David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we all, understandably, join in extending congratulations to the President and Navy SEAL Team 6 and all those who have been involved in the amazing accomplishment of last night, I think it's very important for us to look back almost 10 years ago. I have just gotten off the phone with former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who reminded me that when the attack took place on September 11 of 2001, President Bush and he and others came together to do everything that we possibly could to ensure that the United States of America would never face the kind of attack that we had on September 11. Our former colleague Porter Goss, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, went on to serve as Director of Central Intelligence, and our former colleague, Jane Harman, of course, going back to the time when President Clinton was President--so many people have been involved in this effort to ensure that we would not face the kind of attack that we did. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important to note on this day that we have been successful in the past 10 years. We, of course, as reports have come forward, need to remain vigilant. But I want to extend congratulations to all those who have played a role in ensuring our safety.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Wayne Grisham was a business leader and a public servant who spent a lifetime enriching the communities of the San Gabriel Valley and the Gateway Cities. As a La Mirada city councilman, a California assemblyman and a U.S. Congressman, he brought civility and good humor to his public service. As a small businessman, he contributed to the entrepreneurial spirit that forms the backbone of the Southern California economy. He is greatly missed by all who had the pleasure of knowing him and serving with him. In the 1982 Congressional election, Wayne and I had the misfortune of finding our districts drawn together. No elected representative hopes to face one of his own colleagues in a primary election, but I will never forget the civility with which Wayne conducted himself when we found ourselves in those unexpected circumstances. While we engaged in a very rigorous campaign, Wayne was always a true gentleman. That election exemplified the strength of character for which Wayne has always been known. Before Wayne served his community as an elected representative, he served his country in World War II with honor and distinction. As a fighter pilot his plane was shot down over Germany, where he became a prisoner of war. When he returned home, he was recognized with a Purple Heart. Wayne continued to serve his country not only through elected office, but as director of the Peace Corps in Kenya. He was appointed by President Reagan to this post in 1983. I was very saddened by the news of his passing, but I count it a privilege to have served with him and I join his family and friends to honor the life of Wayne Grisham.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Virginia Bradway Braun--a philanthropist, a civic leader, a proud Californian, and a patriot. She was very active in politics and a long- time friend and supporter of Governor and President Ronald Reagan. It was a privilege to call her a friend as well. Ginie, as she was known to all, contributed enormously to her adopted home in the greater Los Angeles area. Like me, Ginie grew up a Midwesterner, then came to California at a young age, and quickly called it home. She and her husband Henry gave generously to the community, supporting a vast array of worthy causes, from education to the arts to children's health. But Ginie was most generous with her time. She spent a lifetime volunteering for civic organizations, political causes, and charities that helped to improve the lives of those who shared her community. One of her most dedicated endeavors was her support for Pepperdine University, a tremendous institution that has served Southern California since 1937. Ginie joined the Pepperdine University Board in 1983 and was named to the University's Board of Regents in 1995. Her legacy lives on in the Henry A. and Virginia B. Braun Center for Public Policy, which was dedicated in 2003. The Braun Center will continue to advance the academic excellence to which Ginie was so devoted. But Ginie's greatest generosity to the university was reserved for institutions and programs that did not bear her name. From athletics to arts, Ginie was a very proud supporter of Pepperdine, its facilities, its faculty and its students. As University President Andrew Benton said, ``Ginie radiated life.'' Her energy and charisma were irrepressible. She brought them to every one of her life's endeavors, and inspired those around her with her love of life and generosity of spirit. I know that I am joined by countless others in celebrating the tremendous life of Ginie Braun.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last month, one of my constituents, Hrant Zeitounzian, passed away at the age of 101. Mr. Zeitounzian was one of the last remaining survivors of the Armenian Genocide. While Mr. Zeitounzian spent most of his life in Europe, he moved with his wife Osana to the United States in 1986 and was living in Sierra Madre, California. I wanted to take this opportunity to commemorate Mr. Zeitounzian's amazing life and to express my condolences to his family and friends. Below is a 2010 press release from the Armenian National Committee--Pasadena celebrating Mr. Zeitounzian's 100th birthday. Pasadena, CA.--With strength and purpose, Hrant Zeitounzian, a survivor of the Armenian Genocide, celebrated his 100th birthday with family and friends on January 15, 2010. Zeitounzian marked his centennial as his family reflected on a remarkable life that began in 1910 in Gurin, a city in the Sepastia region of Western Armenia. Along with his mother, brother and sister, Hrant, at the age of five, was exiled from his homeland and sent on a death march. The Pasadena Armenian National Committee participated in the celebration of Hrant Zeitounzian's life and praised him and his family for being staunch supporters of the Armenian Cause. For much of his life Hrant Zeitounzian has been involved in efforts to advance the Armenian Cause. As a youth in Lebanon he was very active in the Armenian Youth Federation and has long been a staunch supporter of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Over the past several years he has regularly attended the Armenian National Committee--Western Region's banquet. Several years ago he received singular praise from U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who cited Zeitounzian as an enduring symbol of the Armenian Cause. Following his exile from Gurin in 1915, Zeitounzian managed to settle in Beirut, Lebanon after Turkish soldiers started hunting down innocent Armenians in and around Aintab, where his mother had found temporary shelter for her family. After graduating from elementary school, Hrant was reunited with his mother in Aleppo, Syria, where he would later become enrolled in and graduate with high honors from Aleppo College. He would go on to have a successful career at the Iraq Petroleum Company and later at the American Tapline Company in Lebanon. Following his ``formal'' retirement, the ever-industrious genocide survivor would successfully open a store in Beirut that specialized in selling Kodak cameras, film and supplies. After enduring Lebanon's civil war, Hrant Zeitounzian moved to the United States in 1986 with his wife of over sixty years, Osana. Here in the United States he was reunited with his four children, his sons Vahe, Vartan and Kevork and his daughter Haiganoush (Anoush).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation not only to the gentleman from North Charleston for his superb management of this rule, but also to salute my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who serves from the Rules Committee to the Committee on the Budget. We actually have clearly changed the entire trajectory with the budget that we are going to consider with this rule. And I should say that, as I listened to the exchange that took place between Messrs. Van Hollen and Kingston earlier, we've changed the debate. In the last session of Congress, Mr. Speaker, there was not a budget considered. We didn't go through this. Yet we are going to have every single substitute--from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cooper, the Democratic substitute--all considered, and we're going to have a free-flowing debate today and tomorrow on that. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that yesterday I stood here at 1:30 just as the President was getting ready to deliver his speech, and I indicated some real hope and optimism by virtue of the fact that early indications were that the President would be talking about the need for entitlement reform. I have to say that I was more than disappointed in the fact that the speech was a little more political than I thought it could have been, and it was at best a very first step, but a little too modest for my tastes. Madam Speaker, it is essential that we work in a bipartisan way to take on the burden and the cost of Medicare especially, and Social Security as well. Why? So that we can save, not abolish, Medicare and Social Security. The American people have been compelled throughout their entire lifetimes to pay the FICA tax. They in fact should have an opportunity to have what are much needed health care and retirement benefits. And the course that we're on right now, Madam Speaker, has created a scenario whereby they will be lost. That's why we are working to save it. It can only be done, I believe, Madam Speaker, if we do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining and also how much time remains on each side.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this measure, all time yielded will be for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter before us.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 218 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional minute, and I do so to say that I think it's important for us to look at the preamble of the United States Constitution whenever we're debating defense appropriations bills or the defense authorization bill. I'm so happy that my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and the defense appropriations subcommittee, is here. I always argue that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the United States Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' Now, with all due respect to the priorities that we have, ensuring that we do care for those who are truly in need, all of these things can be done at other levels of government. Only the Federal Government can deal with our Nation's security. As Chairman Rogers pointed out, we are now, by virtue of a decision that the President of the United States has made, in the midst of three wars. I want to bring about spending cuts, and I believe that Governor Haley Barbour was absolutely right when he said: Anyone who says that you can't cut defense spending has never been to the Pentagon. We want to encourage defense sharing, and, in fact, we are focused on ensuring that we do get the best bang for our buck. So, Madam Speaker, recognizing the priority that the Federal Government has for national security and recognizing that we're trying to bring about responsible cuts, I think this agreement is the right thing for us. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend from Boulder, my Rules Committee colleague, for his very thoughtful remarks, and I would like to respond with a few important points. First, I was struck by the fact that he went through the litany of amendments that were debated on H.R. 1, underscoring again that we have, for the first time in decades, seen a free and flowing debate and an opportunity for votes to take place here in this institution. It hadn't happened before on a continuing resolution as we saw it in our consideration of H.R. 1. I also want to say that while my friend continued to point the finger of blame somehow characterizing this as a Republican plan, I'd like to remind him, Madam Speaker, that this happens to be the result of a negotiation that has taken place with three Democrats--the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the majority leader of the United States Senate--and one Republican, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. By a 3-1 margin in the negotiation process, the Republicans were outnumbered. And so I think that it's a mischaracterization to describe this as somehow a Republican plan that is before us. Now to the issue that was raised about a cut being a cut, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, made it clear, and he called it that--a cut is a cut. I know this attempt is being made to somehow characterize the fact that dollars have not been spent so that means you're not actually cutting them. Well, last night in the Rules Committee, the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend Mr. Dicks, pointed out something that everyone in this institution should know, and that is the process of reprogramming takes place within government agencies. We know full well that the movement of money, since money is fungible, that takes place within these different agencies, is standard operating procedure. So, Madam Speaker, to claim somehow that if dollars haven't actually been spent that they're not being cut is just plain wrong. Now, Madam Speaker, while I talked about the negotiating process that ended up with the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the majority leader of the United States Senate and the Speaker of the House, leading up to that, we had our very, very diligent and hardworking new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend, Mr. Rogers, who has stepped up to the plate and taken on the responsibility, in fact, some call it tongue in cheek, but he has been very serious about being the ``enforcer'' of ensuring that we cut spending, and he has actually renamed his Appropriations Committee the ``Disappropriations Committee'' by virtue of the fact, Madam Speaker, of the recognition that if we don't get our fiscal house in order, we are going to be in deep, deep trouble. So, Madam Speaker, I want to say that, again, he was one of the negotiators leading up to the final process here. I would like to now yield such time as he may consume to my very good friend, the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, according to the schedule, in about 9 minutes, the President of the United States, at George Washington University, is scheduled to give a very important address in which he is going to talk about fiscal responsibility--the need to bring about spending cuts and all--and how to get our economy growing. I want to congratulate the President. I want to congratulate the President for coming to this position. It obviously is much different than what we've gone through so far. As I said earlier, we've had an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending. The President proposed a budget that has deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion and would exacerbate the debt. He came out a few weeks ago and proposed a freeze in spending. We know that if we had not done what we are about to vote on here with this rule making in order a vote that will take place tomorrow, we would see an increase of $78.5 billion more in spending if we had not taken the action that this House, in a bipartisan way, is about to take. But the reason I want to congratulate the President is that I have just taken a look at the early reports of what he is about to say in this speech, and he does call for us to look at the issue of entitlements--he specifically says Social Security, not Medicare or Medicaid, but he talks about Social Security. But I believe that is, again, a first step towards what I believe is absolutely essential, and that is, for us, in a bipartisan way, to tackle the issue of entitlement spending. As Mr. Dicks said in the Rules Committee yesterday, that's two-thirds of the spending. We know that entitlement spending is something that needs to be addressed, and there is bipartisan recognition that we need to get our fiscal house in order. Madam Speaker, what we have before us is a measure that I don't like. I don't like it. I don't believe that it does enough to reduce the size and scope and reach of government. I believe that we need to do more. But we have to remember that we've got to take that first step. Last November 2, the American people sent a very loud and powerful message to Washington, D.C. There are 96 newly elected Members of this House, nine of them happen to be Democrats, 87 of them are Republican. Now Madam Speaker, I think it's important for us to recognize that that's a pretty powerful message. They were saying, End the nonsense, bring an end to this dramatic expansion of government, and that's exactly what we're doing with this first step. Margaret Thatcher, the great former Prime Minister of Great Britain, famously said, First you have to win the argument, then you win the vote. I believe that we've won the argument, Madam Speaker, because the message has come through. The message has come through that we are, in fact, going to have to get our fiscal house in order if we're going to ensure the strength and the preeminence of the greatest Nation the world has ever known. So, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule, and tomorrow we will have a vote on the continuing resolution itself. Then we will begin tomorrow, after we've had that vote, to debate the budget, which is going to be far reaching, it's going to be difficult, but it is clearly the right thing for us to do. And I will say again, Madam Speaker, that I do hope that on these issues we will be able to continue to work together in a bipartisan way to solve our Nation's problems. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, there were several things that were said that I would like to address. First, I would like to say that the gentlewoman began by saying that never before in our Nation's history have we had measures brought forward in this manner. Madam Speaker, that is just plain wrong. Time and time again under both political parties, we have seen the Rules Committee report out measures that do in fact cover multiple issues. So this is not unprecedented, as the gentlewoman has just said. Second, I think it is very important for us to clarify the fact that what we are voting on is an agreement that is supported by the President of the United States and the majority leader of the United States Senate. Part of that agreement is that the Senate will not vote to defund Planned Parenthood or vote to actually bring an end to funding for the health care bill, but it will consider these measures. And I think it is important, Madam Speaker, to make it clear, the only thing we are doing in this rule is ensuring that that agreement is enforced. So, Madam Speaker, I think that it is clear that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are not happy with the fact that their President and the Senate majority leader have negotiated this agreement. Again, I don't like the agreement just like they don't like the agreement. I don't like it because I don't believe that it goes far enough, but it is very important for us to realize that this is simply a first step. It is a bold first step. As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has just said, Madam Speaker, it is a step which in fact is the largest, four times the largest, cut we have ever had in the past. It is a cut of $40 billion. By virtue of that agreement, we are making that first step. But if you extend this out, it will have cuts that total $315 billion. And as I said, we are just beginning the debate this week with this very, very important budget that will be considered in the Rules Committee today and tomorrow and Friday on the House floor. I also have to say that one of the reasons we are having this debate on the rule today and voting on Thursday on the actual continuing resolution is because we put into place a very important change in the rules at the beginning of this Congress which states that unreported measures must in fact comply with the 3-day layover requirement that exists for reported measures. We are subscribing to that and enforcing that. As we know, this measure was filed at 2 a.m. yesterday morning here in the House; and because of that filing, to ensure that it was put online, as the chairman of Appropriations Committee said, so that the full membership, the American people, the media have an opportunity to see this measure, we have done that. That is the reason we are going to be holding this vote on Thursday, and that is the reason we are able to have the kind of free-flowing debate that we will have. Madam Speaker, this is an agreement that no one, no one is happy with; but it is an agreement that we have come to in dealing with the two political parties, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say first to my friend from Boulder that the notion of arguing that a $40 billion cut is going to take us down the road to bankruptcy is absolutely preposterous.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Boulder.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I will repeat this again so that he might be able to understand it. A $40 billion cut, or a $15 billion cut, cannot be characterized as taking us down the road toward bankruptcy. We all want to cut more in spending. I mean, it's very clear. Now my friend from Worcester has just made this argument about the priorities that we have.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to engage in a discussion with my distinguished ranking member, if she would like, on the issue that she just discussed.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of three measures: H.R. 1473, H. Con. Res. 35 and H. Con. Res. 36. H.R. 1473 funds the government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. H. Con. Res. 35 and 36 are enrollment correction measures that end Federal funding for the President's health care plan and Planned Parenthood. As these measures represent a final agreement on this fiscal year's funding, on par with a conference report, this rule provides simple up- or-down votes on all three of these items. Furthermore, this rule directs the Clerk of the House to refrain from finalizing the enrollment of H.R. 1473 until the Senate has acted on all three measures to ensure that the enrollment corrections resolutions get full consideration. H.R. 1473 will be debatable for 1 hour. H. Con. Res. 35 and 36 will be debatable for 20 minutes each. Madam Speaker, it has been a long, difficult, ugly, messy process; but we have finally achieved an important victory for the American people. Today's underlying continuing resolution is a step toward, a step toward the fulfillment of a fundamental promise that was made to the taxpayers. We will halt the practice of reckless and unchecked growth in Federal spending; and critically important, Madam Speaker, we will reverse the course that we have been on. This final continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 imposes the single largest cut in non- defense spending in our Nation's history. It also implements a number of reforms that will ensure greater accountability in how tax dollars are spent. Madam Speaker, this is not the end of our work to restore discipline and accountability of the Federal budget, far from it. After fighting so hard to get to this point, it's important to point out that the truly difficult work still lies ahead for us. This resolution is also not the perfect measure we were all working for. Many of us fought hard to have even greater cuts and more significant reforms. But today's action is so critical because it is the turning point; it is the turning point, Madam Speaker. It is that profoundly important first step. The American people have said enough is enough, and this Congress is finally responding. We are ending an era that has seen growth in non-defense discretionary spending over the past few years of 82 percent. Under Speaker Pelosi, Madam Speaker, we have had an increase in non-defense discretionary spending of 82 percent. We are making serious, meaningful cuts in the size and the scope of government. But as I said, these are only just the beginning. When we conclude this debate, we will turn directly to the fiscal 2012 budget. Our very thoughtful Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan, has put forth a bold budget plan that seeks to tackle the fundamental reforms that are absolutely essential to the future viability of our economy. If the process we have just come through has been difficult, the task that lies ahead is Herculean. A $1.6 trillion deficit poses an almost unfathomable challenge. It demands a tremendous level of seriousness and resolve that each and every one of us must rise to. The consequences of failing to do so would be both disastrous and predictable. We have already gotten a strong dose of the economic challenges that would ensue. For months and months on end, we have dealt with a moribund economy and a very painful lack of job opportunities. The stifling nature of the national debt, the tax and regulatory uncertainty, the policies that favor government intervention over entrepreneurial empowerment, all of these have contributed to our economic challenges. It is increasingly apparent that the recent positive movement on job creation has been fueled by our effort to rein in wasteful government spending and restore the certainty that businesses need to make new investments. As we continue our efforts to impose fiscal discipline, I hope and believe we will continue to see positive news on the jobs front. But these economic challenges are far from over for most hardworking Americans. We know what difficult times we and the American people are facing. We know very well how painful these challenges have been, but they pale in comparison to the crisis that will come if we do not have the courage to fundamentally transform the way this government spends money. We need look no further than the euro zone to see what's in store without a dramatic change in course. We have seen Western European economies come to the brink of collapse, crippled under the weight of their sovereign debt and nearly dragged some of the world's largest, most stable economies along with them. The coming budget debate will be a seminal moment in which we must reject this failed, economic model. Today, with this historic spending cut, we are paving the way to do just that. Madam Speaker, this is not the end of our work; but it is, as I said, just the beginning. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolutions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I was very saddened this morning to hear the news of the passing of the husband of our former colleague Jane Harman. Sidney Harman lived to, as the report came out, the ripe young age of almost 93. He was an amazing individual. I knew of him because of his great work in an organization called BENS, Business Executives for National Security. He also very famously took on the responsibility of what he described as an American icon, Newsweek magazine, when he made the decision to ensure that it would continue to thrive. And he has done a phenomenal job. And I'd like to say that our thoughts and prayers are with our former colleague Jane and the entire Harman family. The world is a greater place for Sidney Harman having lived and a lesser place for his passing.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, the gentleman is absolutely correct.