BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Haven for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my Rules Committee colleague has pointed at the fact that this is a bipartisan measure. Dealing with issues of firefighting obviously transcend partisanship in every way. And this is a very, very important measure that will, in fact, have, I suspect, unanimous support here on the House floor. She has outlined appropriately the two grant programs, the Assistance to Firefighters program which will provide $12.2 billion, and the SAFER program which will provide $1 billion in assistance. And I believe that this is a measure which is critically important as we look at the challenges of the Federal Government's role in dealing with firefighting.
Mr. Speaker, this past August 26 was a devastating day in southern California history. We saw the largest fire in Los Angeles County history burn 160,000 acres. It was a horrible, horrible time, because above all of it, we lost two courageous firefighters, Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones. And when one thinks about where it is that we are going on this issue, it is critical that we do every single thing that we can for the brave men and women who are firefighters.
And, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us to never forget what it is that happened in Los Angeles or in other fires. There was a memorial service that was held at Dodgers Stadium several weeks ago. And I was struck at that service with the fact that firefighters stood up and said that the one thing that continues to happen is that while the populace at large may have a tendency to forget these things, firefighters never, ever forget their own. And that is why there is a redoubling of the commitment to the spouses, the children and other family members of Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones.
This program is important, and it has a Federal component, I believe, in large part due to the fact that the area that burned just above La Canada, California, is an area that consists of the Angeles National Forest, which is Federal land. So I hope very much that we are able to proceed in a bipartisan way in dealing with this issue.
If you think about the sacrifice that is made, on average 75,000 firefighters are injured every single year, and on average 100 firefighters are killed every single year as they are proceeding with their very, very important work. That is why this program will, I believe, go a long way towards diminishing the loss of life and the threat to those people and at the same time diminish the threat of fire overall.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as important as this issue is, and my friend from North Haven has pointed to the fact that it is bipartisan, I believe this measure should be considered under either suspension of the rules, because while the five amendments that were offered were made in order, I'm convinced that under the able leadership of the committee of jurisdiction, there could have been an agreement that would have allowed this to come up with 20 minutes of debate. Just as the last measures that we have considered were considered under suspension of the rules, this very easily could have. But since it's not, it obviously should be considered under an open amendment process.
Now it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress, this entire Congress without a single open rule. And that is, I think, a very, very unfortunate thing. It is a step forward that every amendment submitted upstairs to the Rules Committee was made in order. But why not consider it under an open amendment process which would allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to this legislation?
So I also have to say that the amount of time that we are expending on this is, I believe, not necessary in light of the fact that as important as it is, it enjoys strong bipartisan support, as both of us have said.
I believe what the American people want us to be doing here, Mr. Speaker, is focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. We all know that when the stimulus package, the $787 billion stimulus package passed, President Obama said that its passage would ensure that we would not see an unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent.
We all know that today, tragically, the unemployment rate is at 10.2 percent. In my State of California, it's 12.2 percent. In some of the areas that I represent around Los Angeles, it's up over 14 percent. And that's why what we should be doing is focusing on issues that will create jobs so that those individuals who are losing their homes and losing their small businesses are not going to continue to suffer.
Now what should we be doing? At this moment, President Obama is in Seoul, South Korea. And we know that denuclearizing the Korean peninsula is obviously a high priority. But just as was discussed when President Obama was in Beijing, similarly in Seoul, the priority issue being discussed is the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement.
Now there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who say, why, when you're dealing with economic difficulties would you possibly consider embarking on a free-trade agreement? Well, guess what? There are very important reasons. The main reason is that it's one of the most important ways that we can create jobs right here in the United States of America.
Let's take just a moment, and I wish we were debating this agreement which has been completed, similarly the Colombia and the Panama agreements have been completed which would be job creators right here in the United States. Automobiles, the automobile industry is hurting in the United States, and we know that there is this massive disparity between the number of automobiles going from the United States of America being sold in Korea, that number is actually just under 10,000, and the number of Korean automobiles that are sold in the United States; 700,000 Korean automobiles are purchased by Americans.
Now I think everyone should have a right to buy the best quality product at the lowest possible price, but I believe we should do everything that we can to have an opportunity to create more jobs here in the United States of America in the automobile industry and every other industry that is tied to that, by creating a market opening, a market-opening vehicle for us in South Korea.
Now, people ask, well, why would you want to do an agreement that would make that happen? The reason is very simple. The tariff is higher on U.S. automobiles going into South Korea than it is on Korean vehicles coming into the United States by and large. And even more important than that, Mr. Speaker, there is a tax and regulatory structure that exists in South Korea that prevents us from being able to sell those cars. So, again, fewer than 10,000 American-made automobiles are sold in South Korea today; and we purchase 700,000 cars and trucks from there.
So what should we do? We should pass this free-trade agreement, pass this free-trade agreement which will create jobs right here in the United States of America and, I believe, go a long way towards dealing with the devastating 10.2 percent unemployment rate that we have. We can, we can implement job-creating economic growth policies. Unfortunately, based on the track record that we've seen over this past year, we haven't. So people are hurting. It's very important for us to pass this legislation which could be considered either under suspension of the rules or under an open amendment process, which unfortunately it isn't; and we could spend our time passing policies that will help the American worker.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was sorry my friend from North Haven didn't want to yield to me. I was simply going to tell her that I completely concurred with her argument that the job creation that will focus on firefighters is a very, very important thing, and I support that.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my friend.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I just want to say to my good friend from California, I apologize for not yielding earlier, and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. DREIER. Let me say that the notion of discussing a wide range of issues as I did, talking about the critical importance of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program of $1.2 billion and the SAFER Program of an additional billion dollars, is critical--and we support that. We support that very enthusiastically. But President Obama is at this point in Korea, and that is what led me to talk about the importance of our dealing with job creation.
As I talk to my constituents, Mr. Speaker--jobs, jobs, jobs--that is the message that continues to come through loudly and clearly. And the notion of expanding private-sector jobs is something that I believe we should be encouraging through improved tax and regulatory policy, bringing about marginal rate reduction, decreasing the regulatory burden and, Mr. Speaker, opening up new opportunities for U.S. workers here in the United States of America, which is exactly what is being said to President Obama as he meets in Korea at this moment with their leadership, with President Lee and others. And so I think that we need to have our attention in this Congress focused on the priority that the American people have.
Firefighting is very, very important. But, again, this measure will pass--if not unanimously, nearly unanimously--and it will do so, and I hope get the resources to ensure that we never have the loss of life, as I said, of Captain Hall and Specialist Quinones, and others. But I know from having spoken to their families, Mr. Speaker, that they believe that it's absolutely essential for us to encourage private-sector job creation and economic growth, and that's why I'm talking about this priority that needs to be addressed here.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question as we move ahead. Why? Because the issue of reading legislation is another very, very important one that is before us. There is a bipartisan proposal launched by Messrs. Baird and Culberson, supported by Mr. Dent and others, a bipartisan measure which will allow us to, if we defeat the previous question and debate that measure, which calls for 72 hours for the reading of legislation before we bring it to the floor.
I suspect that my colleague from North Haven has heard, just as I, that the American people believe that we should read legislation before it comes to the House floor. Right now, we regularly waive the 72-hour, 3-day layover requirement.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. It will not in any way impinge on our ability to move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and consider legislation in a very deliberative manner, which is exactly what the framers of our Constitution wanted us to do.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. At this moment I have no other speakers. I would inquire whether the gentleman is ready to yield back his time.
Mr. DREIER. Let me yield myself such time as I might consume to close by simply saying this is very good and important legislation. It needs to pass. It's being considered, unbelievably, under a structured amendment process. It enjoys strong bipartisan support and should pass with that.
I think we should be focusing our attention, as I said, on job creation and economic growth, which is what the American people want us to be spending our time doing here rather than taking a long period of time to debate an issue on which we all agree.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider the bipartisan Baird-Culberson language that would allow us to read legislation before it's considered here over the 72-hour period of time.
If by chance--if by chance--the previous question is not defeated and we don't have an opportunity to debate that very important legislation that will allow us to have the 3-day layover, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can come back with an open amendment process, which is another very, very important part of the transparency message which should be coming through.
Amendment to H. Res. 909 Offered by Mr. Dreier
At the end of the resolution, insert the following new section:
Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.
(The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT