Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I was just talking to my very good friend, my fellow Californian, Mr. Lungren, and he reminded me that what I should be doing is expressing my appreciation to the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules for complimenting me on the fine work product of the past Congress when it comes to reporting out measures such as this.

But I will say, Madam Speaker, that I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition to this rule because it is a martial law rule which provides the opportunity for this measure to come to the floor at any time during the next 4 days. And it is unprecedented. And I know that the gentlewoman has pointed to the fact that at the end of the Congress, it is very often that measures like this are utilized. But there is not a strong bipartisan consensus for us to proceed with the measure that is being considered now.

This is, in fact, a $15 billion bailout bill that is not impacting just an entire industry, it's impacting three particular entities within that industry, and to do it under a completely closed process. The distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, acknowledged upstairs, as was stated by the ranking Republican, Mr. Bachus, this was a completely closed process, and we find this to be very, very unfortunate that we're here trying to do this in such a manner.

Now, when we were upstairs in the Rules Committee, one of the things that has come forward is the fact that the American people are hurting. We all know that. We very much need to take steps to ensure that we can get this economy growing, and there is a bipartisan consensus on the need to grow our economy. We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as we all know, and in light of that, it is imperative that we take immediate action to try to create jobs for American workers. And that's the reason that my colleague Mr. Diaz-Balart, the gentleman from Miami, and I joined in the Rules Committee last night to do something that most people thought we were going to do last spring and we should have done last spring. And there was acknowledgment, bipartisan acknowledgment, by Members, including Members of the leadership in the majority, that we would, in fact, quite possibly consider this measure in a lame duck session. And I'm referring, of course, to the very important U.S.-Columbia Free Trade Agreement.

Last April 10, Madam Speaker, there was a rigorous debate here, and we for the first time ever saw the Speaker of the House take action which subverted the 1974 Trade Act. Basically sent a message that said the following: We as Americans want to embark on negotiations with the country, and under the traditional, what has existed since 1974, so- called fast-track authority, or what we refer to now as trade promotion authority existed, so that that measure would come back to the Congress and there would be an up-or-down vote. And for the first time ever in basically decades and decades, since 1974, we saw that plan completely thrown out the window. That promise that had been made was thrown out the window. But there was one hope left, and that hope was that after the election, in a post-election session, which is where we are right now, we would have an opportunity for a debate and a vote as to whether or not we would pry open the market in Colombia, 40 million consumers strong, and create an opportunity for U.S. workers in Indiana, in Ohio, in Illinois, all across this country to have a chance to sell their products into Colombia. That's really what this agreement is all about. It's all about opening up access to their markets so that we can create good jobs.

Now, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules last night was talking about the economic challenges that are faced, the economic difficulty, the devastation that exists in Rochester, Buffalo, and other parts of upstate New York. We recognize that very well. Kodak is one of her largest employers, Madam Speaker, and I believe that by virtue of passing this U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we will be able to create more good jobs in upstate New York so that their products can be exported into Colombia.

Now, there are other States that have been particularly hard hit with this economic downturn that we're facing today. States like Ohio. We regularly hear from our colleagues in Ohio about the devastation that has existed there. One of the great companies in Ohio happens to be Whirlpool, and we know that right now the hardworking

men and women in Ohio at the Whirlpool Company want to have an opportunity to sell washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, and other products that Whirlpool manufactures. And guess what. Under the present structure, Madam Speaker, it's very unfortunate there is a tariff, a tax, on the work product from those American workers in Ohio who are seeking to get their product into Colombia. And what is it that we have had over the last 7 or 8 months? An indication from the April 10 decision that was made here to not proceed with the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. There was a sense that in this lame duck session we would, in fact, consider that.

Madam Speaker, I would argue that as important as it was for us to pass that U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on April 10, it is much, much more important today. Why? Because we have seen hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans lose their jobs and we are here at this moment, at this moment, Madam Speaker, talking about the imperative of creating jobs right here in the United States of America so that they don't flee overseas.

And I will say that I mentioned Ohio. It's also important. We're talking about the automobile industry. There is a company called Caterpillar, which is headquartered in Peoria, Illinois. And Caterpillar workers are some of the most dedicated, hardworking, productive workers of any company in this country. And, Madam Speaker, because of the existence of that tariff, the workers who manufacture Caterpillar tractors are unable to sell those tractors into that very important 40 million-strong economy of Colombia because of the fact that we have been recalcitrant and not moved ahead with even a debate or a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

So, Madam Speaker, I have to say that we have a great opportunity with this rule. Mr. Diaz-Balart and I, as I said, offered this amendment upstairs which would have allowed us to do what last April 10--we would have never thought last April 10, by the way, that we would be here dealing with the automobile industry as we are. But last April 10 there was an indication by many, including the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, who said that at that point she was voting to delay consideration of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Well, Madam Speaker, today is the day. We all know and we hope and pray that this is the end of the work of the 110th Congress. The 111th Congress will be convening on January 6 and we will begin anew. But guess what. If we don't pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement right now, we have thrown years of negotiations out the door. We will see our governments have to start from scratch on this very, very important agreement.

And the one thing that I haven't mentioned that I know my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart will discuss is the very important strategic interest that we have in strengthening our strongest ally on the South American continent.

We all recognize that the modern history of Colombia has been horrendous, but I argue that the last 5 years have brought us the greatest transformation of any country in a 5-year period of time in modern history. The reason I say that is that if you look at the human rights violations, if you look at the actions of the FARC, the paramilitaries, and a wide range of other entities there, if you look at the murder that has taken place in the past of union leaders, and you compare that to the changes of today, it is important for us to realize that we have seen an amazing transformation.

Now, I acknowledge that in the past several weeks, some very unfortunate reports have come to the forefront, but I believe that the tragic murders that have taken place, and the resignation of military leaders and the firing of military leaders because of that, underscores how important it is for us to proceed with this agreement, which will strengthen the economic ties and, I believe, bring about a greater opportunity for the recognition of human rights in Colombia.

So we are here at this moment focusing our attention on how it is that we can deal with the automobile industry and create good American jobs. I believe that right now we have an opportunity to do this very, very important thing, and that is open up that market so that U.S. workers can sell their products into Colombia. I hope very much that we are able to see that action taken today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, my Rules Committee colleague from Miami, who joined me in coauthoring the amendment about which I was just speaking.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the newly elected chairman of the Republican Conference, my good friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

If the gentlewoman would yield?

I would say, absolutely, we have a lot of people who want to speak in opposition to this martial law rule. I would inquire of my friend if she has any speakers.

Madam Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, my good friend from Livonia, Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules if she might consider yielding, she has 29 minutes remaining, maybe 5 or 10 minutes of her time to us. We have a number of speakers on our side.

Maybe 10 minutes of time. We have a number of speakers who have come, and you know how it goes on the management of debate here.

I understand you want to move this forward as expeditiously as possible. We have a lot of Members who are hoping very much to have the chance to speak on this. We can see Members coming in.

I just, as a courtesy, would like to inquire of the Chair if she would yield us maybe 10 minutes of her time. If she had speakers, I would completely understand why that wouldn't be the case, but I just don't see any speakers on the other side, and if that would be possible, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Rochester for yielding me this time.

At this juncture, I would like to, Madam Speaker, yield 2 minutes to our hardworking colleague from Harrison Township, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking former Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very good friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from Rochester one more time if she might consider yielding maybe an additional 5 minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Speaker, let me just ask my friend, there are no speakers at all on the other side of the aisle other than the words of wisdom that we are going to be getting from our distinguished committee Chair.

I anxiously look forward to those words of wisdom, and, pending that, I am going to yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, we are dealing with what is arguably one of the most difficult and challenging economic times in modern American history. We have seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the past several months. President-elect Obama has predicted that we are going to see more difficult days ahead than we have already faced, and the American people want us to act and they want us to do the right thing.

We all know that the automobile industry is a very, very important sector of the U.S. economy. It is one of the most important. We know that the housing industry is a very important sector of the U.S. economy. Just today, I have introduced legislation which is designed to encourage people to purchase homes by developing an incentive for them to have equity in those homes, because we have a huge backlog of homes that need to be sold all across this country. The measure calls for a tax credit, in fact a refundable credit, for people who make a 10 to 15 percent down payment on their home.

Now, why is that the case that we are offering this legislation? It is the fact that, unfortunately, because of bad government policy, and I underscore that again, bad government policy, we have encouraged people through subprime mortgages, the CRA, through abuse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we saw in yesterday's hearing, we have encouraged people who could not afford it to get into homes way, way beyond their means, by putting nothing down, and at the same time paying subprime interest rates which were clearly going to be going up at a day in the future. So bad government policy created that, in large part because people didn't have equity in their homes.

That is why, to deal with this very important housing challenge, I have today introduced this legislation that provides a credit for people who will put a down payment and have a vested interest in their home and keep that home for at least 3 years.

I'm talking about that, Madam Speaker, because we need to use creative measures to deal with the challenges that we face today. I also believe that, as we look at this challenge of the automobile industry, we need to do the exact same thing.

This morning I met with a man named John Symes, who, in the next couple of weeks, will see his automobile dealership mark its 60th anniversary. They're located in Pasadena, California. Mr. Symes and I talked about the need for us to, again, look at creative ways in which we can encourage, through tax incentives, possibly a credit similar to the one that I just introduced today in the housing industry to deal with the backlog of automobiles that need to be purchased; so, rather than focusing on bailing out the industry, the idea of incentivizing our fellow Americans to get into the showrooms to have an opportunity to have some kind of credit, whether it's, once again, providing an interest deduction on the deduction for the interest on auto loans or the sales tax deduction, those kind of incentives, or some kind of credit. We're in the process of fashioning legislation that I will be introducing soon to deal with that. I know that there are other measures that have been proposed.

We need, Madam Speaker, to have a creative way to empower our fellow Americans, rather than all of a sudden taxing our fellow Americans and going through and expanding what is already existing today, and that is what I will describe as ``bailout fatigue'' among our fellow Americans. And it's very, very understandable. And the notion of having the Federal Government continue to expand more and more and more is just plain wrong.

I believe that we dealt with this issue, in part, with the measure that we passed in October. It was designed to thaw the frozen credit markets. And so a big part of that was for us to do everything that we could to unleash that. And I believe that if we had not passed that measure that we would be in more dire straits than we face today.

So we've already taken a step in trying to ensure that people can get into those showrooms. I do believe that more needs to be done, but I don't believe this is it.

And as I said in my remarks earlier, Madam Speaker, I also think that the indication that we had on April 10 of this year that we were going to have an opportunity, in a lame duck session, which is where we are today, to pry open the very, very important market of our strongest, closest ally on the South American continent, that being Colombia, 40 million consumers there, so that we can sell Caterpillar tractors manufactured by U.S. workers, hardworking Americans, in the State of Illinois and in other States, or Whirlpool refrigerators and washing machines and dryers that could be sold into Colombia creating jobs in Ohio; and we regularly hear our colleagues from Ohio and other parts of the country talk about the fact that so many of our fellow Americans have lost jobs. This agreement would do just that.

Colombian goods can be sold tariff-free in the United States today, Madam Speaker, coffee, cut flowers, other things that come in from Colombia tariff-free, so they've already got access to the American consumer. All we're saying is that when last spring we, for the first time ever, subverted the 1974 Trade Act, we have a chance to rectify that today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial-law rule and, when we get to it ultimately, since I suspect it will pass, I urge a ``no'' vote on the next rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, we come to this floor in the midst of an extraordinary time in the life of this economy and in the life of our cherished domestic automotive industry.

The American automotive industry is facing a financial crisis. Millions of jobs are on the line. Let me say from my heart, Madam Speaker, inaction by this Congress is not an option, but I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the legislation that will be brought to the floor under this rule, because I believe the American people know we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

We cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a vibrant automotive sector here in the United States. The legislation that will come before the Congress today will take $15 billion in taxpayer money and make it available to the automotive industry, appoint something in the form of a car czar for the purpose of organizing and encouraging the kinds of changes in the industry that Washington, D.C. believes are appropriate.

But I would say the bailout proposed by the White House and congressional

Democrats is fundamentally flawed. It exposes the American taxpayer to more debt, fails to reorganize our domestic auto manufacturers, and does not fix the immediate credit crisis that those good companies are facing.

Instead, the Democrat bill will actually prevent the necessary changes and force us back into the same situation where taxpayers will undoubtedly be asked to bail this industry out again and again and again. The Democrat bailout also seeks to create, as I mentioned, something known as a car czar with the responsibilities of making car companies more profitable, more fiscally responsible. Well, trusting a Washington bureaucrat, who has probably never even tightened a lug nut, with fixing what ails the American automotive industry is not the answer.

Today, House Republicans propose the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. It is an effort to lock in the restructuring promised over the last few weeks with firm benchmarks and a tight timeline. Also, in the place of a taxpayer-funded government bailout, House Republicans would encourage private investment to finance a Detroit recovery in this year and the next. It is a solution that will protect our domestic auto industry and the American taxpayer, and that must be paramount in our interest.

Under the Republican plan, the Big Three, having presented their plans for restructuring, would be required to lock in a tight timeline with a high degree of specificity about the kinds of changes that will make our domestic auto industry truly competitive and on parity with those cherished companies that have made foreign investments and are manufacturing cars here in the United States.

Secondly, we would establish a process for reaching an expedited agreement. Instead of nationalizing America's auto companies by having the Federal Government take a stake interest in those companies, an equity and stock position, we would rather say that because of the many legal and contractual hurdles to restructuring, the companies would be urged to accomplish a restructuring through the use of a prepackaged bankruptcy or other legal mechanism to bring all stakeholders to the table for an agreed-upon determination about their future.

With regard to interim financing, again, Madam Speaker, we would not look to the Federal Treasury to finance a recovery in Detroit, but, rather, we would look to the private sector. We would create a hand up, not a hand out, by creating an FDIC-style insurance program where auto companies could be required to purchase insurance as a backstop to private lending that's made into their industry. Now, many of us believe that this would loosen up an extraordinary amount of financing, the so-called debtor-in-possession financing, which is so scarce in our economy today--so a serious reorganization and recovery plan, with hard timelines and urgency.

Secondly, a process using the existing judicial institutions of this country to enforce that restructuring; and, thirdly, a priming of the pump with a new federally backed insurance program to encourage investment in Detroit is the antidote to what ails us. Simply handing $15 billion out to Detroit today, however popular it may be with some Americans, I believe, in my heart, it would ultimately be a disservice to the American taxpayer, to our children, and our grandchildren.

So I urge consideration of the Republican plan, the American Automotive Reorganization and Recovery Plan. I urge my Democrat colleagues to allow such a proposal to come to the floor, and I oppose this rule.

I thank my former chairman of the Rules Committee, the ranking member from California, and also I want to thank the current chairwoman of the Rules Committee for her courtesy in granting our side an additional 5 minutes.

I rise, Madam Speaker, in opposition to the same-day rule, but primarily in opposition to the underlying legislation, H.R. 7321, the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.

This bill gives a bailout. I don't know any other way to put it. You can euphemistically say it is a ``rescue package'' or whatever, but it's a bailout. It is a bailout for one particular industry, albeit a very important industry, lots of jobs.

But in my district, the 11th of Georgia, we have a lot of textile manufacturing, and they desperately need help. There was language in the Colombian Free Trade Agreement that helped the textile industry in northwest Georgia. But the Democratic majority, this majority, will not allow that bill, that trade agreement, bilateral trade agreement to pass. And you know why, Madam Speaker? Because Big Labor opposes it.

In this situation that we are dealing with now, Big Labor is the entity that gains the most from this, and yet they are the ones that, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, are wrecking the automobile industry in the United States. When their average cost per hour is $77 when the foreign manufacturers that employ the United States productive workers can do it for $45 an hour, there is something wrong with that.

The solution to this problem is a structured bankruptcy just like Delta went through in my State of Georgia. It was painful, yes, but they are flying and are regaining profitability. I would trust a bankruptcy judge, a Federal bankruptcy judge under chapter 11, more than I would trust a czarina or czar doing it by the Federal Government.

I think clearly that is what they ought to do, restructure under Federal bankruptcy chapter 11, lower those costs, renegotiate those contracts and deal with the creditors to take less than 100 percent of the debt. Then, if it doesn't work, the automobile manufacturers can come back to Congress and ask for some additional help. That would make sense. But right now, the thing for them to do is to restructure under chapter 11.

By the way, Madam Speaker, when they do that, management as well as labor needs to take a haircut, a significant haircut, in fact maybe even a flattop or a buzz.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule, because we do need to act to support our domestic auto industry, and failure to act by Congress on bridge loans to our domestic auto industry will have catastrophic effects on our workers, on our economy, as well as our national security. Inaction is simply not an option.

In recent years, the domestic auto industry has been undergoing significant restructuring in an effort to become more competitive with foreign automakers. More needs to be done certainly, but to suggest that nothing has been done is inaccurate and does not recognize the significant sacrifices made by workers and the tough decisions made by the Big Three.

They are also changing their product mix to better reflect the current marketplace demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. It is not Toyota that offers the most models that get over 30 miles per gallon. It is General Motors. It is not Honda that makes the highest mileage SUV in the world. It is Ford with the Ford Escape.

We cannot forget the domestic auto industry and what they have meant to America. In fact, during World War II, southeast Michigan was known as the ``arsenal of democracy'' because we literally had the manufacturing capability that led the world to peace by building those armaments, and we expanded freedom across the globe.

Then on September 11, 2001, that horrific day when the terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans, they had an additional goal, and that was to destroy our economy. At that time, while the Federal Government was properly providing bailout support to the devastated airlines, it was the domestic auto industry, led by General Motors and their Keep America Rolling Program, which kept customers in the showrooms, workers on the factory floors, and did indeed keep America rolling.

The cost to our economy of failure of one or more of these companies will be stark. Experts have indicated that this would cause a cascade of bankruptcies across the economy and lead to the loss of as many as 3 million jobs. The cost of this calamity to the taxpayers would be multiple times greater than the cost of these bridge loans.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look beyond the super-heated rhetoric here and support me in joining this rule and this vital industry.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1533.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1533 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which would require a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. The waiver would apply to any rule reported through the legislative day of December 13, 2008, that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers.

This is not an unusual procedure, particularly at the end of a legislative session. I want to point out that my friends on the other side of the aisle in the 109th Congress reported at least 21 rules that allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. This rule is for a true emergency. It is for one purpose, and that is to help facilitate the prompt consideration of bipartisan legislation that will prevent the collapse of our domestic auto industry.

I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so we can move quickly to address this economic crisis before the end of the year and the end of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of my colleague if he has more speakers.

Yes.

I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman tell me how many speakers he has and what time is he talking about.

We would really like to see this move forward, Mr. Dreier.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 additional minutes.

I am sorry, Mr. Dreier, but I cannot.

May I ask if the gentleman is prepared to close.

There are no further speakers on our side.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the resolution.