David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to inquire of my friend as he talks about how great this PAYGO--

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to simply say to my good friend from Worcester, I absolutely look forward to the day when we will not be constantly looking backward and blaming the last Congress and President Bush for every ailment of society. We need to look forward. And the thing that's been happening in the last 6 months is we've seen this dramatic surge in spending and the idea of engaging in class warfare. Taxing those who are job creators, who have created opportunity for millions of working Americans, is, I don't believe, the best way to deal with the challenges that we have. At this point, I'm happy to yield to our hardworking colleague from Jefferson, Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, of course. I think that we have yet to deal, by the way, with the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I know that it is going to be marked up. I anxiously look forward to seeing what this will consist of. But frankly, in the proposed budget I believe that that has, as an increase, one of the smallest levels of increases compared to the 22 percent increase that we saw on other appropriations bills. The fact is there is a role for the Federal Government. The number one priority of the Federal Government happens to be the national security of the United States of America. And so to say that because we might have an increase in the level of defense expenditures, as we live in a very dangerous world, and that somehow justifies a multi--now what we are headed towards--a multitrillion-dollar increase in deficit spending is apples and oranges when one looks at what should happen. So I would like to engage, if I might, with my friend from Laredo and say, as I look forward to yielding to him, that as we look at this challenge that families face when they are at the kitchen table, recognizing that with the difficult economic times that we have, they have to rein in their spending. They have to pay down their debts. They have to increase their level of savings. How is it that we, in this measure, can exempt 40 percent the discretionary spending level that is here? How is it that we can say that reducing rates on things like capital gains, which doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury when reduced by 5 percent, how is it that we can't do that any longer under this so-called PAYGO provision? And I would be happy to yield to my friend if he would like to respond.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his thoughtful remarks. If I could reclaim my time, I would simply say that as we look at the discretionary spending caps that were put into place in the 1990s with the PAYGO provision that were there, they were thrown out the window in the package that my friend is touting today. And my argument is that families don't have the luxury of saying, Oh, we will just exempt--let's go and buy a new car, we are going to purchase a new car. You know what, we don't need to worry about how much the purchase of that new car is going be to. Let's just think about maybe the cost of some addition to the house, and we have to be concerned about that. Families don't have that luxury. And my argument, Mr. Speaker, is that as my friends on the other side of the aisle tout this PAYGO measure as somehow relating to the challenges that families are having to make today, it is preposterous to do that because there is no correlation with the ability of the Congress to simply waive these provisions and the necessity that families are facing today. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very, very happy to yield 2 minutes to our good friend and hardworking colleague from Brentwood, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I think I will continue to reserve the balance of my time in light of the fact that there are other speakers on the other side. We have one other speaker, and then I plan to close.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my Rules Committee colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, today is the 22nd of July. We are just over halfway through calendar year 2009, and the Federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. That's not with an M. That's not with a B. That's with a T; $1 trillion. It's so much money that we can't even fathom exactly how much it is. You know, I've spent a while here, and I can't imagine $1 trillion. It's the amount of money already that the Federal Government not has spent; it's the amount of money, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government has already overspent as we are just halfway through this year. At the rate that we're going, by the end of the year, the deficit will approach $2 trillion. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you think about that, about the amount that we have overspent and that we have spent more than was actually taken in, then actually, based on this annual number, it quite possibly could be larger than the entire Federal budget was just a decade ago. The American people are paying attention. They're paying attention, and they don't believe that such wantonly irresponsible spending is ever justified. They're particularly outraged that it's coming at a time when they are revamping their own budgets, are cutting out every penny of waste and are saving every penny that they possibly can. Our economic challenges have fundamentally changed Americans' budgeting habits. They're spending less; they're saving more; they're paying off their debts; and they're asking themselves, Why is my government doing precisely the opposite? Well, the American families are spending less; they are saving more, and they are paying down their debts. We here in Washington, D.C. are doing the opposite, and they can't understand why that's continuing to happen. During very difficult and challenging economic times, why is Congress spending trillions on bailouts and proposing new taxes that will burden our families even more? Why is it racking up so much debt that our kids, grandkids and great grandkids won't even be able to pay it off? So much concern is mounting over the profligate spending of this Congress that it comes as absolutely no surprise that the Democratic leadership wants to give the appearance of an interest in fiscal responsibility. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, as I go through the analysis of this, and the American people are going to understand, we will find that this is simply dealing with the appearance of trying to be fiscally responsible. The leadership on the other side of the aisle wants to be able to send out a press release to say that they care about this $1 trillion deficit spending that has taken place in the last 6 months and that they're doing something about it. Unfortunately, rather than actually reining in the deficit, what has happened? They've proposed a bill that will do nothing to restore any semblance of responsibility and accountability to the Federal budget. As any hardworking American knows, living within our means during tough economic times is painful, but it's not terribly complicated. You have to reduce your spending. It's very simple. The Democratic leadership will say that the bill before us today requires Congress to spend only what it can pay for, but this claim is not terribly accurate. First of all, this bill does absolutely nothing to limit discretionary spending, which is 40 percent of the entire Federal budget. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker. If you think about a family who has to reduce its expenses and who has to rein in its own personal spending, this family doesn't have the luxury of saying, Oh, well, here is 40 percent that I will exempt. That is exactly what is happening with this measure. This bill makes it virtually impossible for Congress to implement tax reforms that will get our economy growing again and that will increase Federal revenues. If the Democratic leadership were actually interested in reducing the deficit, they would simply implement spending caps, caps on spending. That's the way to do it. Instead, they have merely produced a fig leaf of a bill, a fig leaf so they can send out that press release and can then go right on spending this country into oblivion, which is exactly what has been happening. The proposal before us does nothing but mandate tax increases while leaving discretionary spending completely unchecked. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a theoretical discussion that I am engaging in right now. We've been living under the Democratic leadership's so-called ``PAYGO rules'' for 2\1/2\ years. When they reinstated PAYGO at the start of the last Congress, they said it would eliminate deficit spending. Now what has actually happened? The deficit has skyrocketed from $162 billion in fiscal '07 to, as I said, this estimated $1.8 trillion. So from $162 billion in 2007 to $1.8 trillion. Again, that's just the deficit. That's a tenfold increase, and it all happened under this Democratic majority with these brilliant PAYGO rules that have been put into place. This bill will not cut the deficit. This bill will not help to restore our economy. I will say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am really quite concerned that some will believe, with the passage of this bill, that we have now addressed the problems and that it will lure many on the other side of the aisle to continue on the road that they've been going down for the past 2\1/2\ years. The true purpose of this bill is a very, very unfortunate one. The first is to attempt to provide political cover for Members who want to have it both ways, carrying the mantle of fiscal responsibility while voting for trillion-dollar spending boondoggles. The second is to make meaningful tax reform impossible to implement. If we abide by the plan that was laid out in this bill, we cannot offer tax relief to a single working American without raising one's taxes at the same time. This includes tax relief that has been proven to increase Federal revenues. We won't be able to do that under this measure. Tax relief that has proven to increase dramatically the flow of revenues of the Federal Treasury would not be allowed under this measure. In 2003, we cut the capital gains tax rate by 5 percent. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? Capital gains tax revenues, that's revenues to the Federal Treasury. And we cut the capital gains rate by 5 percent, doubled in a 2-year period of time. This tax relief is set to expire next year. Guess what? Under this bill, we can't extend it without raising taxes. So, if we double revenues by cutting the capital gains tax, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to guess what will happen if we are forced to raise taxes. This bill ties our hands where flexibility is necessary, and it fails to implement strict guidelines where accountability is desperately needed. Even the Democratic leadership doesn't take this bill very seriously, adding in five pages of exemptions to an already worthless attempt at fiscal responsibility. I find it interesting that they would even bother with these exemptions, considering that they waive their own PAYGO rules all the time. In the last Congress alone, they waived these rules to allow for legislation that increased the deficit by $420 billion. Now, in this Congress, they continue to use procedural gimmicks to get around their own budget rules, which is why it comes as no surprise that we've already passed the trillion-dollar deficit spending mark here on July 22. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: don't be fooled by what is clearly an attempt to cover up the worst spending pattern that we have seen in the history of the United States of America. The American people are figuring this out. They know what it takes to make ends meet; and while they are reining in their spending and are dealing with the economic challenges that they're facing at this time, they know that we are moving in the opposite direction. Reject this rule and the bill. Instead, we must demand true accountability for our constituents' tax dollars. With that, I am pleased and privileged to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate. And I have to say that my fellow Angeleno, Ms. Harman and I, join in a desire to deal in a bipartisan way with our challenges. I will acknowledge from the get-go, that everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, decries deficit spending. I mean, we all regularly talk about the fact that we need to get our fiscal house in order. That was a plank of the platform that President Obama ran on. And it's the plank of the platform of virtually every candidate for public office. And I believe that we should work in a bipartisan way to get our fiscal house in order. The problem that I have with the measure that's before us is that, to me, it is the quintessential example of the effort that we often see on legislation. Sometimes we tend to do what makes us feel good, rather than doing good. The reason I say that is as I listened to the thoughtful remarks of my Blue Dog friends, they talked about exactly what I raise, that being the challenge that families are facing at the kitchen table; recognizing that because of difficult economic times, it is essential for them to reduce their spending, to increase their savings, and to pay down their debts. Those are the three things that families across this country are doing today at the kitchen table. And you know what, the notion of saying that the Federal Government is not going to expend dollars that it doesn't have, or able to offset, is something that does have a lot of appeal, and it makes us all feel very good. But that family sitting at the kitchen table, or a small business man or woman can't say, We're going to exempt 40 percent of our expenditures. Yes, we all want to get the auto industry going, but the idea of saying that we want to buy a nice new car, and we don't have to deal with any kind of offset for that. It's essential for us to get the economy growing. And we know that, while it may sound counterintuitive, every shred of empirical evidence that we have going in recent history to John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan is that if we can bring about marginal rate reduction, we can increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Most recently, it was done when we brought about that 5 percent reduction in capital gains. Now I know that in the economy we're in, there are not many people who have capital gains today. But we know this, that if we were to bring about a reduction in the capital gains rate, we would have, as we've seen most recently, a doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. And yet, Mr. Speaker, under this measure, we're not able to do that. So what we've got is an effort that can make us all feel good. And it is true. I mean, there have been a lot of great statements made juxtaposing the challenges that working families are facing and the challenges that we face here in Washington. But implementation of this statutorily will in no way address the fact that, as of July 22, today, we have a Federal budget deficit that is $1 trillion. And we're headed towards 1.8, maybe even beyond that, meaning that the deficit, the Federal Government this year alone will spend more than has brought in, and that level will be higher than the entire Federal budget was just 10 years ago. And so it's wonderful to say that we're going to work in a bipartisan way; and it's wonderful to say that we all decry deficit spending. But because the American people are hurting, and we need to get our economy growing, I do not believe that this measure before us will do one thing, other than make a lot of people feel very, very good. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say that I believe we can get it better. This is not only not a step in the right direction, it is, in many ways, something that will create a climate whereby people will say, we've taken care of this. And I'm afraid that it will send the wrong message to the American people, and it will send the wrong message in our quest to get our economy going, to create jobs and more opportunity for the American people. So I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this ain't a talking point. Last night I talked to one of my constituents. This man is an unemployed truck driver. His statement to me was a very clear one: Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? He said, You guys back there in Washington have put together a so- called stimulus bill that cost me--he's still a taxpayer--$1 trillion, and now you plan to take over the entire health care system in this country? He said, It would be devastating. I am looking for a job as a truck driver again, and with what you've done on cap-and-trade, it's going to undermine my ability to do that. The message is loud and clear. It's not coming from anyone putting together talking points, Mr. Speaker. It's coming from the American people to Democrats and Republicans alike in this Congress. Where are the jobs?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Since my friend began speaking about State by State, he alluded to our State of California. The unemployment rate in California today is 11.5 percent. I'd like to underscore a statement that he made earlier about the promise that was made. We have a $1 trillion so-called economic stimulus bill. It was $787 billion, but we all know with interest accrued that it will exceed $1 trillion. And we were assured that if we passed that stimulus bill, the unemployment rate across this country would not exceed 8 percent. Right now, tragically, on a nationwide basis, it is 9.5 percent. And yesterday, a report came forward from a wide range of economists indicating that the unemployment rate will, within the next few months, exceed 10 percent. The projection is 10.1 percent. As I said, in our State of California, which is suffering like it has not in modern history, we are facing an 11.5 percent unemployment rate. This notion of the Vice President indicating that if we don't spend more we're going to go bankrupt is preposterous. Last night, at the encouragement of my friend from Sacramento, I had a telephone town hall meeting with literally thousands of my constituents, and the resounding message that came through from those constituents with whom I spoke is that we need to bring about a reduction rather than increase in the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for his contribution. Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that one of the things that I think that is important to look to is the beginning of the appropriations process about which my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, was speaking when she began her remarks. We were told by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that we had critical legislation that had to be addressed before we complete our work by the 1st of August. We needed to get the appropriations process done. And there's a bipartisan consensus that article I, section 9 places on us the responsibility of getting that work done, and we did not in any way want to stand in the way of completing the appropriations process. And so, today, having been told that we did not have time for an open amendment process, which has existed for only 220 years in this country, throughout the entire history of the Nation, the pattern of having an open amendment process, ensuring that Democrats and Republicans alike would have the opportunity to offer germane amendments to appropriations bills so that they could in fact, if they chose, try and do what our constituents at these town hall meetings continue to say, and that is reduce the size, scope, and reach of government, we have been denied an opportunity to offer those in the open amendment process. And what is it that we're doing? We're dealing with this wild horses and burros bill on the floor after being told there was not enough time. Yesterday, we had the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) point to the fact that the day before we finished voting at 4 p.m. Yet, here we are, trying to responsibly legislate, and on Friday we're being kept here so that they can continue to work on the appropriations process in a closed way. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I think that it's very interesting to observe that there was virtually no notice whatsoever that while we're in the midst of this crucial appropriations process that this bill was going to come forward. One hour's notice was provided to the full membership of this institution. Mr. Chaffetz had an amendment. He hurriedly put this together, submitted the amendment. Of course he didn't come to testify.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3170, Financial Services Appropriations Act, FY2010. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3170, Financial Services Appropriations Act, FY2010 Account: Small Business Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Fairplex Address of Requesting Entity: 1101 West McKinley Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $350,000 for the construction of the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center, an 85,000 square foot, state-of-the-art conference and exhibition center, complete with broadband connectivity, campus-wide wireless integration as well as satellite two-way communications geared to attracting and benefiting small businesses. The project is sited in the country's third largest non-port Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) and will provide the ability to display and demonstrate goods and services to international markets via established channels with the local economic council and area universities. 100% of the funds will be utilized for ongoing construction of the center. The majority of the total cost of the project is from non-federal sources including Fairplex (a non-profit organization), the City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, and private donations. This project is consistent with the mission of the Small Business Administration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for recommending that we take time to talk to our colleagues about this important issue. And, again, I will say I know that she and Mr. Conaway, Mr. Herger and others join me in hoping that this will be a bipartisan agreement. Let me just take one moment as I prepare to yield to my other colleagues, and I'm happy to yield again to my friend from Hinsdale, to talk about the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, my friend comes from Texas. My California colleague is here. We represent States that border on Mexico, and we so often hear people describe virtually every ailment in society as being tied to the North American Free Trade Agreement when, in fact, more than one-third of all U.S. exports, more than one-third of all the exports leaving the United States of America, go to our NAFTA partners, and for some States, that percentage is significantly higher. Michigan, we know what a devastating economy Michigan has. The number actually in Michigan is 68 percent of the exports from that State go to our NAFTA partners, obviously a great percentage to Canada but also much to Mexico. In Ohio, we so often hear our colleagues from Ohio maligning any kind of trade agreement. Yet, 54 percent of the exports from Ohio, where do they go? To our NAFTA trading partners. Those jobs created in Ohio, 54 percent of them go to our NAFTA partners. In Indiana, it's 52 percent. In fact, without the North American Free Trade Agreement the manufacturing workforce of these States would be devastated, and let's say that again, Mr. Speaker. While we hear that NAFTA is responsible for any job loss that takes place in Ohio, in Michigan, and in Indiana and other States, in fact, were it not for the North American Free Trade Agreement the manufacturing job loss would be tremendously higher than it is today. Since implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States and Mexico, we have actually seen our trade triple to nearly $1 trillion. Between 1993 and 2007, 28 million American jobs have been created, or a 25 percent expansion in our workforce. Between 1993 and 2007, U.S. industrial production, three-quarters of which is manufacturing, rose by 57 percent, almost double the productivity increase in the 12-year period before implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. And more than 110,000, small- and medium-size businesses export to Canada and Mexico, 110,000. I know many of them are in Texas, many in California, many in Illinois and other States. These companies are spread all across the country, but the top exporters to Canada and Mexico are, in fact, Texas, California, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New York, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. And so while we regularly hear the North American Free Trade Agreement as being maligned and responsible for any economic challenge we face in this country, the opposite is the case. Have there been any people displaced? Well, of course there have been, and that's one of the reasons I've supported trade adjustment assistance, as I know my colleagues have, so that any people who do, in fact, face job loss that they will be in a position where they are able to be retrained, put into positions that will end up being very beneficial for them. So I'm very pleased now to be joined by one of the great champions of the trade agenda who's a member of the Agriculture and Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees, and he's the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway). I'm happy to yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. I must say, it's unusual for me to use facts.

Mr. DREIER. We're constantly hearing, Mr. Speaker, that unions are all opposed to this agreement. It seems to me that the unions here in the United States of America are opposed to it, and I've never quite understood that. How can creating more jobs for the union members and workers at Caterpillar and Whirlpool and a wide range of other companies across this country be the wrong thing to do, opening up markets so that their products can be sold into those countries? To me, I can't understand it. And when we've got the unions--all except one union, I'm told, and it's actually basically the public services union, which has nothing to do with the issue of global trade is the only union in Colombia that has opposed this. But I have had the chance in Bogota to meet with a wide range--and I know my colleagues have--of union leaders who are passionately supportive of this measure because they know it will end up being beneficial to their country and their workers. I'm happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, let's state for the record, I would say to my colleague, why it is that Colombia has resorted to these agreements with Mercosur, with Canada. The reason is very simply, 967 days ago when this agreement was signed, President Uribe and our friends from Colombia assumed that within a relatively short period of time, that we in both Houses of Congress would do our due diligence of looking at the agreement, and then we would have had an up-or-down vote. So it's hard to blame our friends and allies in Colombia for having embarked on negotiations with Canada and with Mercosur as we have, again, reneged on our commitment to have an up-or-down vote here. And I'm happy to further yield to my friend.