small business owner. That is a problem.

Mr. DREIER

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