David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield? I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend from our time if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Well, I guess for a different reason my friend from Ohio is going to be joining us in opposition to this rule, and I very much appreciate that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations who had an amendment dealing with Guantanamo Bay, but unfortunately, with the structure we've got, it won't be made in order, the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. DREIER. On border security, it continues to be a high priority, and the situation has gotten worse since we provided that level of appropriations. On the issue of Guantanamo, Mr. Wolf, a member of the committee, has come forward with a very thoughtful amendment. We are going to seek to make that in order if we are able to defeat the previous question. I know that the chairman of the committee has said that he doesn't believe that State legislators and governors should be able to preempt Federal law. We know, as Mr. Wolf said in his testimony, that there are a number of States that have already indicated an interest in having an opportunity to receive these detainees.

Mr. DREIER. I understand. I appreciate the gentleman joining us, as I say, for a somewhat different reason than ours. We all want this war to end, there's no doubt about that, but we also want to ensure success. With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Hinsdale, Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me, at this time, yield 4 minutes to the extraordinarily patient author of the amendment about which we have been speaking dealing with the issue of Guantanamo, my good friend and classmate from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his management of this rule and his very, very thoughtful remarks and the way in which he addresses every single issue that comes before us. He has spoken very thoughtfully about the problem of shutting down the process and preventing Members who have an idea to come forward. He used the example of our friend from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about the overall thrust in which we are headed with this legislation. We had an interesting debate in the Rules Committee last night. And I will say that we all share the goal of ensuring that young people in this country have the best quality education possible, that they have a safe environment and that they have a comfortable environment in which to study. After all, if we are going to, as a Nation, remain competitive in this global economy, the single most important thing that we need to do is ensure that we have well educated young people to proceed with the challenges that exist in a global economy. But, Mr. Speaker, there is something that we need to remember that was a hallmark of the vision that the Framers of our Constitution put forward. And that is the notion of federalism, the responsibility of things that fall at the Federal level here in Washington, D.C., and the responsibility of things that should remain at the State and local level. My State of California is going through the toughest economic times that it has ever faced, I believe. We just received a report that the deficit itself is double what had been projected. And we have, I think, really difficult days ahead. But we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the number one priority for the number one budget item for our State of California happens to be the issue of education. There are States across this country that are not faced with the difficulty that we are in California. The best example came forward by our new colleague, Mr. Roe, who was the former mayor of Johnson City, Tennessee. And he was able to outline in his role as mayor the success that they are having with the expenditure of $50 million to not only improve the physical quality of the schools themselves, but their effort to reduce energy costs, which I know is part of the greening goal here. They are saving money by using more efficient ways to heat and cool the schools, so they are actually witnessing a savings there. But this is all being done at the local level. That is the argument that we have here. As we look at a budget deficit this year that is larger than the entire Federal budget was a mere decade ago, I think we need to analyze what responsibilities under this role of federalism the Federal Government should continue to take. No one is going to stand here and say that they don't want to ensure that the ceilings don't collapse in schools. They will not stand here and say that they should be air- conditioned in the winter and heated in the summer. No one is going to argue in favor of a less than perfect physical structure for students. But what I believe we need to argue is how do you pay for that. And again, I believe very strongly that we, as a Federal Government, have reached way too far into so many different areas. Right now we are looking at doing this in the area of health care, energy, a wide range of areas. We are looking at dramatically increasing the exercise and scope and reach of the Federal Government. Today we have another example of that. Now, there will be people who will argue that if you are not supportive of this measure that you somehow want substandard schools in this country. That is just absolute lunacy. We are just saying that the Federal Government can't do absolutely everything. So in the name of fairness, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule which does not provide Mr. Kirk and others the chance that they should have to offer amendments. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as you know this resolution authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an investigation to determine whether Samuel Kent should be impeached. I know that we are all appalled by the behavior that led to Judge Kent's guilty plea, and can agree that moving forward with an eye to removing him from the bench is the right thing to do. While we have no objection to most of the resolution, I note that section 3(c) authorizes staff deposition authority, something we have been consistently concerned about due to the potential for abuse. My understanding is that the Judiciary Committee intends tomorrow to adopt a resolution putting in place the same safeguards on staff deposition authority that they currently have in place for their investigation into Judge Porteous. Those rules follow the model rules suggested by the Rules Committee and contain adequate protections for the Minority. I am inserting the text of the relevant resolutions for the Record. Our agreement to this unanimous consent request is dependent on the commitment from the Judiciary Committee that they will extend their existing rules on staff deposition authority to this investigation before engaging in staff depositions. Without similar assurances in the future, we will oppose efforts to grant unelected staff unfettered deposition authority. Resolution Resolved,

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, when I was a kid, I grew up a rabid Kansas City Chiefs football fan. At that time, Jack Kemp was quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, and there was raging competition that existed then. I admired Jack Kemp, and I also was very pleased when our quarterback, Len Dawson, successfully defeated the Buffalo Bills. Shortly after that, when I saw Jack Kemp come to the Congress, I was on his team all the time. I was inspired by him, just as our friend Mr. Ryan had said, and I was inspired by Ronald Reagan. While Mr. Ryan mentioned Thomas Jefferson, who was an inspiration for Jack Kemp, I can't help but think about the fact that JFK, John F. Kennedy, was another inspiring figure for Jack Kemp. One of the things that Jack Kemp did was regularly focus on the economic policies that John F. Kennedy implemented. And it's an interesting irony they share the same monogram, JFK. Jack Kemp said that utilizing that vision that was put forward by John F. Kennedy was what we needed to do. And that's why I have been consistently arguing over the past few months, as we're dealing with the challenge of getting our economy back on track, what we need to do is use bipartisanship, the best of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Obviously, Jack Kemp was the great implementer of so much of that policy. Jack Kemp taught me that 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 nonwork, welfare, consumption, debt, and leisure. And he was so right. That's why I believe that, in the name of Jack Kemp, we should be implementing pro-growth economic policies. Just as I was coming upstairs, my California colleague, Mr. Lungren, said we need more Jack Kemps. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is more Members who will take the same kind of passion that Jack Kemp showed for people of every walk of life and that same passion for a commitment to pro-growth policies. Everyone from both political parties likes to talk about pro-growth economic policies, but the empirical evidence that we have of the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy and the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan and the eloquence of Jack Kemp in putting that forward is so important for all of us to remember, especially today. The American people are hurting, regardless of what their station in life is economically. That is why I think that today, as we remember Jack Kemp, we should do all that we can to pursue what works, and that is the Kemp-inspired pro-growth economic policies. My thoughts and prayers go to Joanne Kemp and all of the family members. I have to say that Jack inspired me to run for Congress in the late 1970s, as he did Dan Lungren and many others, and we are very proud to continue carrying forth the great tradition of the passion, commitment, spirit and hard work that Jack Kemp taught all of us.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, we are at this moment debating this convoluted, unnecessary same-day rule. We are here to debate whether or not we should proceed with consideration of the budget conference report under a totally unnecessary same-day rule. We have had some very thoughtful remarks by my friend from Lafayette, and I know if my friend would like me to send someone to the cloakroom to call the lode of Republicans to come over and engage in this debate, I know that there would be many more who would join us. The fact is we have begun this process prematurely. We are not being provided what was promised by the Speaker of the House on her opening day and promised by Barack Obama when he was a candidate to be President of the United States, and that is an adequate amount of time to deliberate over this process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Of course I am happy to yield.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I am glad my friend from New Jersey has remained here on the floor. First of all, I have just got to say that on this notion that we somehow are doing this in a very fair way, my time travel skills have become a little rusty of late, and I will say that the bill was filed at 11:37 last night, and a number of us are just starting to read it, the conference report, that is. I don't know whether we're going to have the vote today or tomorrow, but the fact is we are debating it today. So Members should have an opportunity to do that. Now my friend began his remarks in the well by saying that this conference report has no mention whatsoever of the issue of cap-and- trade.

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

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I will say that during the debate that we had on the budget process, we regularly had Members say that there was no mention of this whatsoever. I know. I managed the rule when we had the first budget. I am just saying that a number of Members did, in fact, on the other side of the aisle make that very clear during debate. What I would like to do is commend to my colleagues sections 302 and 323 of this conference report, both of which make mention of that. I would like to yield 30 seconds to the hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. DREIER. I will yield in just a moment if I can complete my thought. There are many Democrats who I know in southern California who have indicated to me that when they voted for President Obama, for Barack Obama to become President of the United States, they had no idea that we would see this kind of dramatic transformation--which is something that he talked about--of government that is tripling, quadrupling the size of the government and the national debt. And it is not just my constituents. There are a number of very thoughtful people who have come forward in the past 4 weeks. They include the likes of Stuart Taylor who writes regularly for the National Journal. He describes himself as an Obama-friendly centrist, and what he has said is that this dramatic surge to the left--which is exactly what this Obama budget does which is being supported by Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership--is really beyond the pale. And there are a number of other people who have been very supportive of the President up to this point who have demonstrated clear disappointment in this kind of direction. With that, I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, the fact is that this measure was filed at 11:37 p.m., and we were told, up until just a short time ago, that we had to do this same-day rule because we were going to be voting on this measure today. So it was not until just the last moment that we found that the debate will take place throughout today and this evening but that the actual vote will take place tomorrow. So I don't know exactly what has led to this, if it's an awakening about the notion of some kind of fairness and about the idea of allowing for greater deliberation; but I've got to say, Madam Speaker, that this budget, which dramatically increases, as we all know, the size of the deficit is a budget which, I don't believe, the majority of the American people supported or wanted when they came forward. The American people are hurting. I will say, Madam Speaker, that I represent the Los Angeles area part of San Bernardino County. We have an unemployment rate that is well into double digits now both in the Los Angeles area, the Inland Empire. People are hurting. They very much want us to take action to get the economy back on track.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. Madam Chair, let me just say that as interesting as we regularly have the finger of blame pointed at Bush, what President Obama has inherited came from President George W. Bush and, Madam Speaker, as you know very well, a Democratic majority here in the House of Representatives. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate that has preceded, and I have to say that I believe that there is great bipartisan concern about where this country is headed. Democrats and Republicans alike both want to get our economy back on track. As I look at small businesses in Southern California, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. Small businesses are closing down and people are suffering. As I look at homeowners who are losing their homes, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. They very much want to be able to enjoy the American dream of owning their home. As I look at people who have lost their jobs, it's not a Democratic or Republican issue. So I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike want us to make sure we get this economy growing again. The question is how do we do it? It's fascinating as I listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle decry deficit spending under President Bush and then argue that we should dramatically increase the size and scope and reach of government. And very sincerely that is what they've done. As I listened to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale, that is what he has just advocated. I congratulate him for being consistent in making that argument. But there are others who say that the policies of the past 8 years have created the problem that we have right now. I also want to clarify the record on issues that were raised. I have argued that we could have done better during the time that we were in the majority. But, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to note that with the exception of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and veterans, there were real dollar spending cuts that took place in appropriations bills over the last few years when we were in the majority. I think that the record needs to show that. We did work to try to reduce spending. We could have done better than we did. I will acknowledge that. But, again, here we are looking at a proposal which dramatically increases the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. And I know that President Obama is popular. I like President Obama. I've been enjoying working with him on things in the past. But I'm very troubled in seeing the implementation of what he calls the ``transformation,'' the ``transformation of government.'' I don't believe that it's what the American people want. What they want to do is they want to see us implement policies that will create jobs, that will allow them to keep their homes, that will keep small businesses thriving. That's what they want to see happen. The best way to do that is to use the model that was put forth by John F. Kennedy when, in 1961, he said, you can't encourage economic growth by increasing public expenditures; you can only do it by increasing private investment. Reject this rule and reject the underlying conference report.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Savannah.