David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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, Madam Speaker, the answer to that is no. When is it that the debate will take place on this issue? I am happy to yield to my friend.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, this bill was filed at 11:37 p.m. last night, just about midnight, and we are standing here at this moment debating something that I guess really isn't necessary. The fact is what we have done is we've thrown out standard procedure for one reason and one reason only: not because the government is about to run out of money, not because we've got an important recess upon us, not because it's the end of the week, but simply because we want a photo opportunity for the completion of the first 100 days of this Presidency. I understand that optics are important. I recognize that. But I do believe that since we have begun already at this moment the debate on this budget conference report, merely hours--12, 13, 14 hours--after it was filed last night, you can say that the vote is going to take place tomorrow but Members who might want to have the chance to debate, deliberate and think about this issue are not going to have the allocated time to read this.

Mr. DREIER. I do understand that the vote on this is scheduled for tomorrow, but right now, we are debating a same-day rule that allows for the consideration of this.

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 for yielding. I suspect that that was a news story and not necessarily an editorial. I seriously question those numbers, but I would ask my friend the following: As we look at this issue of accountability and responsibility, I would remind him that this economic downturn, the slowing economy that we've witnessed, began after my friend's party won the majority. I would ask my friend, if I might, Madam Speaker, if he feels that accountability and responsibility should lie not solely with the President of the United States but also with the party in power here in this institution. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me make a couple of points here. First, as my friend began, he said that it was difficult for someone who was part of increasing deficits over the past 8 years under President Bush to stand here lecturing on this issue. Well, I have to stay, Madam Speaker, that it's very, very convoluted, I believe, to say that we criticized the spending that took place under President Bush. And I will acknowledge we could have done better, even though, with the exception of Defense and Homeland Security, we were able to bring about real dollar spending cuts in every appropriation bill for the last few years. But I will say that it's convoluted to conclude that if we want to criticize what took place then, we quadruple the size of the deficit and the national debt, which is exactly what this budget does.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I would like to congratulate my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for in the chart that he had before us it illustrated the fact that the economic downturn actually began in the last quarter of the Clinton administration, and that chart correctly points to that. So I congratulate my friend for recognizing that. It was the policies put into place in 2001 and in 2003 that brought about 55 months of uninterrupted job creation and economic growth and a dramatic increase in the flow of revenues because of the growth-oriented tax policies that we did, in fact, implement. I also would point to the fact, and while my friend proceeds to malign the Bush administration, that it's obviously very clear, too, that we as Republicans had the majority when we saw the economic growth that took place in the late 1990s. I'd be happy to yield to my friend Mr. Scott.

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

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, the answer to that is ``no.'' The answer to that is ``no.'' To say that job creation during President Bush's administration was the worst since the Great Depression, I have no idea where that number comes from. I do know this: We saw 55 months of continued job creation and economic growth because of the policies that were implemented in 2001 and in 2003, which were growth-oriented tax cuts. With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. DREIER

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

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. It sort of feels like Groundhog Day. We just completed debate on this same-day rule and now here we are proceeding with the rule on the budget conference report itself. When we ended the debate just a little while ago, my friend was saying that those of us on this side of the aisle have no interest or desire to work with President Obama, that all we say is ``no'' time and time again. I have got to say that repeatedly we have come forward with alternatives, and we very much want to work in a bipartisan way. And so this notion of trying to claim that we as Republicans are saying ``no'' is preposterous. Everyone is aware of the fact in this House and in the executive branch that we have come forward with proposals, which is exactly what we did. We had two alternatives that were considered here on the House floor when we considered the budget, itself, and now we have this conference report. I have got to say that the underlying budget conference report, itself, Madam Speaker, that is before us, to quote my friend from Worcester, is really the same old, same old, a term that he loves to use, as, really, it's the same package that we looked at just 4 weeks ago. Democratic leadership, I know, has tweaked a few things on the margins, but the exact same failed policies are still fully intact on this budget. My friend correctly points to the fact that the American people are hurting. We know very well that we have a shared goal, but it's how we do it. Unfortunately, this budget recklessly spends money that we don't have, and it sets the stage for tax increases that we can't afford. It makes the fundamental mistake that led to our economic crisis in the first place--profligate, unaccountable and irresponsible behavior. And it allows the Democratic majority to ram through massive, complex legislation down the road without any pretense of consensus building. My friend said again that we just say ``no'' to the President. We want to have what the President talked about in his campaign, what the Speaker has repeatedly talked about. We want to work to build a consensus here, but, unfortunately, the budget itself lays the groundwork to completely obliterate any notion of bipartisanship. Apparently they are not content with merely shutting out Republicans from the legislative process. They are finding moderates within their own party, those who are interested in reaching across the aisle and finding commonsense solutions, and those people who want to do that apparently are being ignored in this process as well. They want to be able to steamroll any effort whatsoever to reach a responsible, bipartisan compromise on some of the most important challenges like health care and energy. This conference report will let them do just that, to ignore the prospect of bipartisanship. The Federal budget may be a very complicated thing. We all know that. But the principles that should govern that budget are not. They are not complicated at all. The budget should responsibly spend the taxpayers' money. Every program, Madam Speaker, should be held accountable to cut out waste, fraud and abuse. The budget should assume responsibility for today's challenges rather than pushing the hard choices and mountains of debt off into the future to our children and grandchildren. The budget fails on all these counts. The longer that the American public has time to examine the level of wasteful spending in this budget, the more deeply concerned they are. They wonder how we can afford this right now, how much debt will be left to our children and grandchildren, and will our taxes be raised to pay for this? Just a few weeks ago The Hill, the newspaper here, ran a story on the emerging consensus among economists of all stripes that the numbers just don't add up and taxes are going to have to be raised dramatically to pay for all of this government spending. According to these independent analysts, as reported by The Hill, this will mean taxes on the middle class. On middle-income wage earners, these analysts are saying that taxes will be imposed. Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor at Tax Analyst publications, is quoted as saying, ``You just simply can't tax the rich enough to make this all up.'' Another economist, Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, said that, under the current tax structure, ``there's no way we're going to be able to pay for government.'' Now, Madam Speaker, these are not Republican operatives. These are independent economists, many of whom openly supported the President during the campaign, who were looking at the numbers and who are saying that this budget will make tax increases on middle-income working Americans, who are trying to make ends meet, inevitable. This course of action is especially dangerous given our current economic crisis and its causes. Anyone with a little common sense can understand that reckless borrowing and lending led to our economic downturn. A little common sense is also all it takes to understand that raising taxes, including on middle-income wage earners, would be a disaster during tough economic times. Even Keynesian economists and economists of all stripes recognize that, Madam Speaker. Yet this budget continues that very reckless behavior and puts us on the path toward those middle class tax increases. The most dangerous impact of this budget will come further down the road. This bill employs an arcane legislative trick that will allow the Democratic leadership to cram through massive health care legislation with little scrutiny and, as I said earlier, with zero bipartisanship. This provision we all know called ``reconciliation'' may be a very technical Beltway issue, but we can all understand its implications by simply considering that iconic American image, Jimmy Stewart, as he played the role of Jefferson Smith, defiant on the floor of the other body on the other side of the Capitol in that movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' For many Americans, this is the classic image of public service at its principled best. However, had the Democratic leadership's budgetary gimmicks been in place, Mr. Smith would never have been able to make the stand that he did in that famous movie. Instead, this budget ensures, Madam Speaker, that critical legislation can be rushed through without the hassle of principled debate. We've already seen what happens when 1,000-page legislation on very complicated issues gets crammed through the Congress. Look no further than to the hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout money that this majority has doled out, to the billions wasted, to the billions unaccounted for and with nothing to show for it. The Democratic leadership's hasty and partisan approach has a very poor track record. Now they want to ensure that they will be able to approach health care reform in the exact same way, health care accounts for nearly one-fifth of our entire economy, and is one of the single, most important factors in an individual's and in a family's quality of life. Will Americans be able to continue to choose what doctors they go to? Will they be able to consult their doctors on which treatments are best for them? Can we make health care more accessible and affordable without compromising quality and personal choice? These, Madam Speaker, are the incredibly critical questions that should be addressed in the health care reform debate. You know, if the Democratic leadership has its way, there won't even be a debate. They want to be able to handle it like they've handled nearly every other important bill: written behind closed doors and crammed through without an open debate. Madam Speaker, this budget puts the rules in place that will allow them to do that. It will also allow them to attach dramatic new energy taxes on every household in America in order to pay for their health care proposals. The Democratic leadership, when confronted with a question of a new cap-and-tax program, insisted that it is not contained in this budget. What they are hoping the American people will not find out until it's too late is that this budget will allow new energy taxes to be attached to the Democrats' health care legislation. Their energy tax proposal would mean hundreds and even thousands of new taxes each year on each and every single household in this country, and it's all made possible by this budget conference report that we're going to be voting on tomorrow. The Democratic leadership likes to defend their procedural tricks by saying that Republicans used the same tactics to enact welfare reform and tax rate reduction. I'm very proud of the fact that we were able to reduce the size and scope and reach of government; that we were able to make welfare programs more accountable; that we were able to let the taxpayers keep more of their own, hard-earned money; and that we were able to implement growth policies that gave us 55 months of job creation and sustained economic expansion. That was the right thing to do. The Democrats, on the other hand, would like to use this procedure to dramatically expand government bureaucracy and tax the American people during an economic recession. This is an absolutely disastrous budget under any circumstances, but it is equally and especially dangerous during challenging economic times. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject reckless, wasteful spending; to reject tax increases for the middle class; to reject a hasty and partisan process for crafting health care and energy legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying conference report. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I totally agree on the issue of health care reform. That is a very high priority for us, and my friend knows that we have a solutions working group that is focusing on this issue, and it is a priority that does need to be addressed. With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I say to my very good friend from Connecticut that it's fascinating that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to talk about nothing but the last 8 years. And I find it interesting because no one seems to be willing to talk about what it is that's before us: a budget that is dealing with the next 5 years. It's a $17.8 trillion budget over the next 5 years. That's what we need to focus on. That's what this debate is all about. With that, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking and very thoughtful chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, while my colleagues didn't need to listen to the remarks of my distinguished colleague, I know that they will very much want to hear my remarks. And so I would like to make a point of order that the House is not in order.

Mr. DREIER. I just made it. I mean, you determine whether or not the House is in order, Madam Speaker. It didn't seem to me that it was.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I would like to simply say to my colleague who brought up this issue of reconciliation that we were very proud of the fact that we were able to get people from welfare rolls to the working side of the economy in the mid-1990s, and we did use this procedure. I can time and time again remember instances of people who were saying they were so proud to be able to have a job. In the mid-1990s, the Republican Congress did bring about a bold reform of our welfare system, and it was a great, great accomplishment as it was in the early part of this decade when it was used to allow people to keep more of their own, hard-earned money in 2001 and in 2003. At the same time, we were doing everything that we could to ensure that we had pro-growth economic policies because we were dealing with an economic recession then, of course with the aftermath of September 11 of 2001, with corporate scandals, and as I said, with an economic recession. We did put into place pro-growth policies, and yes, we used that procedure. The really difficult thing for us to fathom is the fact that we're now seeing this process utilized to dramatically expand government to the point where this budget has, itself, got a deficit that is larger than what the entire Federal budget was just 10 years ago. I would very much like to yield to my friend. I told the gentleman from Springfield I would.

Mr. DREIER. Okay. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Sure.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this juncture I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).