David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Could I finish the answer to the question? Because I know the gentleman has been interrupting, repeatedly, Members, and I, usually, as I ask people to yield, try not to do it more than three times. And the gentleman has asked three, four, five times. Some of our Members yield when they're doing 1-minute speeches. So let me just say that this is scored by the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker. It is scored not as a tax increase; it is scored as a spending cut. And I know what the Joint Committee on Taxation has said, but they rely on the Congressional Budget Office as they look to this. And so the fact is what this comes down to is returning an improper government subsidy. And that is not a tax increase. So if I could complete my statement, Mr. Speaker, now that I have answered the question posed by the gentleman, this bill itself is in fact a badly flawed measure, the Obama health care bill. And for that reason, it is absolutely essential that we provide the kind of relief that every small business in this country deserves. And so we are in a position where we have done this in, I believe, the most proper way. The gentleman's amendment doesn't comply with the CutGo provision that we have. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am going to encourage my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. DREIER. I'm yielding to my friend. The Speaker doesn't need to yield.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that we all know why we're here. There is a bipartisan consensus that the 1099 provision in this bill is flawed. It's a mistake. And what it says to me is that the health care bill is badly flawed. And we all recall the very famous statement that was made, ``We have to pass this bill before we can understand what's in it.'' I'm trying to remember who said that. Somebody said that. Somebody very prominent said that. So here we have a measure that is badly flawed. There is bipartisan consensus--278 cosponsors of Mr. Lungren's bill. And as Mr. Lungren said at the outset, Democrats were discouraged from cosponsoring it because by cosponsoring the measure they admitted that this outrageous health care bill was flawed. Well, it got to the point where the President of the United States in his news conference right after the election said the bill needs to be fixed, the 1099 provision needs to be fixed. So he was acknowledging right there that it was flawed. Now, we have this big debate on CutGo and how we're paying for this. And I would be happy to yield to my friend who has been requesting time to ask the question that I know he's going to ask me because I've heard it a million times over the last few minutes. I yield to my friend from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I will answer my friend by saying the following: It is a subsidy that has provided that opportunity for that taxpayer. It is a subsidy. This is scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to join in congratulating my friend for his extraordinary service in the Peace Corps. He not only served at that time, but he continues to share that experience with us today; and as we focus on countries that are dealing with difficulty all around the world, the expansion of the Peace Corps is something that has been very important and recognizing the 50th anniversary is something that I am happy to join my colleague in doing.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the week before last, just before we adjourned, we got the sad news of the passing of our good friend and former colleague Congressman Steve Horn. Steve Horn was without a doubt one of the most intelligent and accomplished Members to ever serve in this body, and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, he was one of the kindest and most decent Members. He got his bachelor's degree from Stanford University, his master's from Harvard, and went back and got his Ph.D. at Stanford University. He served in strategic intelligence in the early 1950s in the U.S. Army Reserve, and then he got involved in public service in a big way. He served in the Eisenhower administration, and he went on to become legislative assistant to California Senator Tom Kuchel. From that point forward, he dedicated himself to public service, and he expanded that greatly. He got into education, and for nearly two decades, from 1970 to 1988, he served as president of the California State University at Long Beach. During that period of time, he was named one of the 100 most effective college presidents in the country. Mr. Speaker, then he joined us here as a Member of Congress, serving for five terms. He was an individual who spent a great deal of time and effort focusing on issues. In fact, one of the great stories about Steve Horn I heard from his former staff member, who I'm happy to say when he left came to work for me, Alisa Do, who was his legislative assistant, now my legislative director--she told me of how they would often be looking for Congressman Horn. There were votes taking place here in the House, and he was over in the Library of Congress, didn't have a pager with him--we didn't have BlackBerrys at the time. And yet he was over there in the library studying, trying to get more and more information and develop his knowledge. He also was someone who never hesitated to go against the grain. He served on the Government Operations Committee--government reform was a priority for him--and Transportation. He represented the Long Beach area, and he understood that 40 percent of the goods going to and from the consumers and workers of the United States go through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, and he was always dedicated to ensuring that that was a very high priority. And he had this great focus on reforming and improving the operations of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, he was an institutionalist. He loved this body, understanding that the deliberative nature of service here and of our work is very important and can't be forgotten. Steve leaves his wonderful wife, Nini--they were married for 57 years--two children, and one grandchild. And I've got to say that I miss his advice, counsel, friendship, and camaraderie. I would now like to, in the spirit of bipartisanship, yield to my friend from Manhattan (Mrs. Maloney), who served with him on the Government Reform Committee.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for her very thoughtful contribution. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with Nini and their wonderful family.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I would say to my friend I think what we've just shown is that the proverbial economists say on one hand, on the other hand. The fact is not every economist agrees on this notion, but a statement has been made. And, in fact, my friend made it upstairs, and that is, he said when he was quoting Mark Zandi, that everyone, basically every economist--and that is what I inferred from the statement--came to this conclusion. And my point in actually referencing Professor Taylor is that there is disagreement on it. I happen to come down on the side, personally, of Mr. Taylor. I think it's important for us, just because we want to all encourage individual initiative and responsibility, to do everything that we can to reduce the size and scope and reach of government--and that's what the goal of H.R. 1 is--so that we can get the economy growing. And I believe that more incentives by reducing that tax and regulatory burden will create jobs, because we do share that goal. I mean, I'm convinced that everyone wants to do that. But this notion, I mean I've heard commentators saying that somehow that Republicans in saying that we might see a reduction in the number of Federal Government jobs, that we're not for job creation. We want people to have good, long-term jobs in the private sector, and that's our goal here. This rule is a standard rule. I should say at the outset that we wanted to have this not a closed rule but a modified closed rule. And I know my friend was concerned that his amendment that he testified on behalf of in the Rules Committee wasn't made in order. But I will tell you that we did, from the very beginning, say to the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, that she, when having introduced on February 18 her substitute proposal that basically kept spending at 2010 levels, that we would have made that in order and it would have made it a modified closed rule that we had offered, so we did do that. We are where we are. Ensuring that we don't go through a government shutdown is something that Chairman Rogers and I know Mr. Dicks and all of us in leadership positions, rank-and-file Members alike, want to avoid, and that's why we've got this 2-week package that's before us. I hope the Senate will act so that we can do that, and then do what we all want to make sure happens, and that is have a negotiated agreement that will get to where we need to be. So I thank my friend for his management of this rule just as he managed the last open rule.

Mr. DREIER. And before I yield back, I guess I should yield to the ranking member.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will say the gentleman is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We want to have something that we haven't had in the last couple of years, and that is an open amendment process when it comes to the regular appropriations bills. And Mr. Rogers and I have been discussing that at length and will continue to. And I believe that the best way to deal with this is for not leadership but for the floor managers to come together and work out an agreement on that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I was going to begin by saying that both my colleagues, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, did an absolutely phenomenal job at taking on the responsibility that is thrust on them when we have an open amendment process. The people who go through the greatest challenge are those who have to defend the bill and be here for hours and hours and hours. And as we all know, we had 162 amendments considered on the House floor during those days that led up to before adjournment week before last. And we worked into the morning on every occasion. That means after midnight. I mean, I guess we adjourned at 2 or 3 on some of those days. I was sound asleep then, I have to admit. But you guys were working very, very hard, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank them. And I was pleased that those in the minority did recognize that doing what we did was unprecedented. Never before has a continuing resolution been considered under the process that we've had. At best, it's been a structured rule, which is what we had two decades ago, and both political parties had had usually a closed rule for the consideration of continuing resolutions up to that point. So I do believe that we have come together with, as Mr. Woodall has said, a package that included amendments from both sides of the aisle as we proceed with this. Now, I was tickled also to hear my friend talk about the fact that $41 billion in cuts were made under Democratic leadership. The fact that both sides of the aisle are now talking about and bragging about ways to cut spending is, I think, a very encouraging sign, because that is the message. That's the message that Mr. Woodall was just offering. The constant expansion of government is, in fact, counterproductive in our quest to create jobs and get the economy moving. Now, we had this exchange last night in the Rules Committee-- yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, in which we were talking about Mark Zandi and the Goldman Sachs projections as far as bringing about spending reductions. And I brought to the fore one of the most brilliant economists I know, John Taylor, who is at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, former undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, a very good personal friend of mine. His son used to work in our office. He's serving in the United States Marine Corps. And I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, that John Taylor, in responding to the Zandi quote, made it very clear that the notion of not bringing about spending reductions would in fact exacerbate the economic challenges that we have. And the bottom line is: The best way for us to get our economy growing is to ensure that people can keep more of their hard- earned money and to restrict the kind of control that the Federal Government has continued to thrust on individuals. I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he would like to share one of those quotes.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I know we have lots of work to do here and we have gone through an extraordinary process over the last few days, but the moment I heard something was being said about my friend Jane Harman, I wanted to rush downstairs to say that when I think of Jane Harman, I think of the quintessential individual committed to bipartisanship. She has always worked to reach across the aisle, whether it's dealing with national security and foreign policy issues or domestic issues or, for us, issues as we share the representation of Los Angeles area. And I want to say that the Woodrow Wilson Center is going to be--we all respected Lee Hamilton--but an even greater place now with Jane Harman there.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my hardworking colleague, the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren).

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. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on H. Res. 93.

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are where we are. The Senate took our 10-month extension that we passed by a vote of 274-144, and decided to offer a 90-day extension, which passed by an 86-12 vote. Even before we saw this extension, the gentleman from Menomonee Falls, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee and the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had made a commitment that he will proceed very vigorously in the next 90 days to deal with the questions that my friend has raised. I think that many of the questions that have been raised are valid. That's why it is that we need to have this extension, which is scheduled to expire in one legislative day if we take no action, because I think everyone can acknowledge that the Patriot Act has played a role in keeping the United States of America safe. My two colleagues and I have joined from the get-go in saying that they should not have made this measure permanent, because we were legislating through the prism of September 11 at the outset. We felt very strongly that recognizing the civil liberties of every single American has to continue to be a very, very top priority while we look at what, I think, are the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which are ``providing for the common defense.'' In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson made it very clear when he said that a wise and true government shall restrain men from injuring one another. That is why our security has to be of paramount importance, but it doesn't mean it is done at the expense of civil liberties and the rights of every American. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The gentleman who chairs the Crime Subcommittee is absolutely dedicated within the next 90 days of pursuing that as vigorously as possible. I will say that when this extension that we're faced with right now was passed, last February 25, 1 year ago, that brought to an end any discussion, any hearings. That brought to an end any hearings through the entire rest of that Congress once the extension was put into place. I will say that any Member who wants a classified briefing can request it, and so the opportunity for classified briefings on the Patriot Act or any other measure is there for Members of this body. So, Mr. Speaker, it's clear to me, we have a 90-day extension that has come back from the Senate. It will expire in one legislative day. We want Mr. Sensenbrenner to begin working with Mr. Lungren and others who have spent so much time and energy in dealing with the questions of the lone wolf and roving wiretaps and all that. We need to have that addressed as quickly possible. So let's do it, let's do it now, let's pass this thing in a bipartisan way and get it done. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. One question I would have is February 25 of last year is when the 12-month extension was put into place. How many hearings or classified briefings were held for Members during the past 12 months before this February 25 expiration?

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and thoughtful Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Boulder, Mr. Polis, pending which I yield myself such time as I my consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.