David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, there may be very little change, but it is my understanding, just from the brief staff report that I got, that we are going to, under this rule, continue to have a vote on the Pomeroy amendment, which increases the death tax. And following that, because of a concern that was raised by Members on the majority side of the aisle, there was concern that there wouldn't be a final passage vote. So am I correct to infer that we can anticipate the only change being a final passage vote on the measure?

Mr. DREIER. I am very appreciative of my friend for yielding. Let me, Mr. Speaker, explain it the way I've understood. So the rule is identical to the rule that we were debating earlier, that being we are anticipating 3 hours of general debate; we are expecting that there will be a vote then on the proposal by Mr. Pomeroy to increase the death tax. Then, Mr. Speaker, we may or may not, following that, have a vote on final passage before the measure is sent to the Senate; and from there, it would then go on to the President. Is that a correct explanation?

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I've listened to a number of my friends offer great quotes. I listened to Mr. Jackson quote William Jennings Bryant, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Adam Smith. I listened to Mr. Garamendi quote Teddy Roosevelt. And I've listened to--was it Franklin Roosevelt? Okay. I thought somebody was quoting Teddy Roosevelt. Well, I'd like to close by quoting one of our great former colleagues, the late Jack Kemp, who, many times stood here in the well and said, if you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. In America we tax work, growth, savings, investment, productivity. We subsidize non-work, welfare, consumption, debt, and leisure. Now, Mr. Speaker, Jack Kemp was revered by Democrats and Republicans alike, and he was someone who understood very clearly that if you increase that tax burden on job creators, you undermine the ability of people who are trying to get onto that first rung of the economic ladder a chance to do that. We have a very important vote ahead of us. I don't like this bill. I don't know of anyone who stood up and said that they liked this bill, but I like even less the prospect of increasing taxes on every American who pays income taxes today. That is why I believe we should move ahead as expeditiously as possible so that, come January, we can have this laser-like focus in our quest to grow our economy by reducing the size and scope and reach of government so that we can increase opportunity for all Americans. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Rochester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike share the goal of job creation and deficit reduction; we regularly hear that argued from both sides of the aisle. The best way for us to do that is to encourage economic growth. Economic growth is the key to dealing with job creation and deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I don't like this bill that is before us, but I like even less the idea of increasing the tax burden on working Americans-- in fact, putting into place what would be tantamount to the largest tax increase that we have ever seen. I am very pleased that President Obama is beginning to embrace the John F. Kennedy vision for economic growth, the vision that has recognized that reducing marginal rates does in fact create jobs and create more opportunity, and the famous John F. Kennedy line, ``the rising tide lifts all boats.'' The fact that President Obama is now moving into that direction is a very positive thing. He has also, on another issue that is going to create jobs, done so on the issue of trade. I am pleased that he wants us to move ahead with what will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world, that being the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. I think it is imperative for us to do this in Colombia and Panama as well so that we can create union and non-union jobs, good manufacturing jobs right here in the United States of America. That is an issue that I hope we are going to be able to address early next year. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is the right thing for us to do, for us to make sure that we don't increase taxes on working Americans. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our very, very, very diligent and hardworking ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the sudden and unexpected passing of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke has been very, very sad news for Americans, and it obviously has sent shock waves throughout the international community. Dick Holbrooke is someone with whom I was privileged to work on a number of issues over the past decade and a half. And I will say that he was known for being rough-and-tumble. He was described by one as ``the bulldozer diplomat.'' But I have to say that Dick Holbrooke was a true polyglot. He knew, in dealing with diplomatic challenges, that it took different talents and different styles. Regardless of where he was in the world, he was able to apply his unique talents. I have to say that we worked together on a number of very important issues. As we look at the challenge that exists today in Afghanistan and Pakistan, his passing will be a real loss for that effort. But his passing should lead us to redouble our commitment to pursue the goal that I believe Dick Holbrooke always pursued, and that was for peace, stability, the rule of law, and self-determination around the world. Our thoughts and prayers go to his wife and two sons.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, today I would like to honor Dean Hirsch for his distinguished career in serving others around the world. Dean recently retired as the long-time president of World Vision International, capping a 34-year career at the humanitarian organization. World Vision International is a relief organization that serves tens of millions of people in need, in nearly 100 countries around the globe. World Vision is helping to improve the lives of the world's most impoverished people, with a special focus on children. Under Dean Hirsch's leadership, World Vision has worked to alleviate the suffering of those facing both the long-term challenges of endemic poverty, famine and disease, as well as acute crises, such as the 2004 tsunami. Throughout his tenure as President, Dean was instrumental in fostering greater cooperation between World Vision and other leading relief and humanitarian organizations, in order to better serve those in need. I had the opportunity to spend time with Dean at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he offered an important voice on addressing the root challenges of poverty. Dean often said that his mission at World Vision was to ``help create a world in which no child suffers or dies for lack of food, clean water, shelter or protection from exploitation or war.'' I congratulate Dean on a very distinguished career, thank him for his great humanitarian work, and wish him and his wife Wendy all the best as they begin this new phase of their life together.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. I will tell you about the 12 years we were in the majority, we did often provide substitutes. So all we are asking for, as I said, all I asked for on this measure is not an open rule, a modified closed rule, which would have provided simply one bite at the apple, one alternative, which is out of respect to the Democrats in this House who would very much like to have a chance to vote to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any American. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to both of my colleagues who are both good friends of mine that as I listen to the arguments that have been put forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus poor, is an argument that has failed for years and years and years. I think all we need to do is look at the November 2 election. There was a rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here: the haves and the have-nots. The fact of the matter is any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax increase. They are voting in favor of increasing taxes on American investors and small businesses in this country. There is all kinds of dispute about this: how many are small businesses, 2 percent. We have evidence that it is substantially higher than that. But if there are any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs and this policy of increasing taxes undermines them and inhibits their ability to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity that they can't have it because of this burden that is being inflicted, this is clearly wrong. Now, again, on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion, the cost, and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is preposterous. If we can get people with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, 9.6 percent, as I said, in my State, 12.5 percent unemployment rate, if we can get people from the unemployment rolls onto the working rolls, that in and of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenue to the Federal treasury. Why? We'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits, and we will have people who are working as productive members of society who are paying taxes. So this $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one. Mr. Speaker, I will say again: Any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to increase taxes on working Americans, and it is just plain wrong. Let me just close again by saying that, when I used the term ``political theater,'' I was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Brady, who came before us in the Rules Committee and said, This is political theater. Why? There are reports today that the negotiators from the White House and both Houses of Congress have come to an agreement that we are going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans for at least 2 years. Those are the reports that we have that have come out. So we are here on the House floor, denying this institution an opportunity to vote on a proposal like that. We in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, simply said, Gosh, since 31 Democrats have signed a letter saying they believe it would be a mistake to increase taxes on any Americans, the House should have a chance to vote on that. I offered that proposal upstairs last night in the Rules Committee. A party-line vote. The Democrats said, Oh, no. We're not going to allow what would clearly be a majority of this House, I believe, if we were to actually have a vote, to work its will. We are going to resort to legerdemain and not allow a motion to recommit. This bill before us, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the airport and airway bill. It's basically the FAA bill. They did that to deny even an opportunity for a motion to recommit. Now, I know that's all inside baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the American people to cast the votes that they did on November 2, because it was a year ago last June when this ``read the bill'' measure came forward, when we had the 300-page amendment dropped in our laps at 3 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, and we didn't have a chance to read it. So the American people started looking at what takes place in this institution, and on November 2, they rejected it. Well, with what we are doing here today, it is obviously an indication that this majority that is now in charge is tone deaf. They don't understand the message that the American people sent, because they have spent time looking here at what is going on, and that is why we have focused on increasing transparency, disclosure, and accountability. So, as they have done that, they've said, Don't do the kinds of things that you are contemplating doing right now. The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end up increasing taxes on working Americans. I say, in closing, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of this House who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain wrong. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement of my friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I looked at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen to her statement and then look at the reports that we have this morning, I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential campaign. First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas, that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am I, and why am I here? Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2- year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not increase taxes on any Americans. Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers. Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are, it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job creation and economic growth is something that we should do. And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell, who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course that will get this economy back on track. Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact, if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact, not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put forward first by a great Democratic President. We will mark the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He was elected 50 years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great celebration here in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural speech, which many of us have been quoting since we were children, of John F. Kennedy. And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan, who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have economists from even on the left who will say--even Keynesian economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we all know we have a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the sad news about housing sales that came out this morning--we all know that in a down economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that increasing taxes is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines the potential for economic growth. Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here. We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for consideration of this measure. Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow that. I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee, a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a party-line vote it was rejected. It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times. So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.