Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, Ms. Slaughter, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, we are in week 4 of the National Football League season. The Washington Redskins have just defeated the Dallas Cowboys, the Kansas City Chiefs have just defeated the Denver Broncos; and we are, as a Nation, facing one of the most serious financial crises that we have ever faced. In fact, it's a crisis that only a few of our very, very senior Members who lived back in 1929 have ever experienced.
And what is it that we're doing here right now, Mr. Speaker? Well, we're considering a measure that will allow us to bring to the floor any item whatsoever for same day consideration, but in fact, we're not using this measure that is before us to deal with the very serious and important legislation that the American people very much want us to address.
I am vehemently opposed to any measure that would provide a blanket guarantee to bail out the people on Wall Street who have engaged in outrageous behavior jeopardizing the credit structure that exists here in the United States today.
And we know the kind of impact that it's having on our markets, we know the kind of impact it's having on the global economic markets, and we know that some action must be taken.
And what is it that we're doing here? Well, we're considering a same day rule. And I should say to the distinguished Chair, my good friend from Rochester, that I appreciated her compliment on my fine work in the 109th Congress, and I find it fascinating that my work product from the 109th Congress is now being held up as a model for the action that is taking place right here this evening.
I guess we're going to consider under same day something that's being discussed upstairs in the Rules Committee right now, the so-called tax extenders legislation. And it's legislation that we could very easily dispense with. We could dispense with it, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of taking up a measure that by a 93-2 vote passed in the United States Senate. Seems to me that a 93-2 vote would be pretty bipartisan, nearly a unanimous vote, to deal with the very important issues that the American people want to address when it comes to the tax side.
The outrageous alternative minimum tax that began in 1969 to go after 155 millionaires has now expanded to include 22-plus million Americans, and they are being unfairly taxed. They want us to address that measure.
My State of California is very important when it comes to the issue of looking at technological advances, and making sure that we extend the research and development tax credit is critical. Pursuing alternative energy sources like wind and solar, biodiesel, the kinds of creative green crude, the notion of looking at algae and utilizing that through present oil refineries today to try to bring down the cost of gasoline for the American people and for those around the globe who are seeking to decrease energy costs.
Well, I will tell you, we could deal with every single one of those items if we were to simply take that measure that has passed the Senate by a 93-2 vote. We could bring it up, and it would pass nearly unanimously, I believe, in this House if we were to do it. But instead, rather than focusing our attention on this very important credit crisis that needs to be addressed based on analyses provided by virtually everyone so that we are able to bring about the kind of stability that is necessary, or at least attempt to do that, whether it's from Wall Street to Main Street, from San Dimas Avenue, where I live, to 5th Avenue and every area in between, we very much need to do that, Mr. Speaker. And instead, we're going to be addressing--and the Rules Committee, as I have said, right now is holding a hearing on an item that will never go anyplace.
So that's why it's a real insult to the American people that we are here right now doing what we're doing.
But unfortunately, it is a pattern that we have seen in the 110th Congress. And while again, I'm proud that my record has been held up as a model, whatever criticisms that may have been leveled towards my record in the 109th Congress, the activities that we've seen in the 110th Congress really, really, really go beyond the pale.
In fact, I just read a speech that was delivered by our Rules Committee, the second ranking member behind Ms. Slaughter, our good friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, who, on the 29th of September, 2006, virtually 2 years ago, he gave a very strong speech right here on the floor in which he began to level criticism about the number of closed rules, the number of restrictive rules, the lack of open rules that existed in the 109th Congress.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this 110th Congress has transcended dramatically the number of closed rules, the fact that there are fewer open rules, the increased number of restricted rules. In fact, right now we're on the 65th, headed towards the 66th closed rule in the 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker. Again, while we were criticized harshly in the 109th Congress,
today what we're seeing is the highest number of closed rules in any Congress in the 230-year history of this great institution of ours.
So I have got to tell you that I am not about to support any kind of package that provides a blank check of $700 billion to those people on Wall Street who are responsible for the outlandish, outlandish behavior that's gone on and the problems that have existed. But I do believe that action does need to be taken. Action needs to be taken so that we can, in fact, stabilize the credit markets and bring about stability.
That's what we should be doing at this moment, Mr. Speaker. That's what we should be doing right now. We should not be wasting time on this kind of effort when we can very easily get a measure that by a 93- 2 vote has passed the Senate and that the President of the United States is prepared to sign so that we can provide AMT relief to those 22 million Americans who desperately need it, so that we can make the research and development tax credit extended, so that we can have creative, new ideas, so that we can deal with incentives for alternative energy sources to play a role in bringing down the costs to the American people and those around the world who are looking for alternative energy sources that will be generated right here in the United States of America.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am very saddened that we're taking the action that we are, and I hope very much that we can defeat this rule so that we'll be able to bring up that proposal that, again, will provide that kind of relief, and it will get the measure to the Senate, it will get the measure to the President's desk.
And we know very well the Democratic majority leader, the majority leader in the United States Senate, our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Reid) has made it clear that he's not about to take up this measure from the House because they've passed, by a 93-2 vote, the item that the President of the United States is prepared to sign so that we can meet the President's goal here.
So I hope that we can defeat this rule.
And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.
Let me yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say again that I believe that it is a mistake for us to be here imposing this martial law rule at a very precarious time in our Nation's history as we're dealing with the serious challenges that lie before us.
I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if the previous question prevails, I will urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we will be in a position where we can bring up the very important item that will allow us to get AMT relief, allow us to provide incentives for alternative energy sources, and allow us to deal with things like the research and development tax credit, which are so important to this country.
And while we do everything that we can to ensure we do not give a blank check to those on Wall Street, I do believe that the American people want us to take action that will responsibly deal with the very important credit crisis so that automatic teller machines will be able to get cash to individuals; so that the small businessmen and -women throughout the United States of America will be able to have access to credit so that they will be able to continue to thrive as businesses; so that the American people who, in fact, have met their obligation in paying their mortgage, that they won't be saddled with the responsibility for people who have been less than responsible.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and as I said, if in fact the previous question does pass, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that a year ago this coming December, the structure that passed the United States Senate with this so-called not paid for is exactly what this Democratic Congress did to extend the alternative minimum tax, the R&D tax credit, and these other items 1 year ago. And so this is actually a change from what the Democratic Congress did a year ago to deal with this issue, and I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY)
