David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, let me just say, we do have a great chance to work together, that's why we were, in fact, proposing an alternative, that being a chance for us to work on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations. With that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Erie, Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It has actually been several weeks now since we have had a meaningless vote on the issue of Iraq, and so I suppose we are overdue for another one. This Democratic leadership, Mr. Speaker, as we all know very well, still bereft of any real ideas, has been forced once again to resort to demagoguery, bringing up a bill that they know, they know full well, will not be enacted into law. And knowing that their proposal cannot withstand any critical scrutiny, they have once again shut down the process and brought this to us under a completely closed rule, not allowing any of the very thoughtful proposed alternatives to be considered whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would have allowed us to have the opportunity to substitute their policy with the very thoughtful and responsible recommendations that were included in this bipartisan Iraq Study Group package of recommendations proposed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton, a group of Democrats and Republicans, very respected, authorized by this Congress. And they refused to allow us to have any opportunity whatsoever to even debate, much less vote, on the issue of the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Now, just yesterday morning in an interview on National Public Radio, our former colleague Mr. Hamilton, who, as I said, was the co-Chairman of the Iraq Study Group, had a very eloquent and thoughtful interview on the need for us to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership, I guess fearful that responsible policy would prevail and that this institution might, in fact, pass the measure calling for implementation of the Iraq Study Group, prevented us from having the chance to debate or vote on the Iraq Study Group recommendations. The last time we went through this charade, they at least had the luxury of making dire predictions of failure for the new strategy in Iraq led by General Petraeus, and the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules once again basically talked about failure and said that we haven't met any benchmarks. Even then, Mr. Speaker, the strategy was actually showing early signs of success. But this time, this time, the counterinsurgency offensive is well under way and making clear and irrefutable progress. I will say once again, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing clear and irrefutable progress taking place. As one major newspaper recently editorialized, ``Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope. They are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.'' Mr. Speaker, U.S. forces, working side by side with Iraqi Army and police forces, have penetrated enemy strongholds in the belt surrounding Baghdad and are driving them out. They have cut off al Qaeda's supply lines and transport routes. They are destroying car bomb factories. Sectarian deaths have plummeted. Al Qaeda operatives are finding themselves increasingly isolated, their safe havens destroyed, and their ability to move freely between neighborhoods severely diminished. Mr. Speaker, our efforts have been significantly bolstered by former Sunni insurgents who have joined the fight against al Qaeda. I am going to say that again. Former Sunni insurgents have now joined our effort in the fight against al Qaeda. Nowhere has this process been more critical than in the al-Anbar province. Last year, a leaked Marine intelligence report conceded this province as completely lost. That was the report that came out. Today, Mr. Speaker, al-Anbar is our best success story, and a template for U.S. Forces working together with both Sunni police and Shia army forces to combat al Qaeda. General David Petraeus, the man who has received bipartisan praise and was confirmed unanimously by a vote of 82-0 in the United States Senate as he began his work, he said to the New York Post, ``We are beginning to see a revolt of the middle against both extremes.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, it is our commanders on the ground who have repeatedly pointed out that the tipping point didn't come until the tribal leaders sought a prolonged offensive by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Now, let's think back to what life was like in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. After a quarter-century reign of terror by Saddam Hussein, Iraqis clearly would not immediately rise up against any force until that force has been driven into retreat. We had to demonstrate our strength and our commitment before we earned the trust of the tribal leaders and their support in the fight against al Qaeda. That is exactly what we're doing today in Baghdad and the surrounding areas. The New York Times recently reported on the Anbar success and how we are currently applying it to the fight to secure Baghdad. According to a July 8 report, former insurgents in Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad are now taking up arms against al Qaeda. Now, that is July 8th, a report that came out just 4 days ago. Now, it quotes Petraeus as saying, ``Local security is helped incalculably by local support and local involvement.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, this success is so critical because it gets to the heart, it gets to the very heart of our twin goals in Iraq. First, that Iraqis will be able to provide their own security, that we have an increased ISF, the Iraqi Security Forces, and that they are trained adequately; and second, that this security will provide the environment that makes a political solution possible. The quicker that Iraqis achieve security and a peaceful, stable democracy, the quicker our troops will come home. And as we listen to the speeches that will come following mine about the quest for our troops to come home, make no bones about it, I share the goal and the vision that is put forth by our friends, Mr. McGovern and Ms. Slaughter, and others, who will argue to bring our troops home. We all want to make sure that that happens. Our new strategy, Mr. Speaker, has clearly brought us closer to that goal. And if our fight against extremism was not urgent enough, the Associated Press report that came out just late yesterday afternoon that al Qaeda's global network is again on the rise and has regained much of the strength that it had in September of 2001 is an important thing for us to recognize. Mr. Speaker, as the terror network rebuilds and regroups, it seems absolutely preposterous that we would abandon not only a key front in the global war on terror, but a place where we have al Qaeda on the defensive and where we are diminishing their capabilities, especially in light of that report that came out just last night about their renewed strength. Yet, the Democratic leadership inexplicably wants to pull the rug out from under our military commanders. Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps not so inexplicable if we consider that their planned withdrawal would be complete just in time for the 2008 elections. But let's pretend that there is no election looming on the horizon here. Regardless of this bill's impact on American electoral politics, what would be the effects on Iraq? Now, Mr. Speaker, even the New York Times editorial board, which apparently doesn't often read its own news reports and is calling for an immediate withdrawal, acknowledges the inevitable dire consequences of its recommended course of action. In the very editorial calling for surrender, it outlines the overwhelming refugee and humanitarian crisis that would immediately ensue, how the fight would spill out all across the region. And Mr. Speaker, in the most callous way, it acknowledges the terror that would be inflicted upon those Iraqis who worked with us because they believed our promises. How cold and cynical. How callous can we be to stand here and debate the notion of abandoning the Iraqi people, not only to genocide, but to the targeting of the very individuals who have bravely worked with us. The Democratic leadership wants to wave a magic wand and make this war go away. I wouldn't mind a magic wand myself, and certainly the American people would appreciate a quick and tidy solution. But I'm afraid that this solution attempts to salvage nothing but party politics. The Iraqi people, Mr. Speaker, would not be quite so lucky. Furthermore, NPR recently reported that the quick withdrawal time frame that the Democratic leadership dreamed up has no basis in reality. It would take a year or more to safely withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, and it would take significant combat forces to protect the withdrawal. We would have to fight our way out all the way to the Kuwaiti border. There simply is no magic wand in this war, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the greatest irony of this bill is that it calls for detailed reports for a strategy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have a strategy, and while it was only fully operational less than 1 month ago, it is already succeeding. The Democratic leadership, in their absurdist logic, want our military to abandon their strategy, go home and write a report about what they would have wanted to accomplish if they had stayed. And if that weren't cruel enough, Mr. Speaker, they would have to watch terror and genocide unfold as they retreated. Now, I cannot fathom a more disastrous policy for our security or the Iraqis'. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill itself. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me at this time yield 2 minutes to our friend from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has made 17 trips to Iraq and unfortunately was denied an opportunity to have us consider and vote on a very thoughtful amendment that he proposed in the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Holland, Michigan, the former chairman, now the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close the debate now, so I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by talking about procedure. We continue to hear the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules talk regularly about an open amendment process, and I will say with absolute certainty, I had the privilege of chairing the Rules Committee for 8 years, and I will tell you that we have brought more rules to the floor of this House under a completely closed process during the first 7 months of this year than we did during any 7 months during the 8 years that I was privileged to serve as chairman of the Rules Committee. So much for a new and open process. Now, let's look at what it is we're considering here, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we know full well that this is a bill, unlike resolutions that may have been brought up under closed rules in the past, this is actually a bill, a bill that's scheduled to go to the President's desk. Everyone knows that this bill is not going to become law. What we've found is gross politicization once again, a commitment made that every week we're going to have some kind of vote on Iraq. We all know that the war in Iraq is very unpopular. We know that the President is a great punching bag on this for virtually everyone, but the fact of the matter is we are in the midst of a very important global war on terror, and as the President said in the past, you know, we all like to be loved, but I'd much rather be right than be loved. The fact of the matter is, we want to bring this war to an end. The President stood right here in this chamber in January and said I wish that this war were over and that we had won, but we need to ensure victory. And, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are not given the opportunity to consider any thoughtful, bipartisan alternative to this measure which calls for the withdrawal to begin within 120 days. I mean, how crazy is that when we're looking for a report to come in September and as we are looking at success that has begun even after only 1 month, 1 month of this plan having been put into place under the greatly heralded General David Petraeus? Now, Mr. Speaker, as my friends from New Mexico and Michigan have said, I'm going to move to defeat the previous question. I'm going to move to defeat the previous question so that we can actually ensure that we have the tools to win this war on terror. We've had a number of anniversaries marked. We've spent a lot of time talking about them, but we fail to remember the success that we've had at preempting attacks on this country. Just last month, we marked the first anniversary of the discovery of the proposed attack on the Sears Tower and the FBI headquarters in Miami. Just last week, we marked the first anniversary of the proposed attack on the plan to blow up the Hudson River tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan. Just in May, we had a report of the plan, as you all know, to see some of these people go in and start killing our people at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And then of course, just a few weeks ago, we had the plan to blow up JFK International Airport. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been able to discover those, but we know full well from those in our intelligence operations and the Department of Homeland Security that we are, as Mr. Hoekstra said, blind and deaf, and I believe that we need to make sure we defeat the previous question so that we'll be in a position to amend this proposal so that we can ensure that we have the tools necessary to win this war on terror. So vote ``no'' on the previous question. Amendment to H. Res. 583 Offered by Mr. Drier of California Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following: That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate, with three hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; (2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in section 3 of this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. Sec. 3. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan, or his designee, referred to in section 1 is as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is amended to read as follows-- ``(f) `Electronic surveillance' means-- ``(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device for acquiring information by intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes; or ``(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any communication under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located within the United States.''

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to one of the most respected Members of this House on intelligence and defense matters, the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pasco for yielding, and I congratulate him on his fine management of this rule; and I thank my friend from Ohio for her thoughtful remarks. I have to say, as I have been listening to the debate from my friends on the other side of the aisle, they continually say this is a great day for education. But the tragic thing is that this is a horrible day for future generations. Why? Well, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the former Rules Committee member, just stated, there are nine new entitlement programs included in this measure that is designed for budget savings. Reconciliation is all about trying to rein in the reach of the government, trying to bring about a modicum of fiscal responsibility. Yesterday up in the Rules Committee, the distinguished Chair of the committee, my friend from Martinez, California, Mr. Miller, when asked why it is we are making these mandatory instead of discretionary, meaning we would have the opportunity to look at them again, to possibly make modifications in them, he said we have authorization bills that are done and they end up dying, so we need to make these programs mandatory. Well, Mr. Speaker, every single Democrat and Republican regularly talks about the need to rein in the so-called mandatory spending. We spend our time around this place talking about discretionary spending, earmarks and what we expend on the discretionary level. And it is a drop in the bucket compared to the mandatory programs that are out there. As we all know, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, a wide range of mandatory programs exist, and this bill that is designed to bring about a reduction in spending establishes nine new mandatory programs. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that we need to defeat this rule and bring about a reconciliation bill that in fact will not expand the number of mandatory programs, and we have an opportunity to do that right now. When we go into this vote, Mr. Hastings is going to seek to defeat the previous question so we will have an opportunity to make in order the Castle amendment. A very, very respected member from Delaware, the former Governor of the State who is an expert on dealing with our Nation's education needs, offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that was unfortunately denied. That amendment simply said that as we look at these nine mandatory programs that are put into place, he goes ahead and establishes them. But instead of making them mandatory, he makes them discretionary, discretionary so that we will have an opportunity as Members of Congress to look at those issues. And the savings created go to what everyone says they want to increase, and that is the Pell Grant program. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to regularly support the notion of our global leadership role when it comes to trade, when it comes to technology, and I recognize that it is absolutely imperative for the United States of America to have the best education system possible so that we can remain competitive globally. I have just come back with a number of my colleagues from Indonesia, from Mongolia and other countries in Asia over the Independence Day break, and one of the things that we found is that education is a key issue in these countries. We all know that in the United States of America we seem to be falling behind, so it is imperative that we do all that we can to ensure that there is access to education for our young people. I believe that we can put into place policies that will allow us to make education more affordable and more accessible without a dramatic increase in the number of mandatory programs. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) talked about his amendment that was denied totally by the Rules Committee. The only thing made in order in this bill is a manager's amendment that will actually be self- executed, not considered on the floor and debated but self-executed if this rule in fact passes, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is going to be offered by the ranking member of the committee, Mr. McKeon. But other than that, all of the other amendments that were offered, Democrats and Republicans were denied an opportunity to offer any amendments. My California colleague, Mr. Bilbray, had a thoughtful amendment dealing with the basic pilot program as it relates to illegal immigration. All it was saying was that institutions that get Federal funding are required to comply with the basic pilot program as it relates to the hiring, potential hiring of people who are in this country illegally. That amendment is not going to be able to be debated or even considered in this measure. Mr. Ehlers had amendments that he sought to make in order, as did Mr. Kline. They were very thoughtful proposals. Not one of them was made in order. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Hastings as he moves to defeat the previous question so that we can make Mr. Castle's amendment in order. That will allow us to take the expansive mandatory spending and shift it to discretionary spending, and the savings that we have go to the Pell Grant program. If we do in fact fail in our quest to defeat the previous question, I hope my colleagues will vote against this rule so we can start over and do a very good and decent reconciliation package on this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it took a larger-than-life man like Jack Valenti to bridge 2 larger-than-life worlds like Hollywood and Washington. It is fitting that this legendary character, whose own life was often like an epic film, would end up in the movie business. From a very early age, the passion and drive that would motivate him for his 85 years were clearly evident. Lacking the money to go to college, Jack worked to put himself through school and eventually get his MBA at Harvard. During that time, he also joined the Army, flew 51 missions and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross. He got his first taste of politics in Houston, TX, when he met Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, and he was hooked. He campaigned heavily for the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960 and maintained the relationship with Lyndon Johnson through November 1963 when the Vice President asked for his help with a Presidential visit to Dallas. On that fateful day of November 22, Jack was just a few cars away from President Kennedy when the shots were fired. Through that tumultuous time, Jack returned to DC with now President Johnson, and grew to be his close confidant and advisor. That solemn trip on Air Force One would be the trip to Washington from which Jack never really returned. As presidential advisor, and then President of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti become one of those rare Washington denizens that shapes and defines a city that usually does the shaping and defining. Through nearly 4 decades at MPAA, he shepherded the most powerful names in Hollywood around countless industry and political landmines. As the world grew flatter, technology grew smarter and politics remained as volatile as ever, Jack Valenti's vision helped the American movie business not only weather these challenges, but emerge bigger than ever. He was an undeniable force felt on both coasts. And now his absence is also felt undeniably.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague Mr. Peter King for introducing this important resolution, which I was proud to cosponsor. I can think of no one more deserving of being honored by this body than Prime Minister Blair. For over a decade, he has proven to be a tremendous friend and ally of the United States, and we simply cannot say anything today that would adequately honor the contribution he has made to his country, to our country and to the cause of freedom throughout the globe. And we know he has not made this great contribution without significant sacrifice. We have watched him at times endure an enormous amount of criticism and personal attack for the principled positions he has taken. But Tony Blair has steadfastly demonstrated what true leadership is. It does not always entail easy or popular choices. It does not always elicit cheers of support. Leadership in the 21st century, as we have come to realize, will often mean taking a very difficult stand against the enemies of freedom. I believe that history will regard this principled leadership very highly. And as Mr. King's resolution highlights, this leadership has been exemplified throughout Tony Blair's entire tenure as Prime Minister. By brokering the Good Friday Agreement, he has ushered in a new, peaceful era in Northern Ireland, bringing together all parties and giving them a critical role in their own government. He has been our close ally in every major conflict that we have faced together-- Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the first foreign leader to visit Ground Zero after September 11, 2001, and attended President Bush's address to the joint session of Congress 9 days after those tragic attacks. And no other ally has contributed more forces to the global war on terror. The United States owes a great debt of gratitude to Prime Minister Blair and to the great people of his nation. We honor their sacrifices and their deep friendship.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I share Mr. Flake's commitment to reducing government spending and making sure taxpayer dollars are spent in the most efficient and effective way possible. I would also like to say that I am a strong proponent of making earmarks more transparent by attaching Members' names to their sponsored projects. My feeling all along has been that if a member is not willing to defend their earmark on the floor of the House, then it was probably not worth the money. That is why I was so gratified to see the Majority include projects and their supporters in each appropriations bill. Especially, so that no member has to guess whose district each of these projects is in. So now, I welcome the opportunity to support Fairplex, a non-profit institution that contributes every day to our local community. Fairplex, located in Pomona, CA, represented by my friend and colleague Grace Napolitano is host to over 300 events each year, and 2 years ago, they had the privilege of hosting out-of-country voting for the historic Iraqi elections. There is $250,000 provided in this bill for the Trade and Conference Center, which is an incredibly important addition to the Fairplex that will provide small businesses with a venue to operate, share ideas, and grow. This project is a model of the Small Business Administration's mission of facilitating the environment necessary for America's small businesses to succeed. Mr. Chairman, 43 percent of the goods coming to and from the consumers and workers of the United States of America come through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. One of the most important centers for trade, planning and strategic meetings has been held at the Fairplex. As we look at our quest of trying to open up new markets for U.S. goods and services all around the world and as we look at ensuring that American consumers can have access to the best quality product at the lowest possible price, the utilization of this trade and convention center is critically important. As important as the issue of global trade is, I was really struck when the December before last, I had the opportunity to listen to a friend of mine who happened to be at the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center. I have shared this story before but it is worth reminding my colleagues. Leading up to the December 15, 2005 Iraqi elections, of the eight planned voting sites for the Iraqi people who are here in the United States of America, one of those had unfortunately and unexpectedly closed down. And what happened? The people at the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center came forward, and literally at the drop of a hat, they were able to provide the chance for Iraqis who were in this country on that Election Day to exercise that right to vote. Their ability to be on the frontline to participate in the Global War on Terror is something that I believe is vitally important. I was listening on the phone as applause went up every single time that a ballot was placed into that voting box, and it was a great moment. And as we look for continued progress in Iraq, I am reminded of each of those votes that were cast at the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center. This particular earmark is there helping us in the Global War on Terror and helping us remain competitive globally. We in the House strive for Federal, State and local cooperation on a myriad of issues, from national security, to education to disaster response. Coordination and investment by all levels of government can give programs a much better chance for success. That is exactly what is happening at the Trade and Conference Center with all levels of government involvement and more important, private sector investment. It is worthy of this continued Federal partnership.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I express my appreciation to my very good friend from Sacramento, Ms. Matsui. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the rule. I know that this is a rule that follows the 200-year tradition that we have had of appropriations bills as privileged resolutions. They have the ability to come to the floor without a rule at all, but if items are protected in the bill, they have to provide waivers from the Rules Committee, and that is what has been followed here. We did this when the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats are following suit here. But there are a number of concerns that have come to the forefront. To me, the most important concern, Mr. Speaker, is one that I raised upstairs in the Rules Committee last night. The Committee on Ways and Means had put into place a very important program in September of 2006 which deals with an issue that is near and dear to every single American who pays taxes. That issue is ensuring that every single American pays their taxes. I don't like paying taxes. But I do it. Mr. Speaker, I don't like the fact that there are people out there who don't pay their taxes when they are supposed to do it. The challenge of collecting taxes is a very, very important concern of, as I said, every American who does pay their taxes. Collecting taxes is a very important thing, too. Making sure that people do comply with the law is, I believe, an imperative that we need to do all we can to enforce. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill that we are bringing forward is one that actually eliminates a program that has been extraordinarily effective. It is a program, Mr. Speaker, that has been utilized now by the Federal Government and by 40 of the 50 States. What does it consist of? Simply contracting with private collection agencies, PCAs, to ensure that people who are deadbeats, who are not paying their taxes, actually pay their taxes. Mr. Speaker, this issue does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. I see Mr. Rangel here and other members of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. McCrery sent a letter to us in the Rules Committee saying that he believed that this rule should not allow protection for a point of order to be made against the provision about which I am speaking. So, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need for us to make sure that the Ways and Means Committee can have the jurisdiction, and, frankly, keep in place this collection process. So far, $19.4 million has been collected from people who have not paid their taxes by these private collection agencies, and the projection is that over the next 10 years in excess of $1.5 billion will be collected by the Federal Government from these people who have been deadbeats and have not paid their taxes. So I think it is very unfortunate that this bill proceeds with this, and the fact that this rule does not provide us with an opportunity to address that has led me to oppose it. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is going to be an effort to defeat the previous question, and if that is done, our colleague from Nebraska Mr. Terry is going to offer an amendment to the rule that would make in order a provision that would allow for the rejection of the cost-of-living adjustment. I know there is a lot of talk around here about that issue, so we are going to be having a vote on that. Our colleague from Nebraska, as I said, Mr. Terry will in fact be the author of that amendment if we did defeat the previous question on this issue. Having said that, I do want to say there are a number of items in this bill that I think are very good and important. I am particularly proud of having worked for a number of years on the issue of financial literacy training for students and for adults as well. We see this proliferation of advertising, Mr. Speaker, that continues to come down from a wide range of entities, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately, there are many young people today who really don't have the grasp of the financial instruments that are options to them out there. For that reason, I believe that something in this bill that is very good is the effort to focus on the increase of financial literacy training. Mr. Speaker, I want to praise my colleagues, especially Mr. Regula, who has taken on this responsibility here as the ranking member of the subcommittee, and Mr. Serrano, who is chairing the subcommittee. I praise them for working together in a bipartisan way on some other items that are very important. As I said, I believe that interdicting illicit drugs is a very important issue. This drug trafficking issue was a topic of discussion in the last debate that we had on the Andean Trade Preference Act that we are going to be voting on later this evening, and I believe that there are, again, many, many other items that are included in this bill that are good and decent and appropriate measures. But I just am very, very concerned about this issue, as I said, Mr. Speaker, of this notion of people abusing the tax provisions and not, in fact, paying their fair share of taxes. So I feel strongly that taking advantage of these private collection agencies is, in fact, the right thing to do. I know there is concern voiced about that, because people don't like being harassed. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? If they are not paying their fair share of taxes, I believe steps should be taken to try and get them to do that. So this is going to lead me to oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my very good friend from Wisconsin, welcome to the challenge of governing, as he knows very, very well. The fact of the matter is there was, in fact, at the beginning of this Congress, a statement made. And what has been proposed by my colleague from Sacramento is an amendment to the rule to deal with the Budget Act. All of a sudden, we are going to just waive the responsibility here to deal with this question, and I just think that the procedure around which we are now taking this action on this amendment underscores that our colleagues are having a little bit of difficulty governing. Let me just say that I am opposed to this rule for a number of reasons. I would like to restate the concern that I raised earlier. I had a chance to speak with our colleague from New York, the distinguished Chair, of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I told him of a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee from Mr. McCrery which raised concern over the fact that there are people out there who are completely abrogating their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes. They are not complying with the law. And in September of 2006, private collection agencies were enlisted by the Federal Government to begin the collection of taxes from deadbeats who are not paying their taxes. Mr. Speaker, 40 other States, 40 other States have enlisted private collection agencies, and they have been successful, and at the Federal level, we have, as of March of this year, seen $19.47 million collected so far, and the projection is that under these private collection agencies in the next decade, we will see between $1.5 billion and $2.2 billion in taxes that are owed to the Federal Government paid. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule, we are undermining the ability of the Ways and Means Committee to take on its responsibility for this issue. So I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so, in fact, we will have an opportunity to do the right thing when it comes to this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this extension. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the subcommittee chairman, and of course my very good friend and fellow Californian (Mr. Herger) who joins with the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means Mr. McCrery in moving this effort forward in a bipartisan way. As I listen to this debate, I heard my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) malign the issue of trade saying that she very much wants to see trade agreements that create American jobs. I could not agree with her more. I very much believe that as we look at trade agreements that we have put into place, recognizing that we have an excess of a third of a trillion dollars in cross-border trade between Mexico and the United States of America following implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, that has demonstrated that what we're doing here this evening is just a very small step in establishing these very important agreements with Peru and Colombia. We hope very much that we can do it with Bolivia and Ecuador, and we hope very much that we can do it with Panama. And frankly, as we look at those agreements, what is it that those agreements will do? They will lower the tariff barriers that exist preventing U.S. workers from having opportunities to send their goods and services into those very important countries in this hemisphere. I join with my colleagues who have underscored the fact that the threat of Hugo Chavez and other leaders in this hemisphere is a very serious one. The anti-American sentiment is high, and it's being fueled by Hugo Chavez. He is very much opposed to these free trade agreements. He is very much opposed to any opportunity to expand commerce within this hemisphere. And that's why, for national security reasons, for job creation reasons, and to benefit consumers right here in the United States of America, it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we have strong bipartisan support for this effort. And let it lay the groundwork for us to pass these important trade agreements for our future.