David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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 thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, Mr. McGovern went through this litany of options and the challenges that we have faced and things that should be done. He never mentioned that the solution that is being put before us is to dramatically increase the size and scope and reach of government, to impose taxes that will--as these independent economists about whom I referred earlier have said--will impose this tax burden on middle- income wage earners.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, my friend refused to yield to the gentleman from Lafayette, who wanted to engage in debate, which is what this is all about, so I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Lafayette.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my very good friend from Worcester for yielding me this customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am really somewhat puzzled as to why it is that we are here debating a same-day rule for consideration of the Federal budget's conference report. As we all know, a same-day rule is a mechanism to circumvent House rules in order to hastily cram through legislation. Why in the world would the Democratic leadership want to rush through passage of the Federal budget? I recognize that same-day rules have taken place when either party has been in the majority, but why in the world would the Democratic leadership want to do this, Madam Speaker, for the Federal budget? As I say, we often use this procedure when the government might run out of money. Well, although we know, as of last Sunday, April 26, we saw the deficit day actually created, Debt Day created, as of Sunday, we ran out of money. We now are in deficit spending as of today. Last year that date was August 4. We spent all of our money up until August 4 of last year. This was last Sunday, the 26th of April. So we are now into borrowed money. But as we all know, Madam Speaker, our appropriations bills that we have passed for this calendar year exist until the next fiscal year begins. Is there some hard and fast deadline that needs to be met under the Budget Act? The budget resolution should have been completed by April 15. The Democratic leadership wasn't in a hurry when that deadline came and went, and there is no new deadline at all that needs to be met right now. Maybe, Madam Speaker, Congress is getting ready for a prolonged congressional recess, a district work period. Well, the next recess, as we all know, is about a month away. We are supposed to be working here for another 4 weeks. Now, Madam Speaker, I ask maybe, just maybe it's the end of a very long, hard workweek of ours here, and we want to complete action before a long 3-day weekend, except today is Tuesday, and there is plenty of time to get this done before we finish legislative business on Thursday. So why, Madam Speaker, are we denying Members and the public the chance to read this budget, a budget, which as we all know now, at least we know the outside numbers, spends $17.8 trillion. We have been listening to people over the past several weeks talk about what the number a trillion is. Somebody was saying it totals 31,000 years, longer than recorded history, in seconds. I mean, it's just amazing to contemplate that in this budget it is $17.8 trillion over a 5-year period of time. The only thing that I can figure out, Madam Speaker, is that tomorrow marks the conclusion of the President's first 100 days. Now, this is a milestone the press has observed since Franklin Delano's Roosevelt's presidency. It's a very symbolic moment that every President understandably likes to highlight. The problem rises, Madam Speaker, when his party cares more about symbolism and photo opportunities than taking the power of the purse, our constitutional responsibility here in the people's House, and taking that seriously. We have a profound responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. During a time of great economic challenges, when every working family is trying to make every penny count, the responsibility here for us to deal with those tax dollars as wisely as possible is even greater. I would hope that the Democratic leadership would care more about fiscal responsibility than a photo opportunity. Unfortunately, this is not a new pattern for the House Democratic leadership. Just a few weeks ago we turned the process upside down to try to pass the GIVE Act so that it could be signed by the President just before he left for Europe. Now, cooler heads did prevail, but it looks like we are headed down that exact same path now. This photo opportunity deadline in the first 100 days is leading us to not go through the regular order for consideration of this budget conference report. Now I understand why they would like to pass their budget prior to the completion of the first 100 days. And in many ways, Madam Speaker, it is a very, very clear definition of what it's about. My friend from Worcester talked about the fact that elections have consequences, the people have spoken, and this is what they want? Well, I have got to say that from what I have heard from my constituents and from what I have seen in polling that has been done across the country, and as I have participated in telephone town hall meetings and heard my colleagues from both sides of the aisle talking about this, including the President's cabinet meeting, when he has now been referring to the fact that we need to focus on restraining spending, I clearly don't believe that a budget that is $17.8 trillion of spending over the next 5 years is what the American people want or wanted when they cast their votes last November. But I will say that if you look at the first 100 days, this is a clear, clear signal of what it is that we have gotten in this 100 days. And it would make a very nice press story, I know, to have this accomplished from their perspective by the completion of the 100 days. I do believe that there are things that are much more important than press conferences and photo opportunities. The Federal budget happens to be one of them. The Democratic majority should, I believe, take taxpayers' money and the spending of that more seriously than has been done in this budget or what we have seen with the stimulus bill, the 1,100-page bill that we dropped on a table around here and pointed out very widely that people hadn't read. Both the President and the majority promised that Members would be able to read the bills we are voting on. I remember when candidate Obama talked about that throughout the campaign. We have had the Speaker of the House regularly point to that. Nowhere, Madam Speaker, is that more important than when we are in the midst of debating the Federal budget. The last time, we all know this very well, because we have seen amazing gymnastics take place around here, the last time we rushed through a major piece of legislation like this is the one I just referred to, and it was the so- called economic stimulus bill. And that was when we discovered the Federal Government was enabling bonuses for companies funded by the U.S. taxpayer. Now, I ask, as we look at this $17.8 trillion package over the next 5 years, what's in this budget, Madam Speaker, that the Democratic leadership does not want us to read? So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this same-day rule. We need to proceed under regular order for consideration of this budget process, and I personally believe that we should do everything within our power to completely overhaul this badly flawed budget structure that we have. So reject this rule, go at least through regular order, and I hope very much the Democratic leadership will fulfill its constitutional obligations with both responsibility and accountability. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield my friend 1 additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. We are standing here today doing something that is absolutely unnecessary. As I said in my opening remarks, why would we throw the rules out the window and have consideration of what is on occasion needed to rush through legislation, a same-day rule? The notion of a same-day rule undermines what was promised by candidate Obama, by Speaker Pelosi, and others in the Democratic leadership, and that is, that we would have a higher degree of deliberation. This conference report was, as I said, filed at 11:37 p.m. last night, some 15, 16 hours ago. We are in the midst of beginning the debate, and we are going to proceed to debate this. And now we have heard, in the last hour or so, that a decision was made that we will vote tomorrow, and that somehow will allow this to look as if it's fair. Well, again, Madam Speaker, we are in the midst of debating a document which Members have not had an adequate enough time to see. Now, that aside, it is clear that the American people are hurting. I mentioned the fact that I just got back last night from Los Angeles. We have serious problems in our city, in our county, and in the State of California. We have serious problems all across this country. People are losing their homes, people are losing their jobs. And what we hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is the finger of blame is pointed at George W. Bush, in large part because of deficit spending. And now, what was, as I said, inherited by President Obama from President Bush, yes--and a Congress that has been controlled by Democrats for the last 2 years--they have inherited an economy which is facing serious problems, an economy that is clearly in recession. Madam Speaker, the solution is to do what economists across the board, Democrats and Republicans, not Republican political operatives, but many Democratic economists have said is not the right solution. My friend from St. Louis, Mr. Akin, has come to quote the Treasury Secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Henry Morgenthau, who, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, said, ``We've tried spending money. We've spent more money than we've ever spent before. Now, after 8 years of this Roosevelt administration, we have an unemployment rate that is just as high as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.'' We know what the economic answer is to the challenges that we have. And I have regularly talked about it here, Madam Speaker, and that is, we need to take what has been promised by our friends on the other side of the aisle, but is totally ignored on a regular basis, and that is a bipartisan approach. And when I say a bipartisan approach, I believe we should take the ideas that were put forth by President John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s and Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, and what we need to do, Madam Speaker, is we need to have a growth-oriented tax rate reduction that will stimulate the economy and generate the kind of revenue flow that is needed. We need to pursue market opening opportunities for us around the world rather than sticking our head in the sand and ignoring things like the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. That would go a long way towards creating jobs, good jobs right here in the United States of America if we can again pry open those markets. Those are the kinds of things we should be doing. And all we are getting, Madam Speaker, is a package that dramatically increases the size of the annual deficit and the national debt. Madam Speaker, in this budget, the deficit alone for the next year is larger than the entire budget was a mere 10 years ago. So Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to work hard to get the economy back on track. The best way that we can do that is to reject this same-day rule and reject this conference report and get back to the table with something that will get our economy back on track. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I rise to join him in stating what a tremendous action we are taking by bringing the statue of Ronald Reagan to the Capitol. We are sorry that our colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Administration, Mr. Lungren, couldn't be here today, but I know that he and our colleague Ken Calvert have worked long and hard to get us to this day, and I believe that it is going to be a great thing. It is very fitting, I think, that as we just 3 months ago marked the 20th anniversary of the end of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, that we look at where we are as we deal with the challenges that exist. Clearly the hallmark of the Reagan Presidency and his philosophy was a very staunch belief in the power of free markets and free peoples. This belief led President Reagan to increase American prosperity, and, as my colleague Mr. Lewis has just pointed out, champion the cause of democracy and political freedom around the globe, bringing down the Berlin Wall and bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. Unfortunately, as we look at the challenges that we are dealing with today, there are many demagogues who have pounced on our current economic crisis to cynically advance what are, unfortunately, anti-free market principles. They try to exploit the anxieties and uncertainties of the current situation by claiming that economic freedom inevitably led to the downturn that we are going through today and the only solution is to dramatically increase the nanny-state view of government. Mr. Speaker, they clearly ignore the true causes of the crisis that we are dealing with today: regulators who failed to do their jobs, individuals who borrowed irresponsibly and banks that lent irresponsibly, government efforts to interfere in the housing market and artificially drive up demand, and unchecked government-sponsored enterprises that behaved recklessly. These are the kinds of things that led to the challenges that we are dealing with, not the failure of the free market. That is why I think it is important for us to note that Ronald Reagan's vision was a very important one, and I believe passionately that we should, as we are going through the economic challenges that we face, provide the prescription that Ronald Reagan did in 1981 by bringing about broad across-the-board marginal rate reduction to stimulate economic growth, because growth is clearly the single best way for us to deal with the economic crisis that we have, with the debt that has been accumulated, and to deal with the necessary Federal spending that is out there. Mr. Speaker, one of the great things that Ronald Reagan was known for was his sense of optimism. So I have got to say that I believe fervently, as Ronald Reagan would have if he were here today, that our economy is going to recover. I think that it is going to recover in spite of, not because of the things that we are doing here in the United States Congress and here in Washington, D.C., but we are going to recover because we are Americans. Now, at the base of this statue that is going to be in the Great Rotunda, unveiled, as Mr. Lewis has said, on June 3, there are three great statements, and they all come down to the very simple directive that Ronald Reagan always had, and that is America's best days are ahead of us, and by virtue of that, we have to continue to remain optimistic. Using that Reagan spirit, as we deal with the challenges through which virtually every American is going today, is very, very important to us. So I strongly support this resolution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2024, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Advanced Safety Technology Tax Act of 2009. This bill is an important step toward improving safety in the commercial vehicle industry. It offers tax credits to incentivize businesses to implement proven safety systems for their fleet. These market-ready technologies will help reduce the number of truck-related crashes, injuries and fatalities on our Nation's roads. H.R. 2404 addresses a number of critical concerns. First, it identifies widely recognized technologies that are proven to increase safety on our roads. Brake stroke monitoring, collision warning, lane departure warning and vehicle stability systems are proven to reduce collisions, rollovers and crashes resulting from brake failure. We know from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's, FMCSA, 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study that these are the most prevalent types of large truck crashes. Second, during these challenging economic times, there is no better way to move businesses in the right direction on increasing their safety systems than to provide tax incentives, reducing their financial burdens. This is especially important considering that 95 percent of all trucking companies have fewer than 20 trucks, making almost the entire industry one composed of small businesses. Finally, this bill takes an appropriate long-term view of emerging safety systems technology by allowing the FMCSA or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add qualified safety systems for this tax incentive, once they are proven to significantly enhance the safety or security of drivers and vehicles. I strongly believe that GPS navigation devices for trucks should be made eligible for this incentive. In order to certify this technology as a proven safety system, I have asked the FMCSA to study the effectiveness of GPS navigation devices for trucks and their ability to improve safety for drivers and vehicles. In addition, I have asked the Federal Highway Administration to ensure that any real-time information programs implemented by the Department of Transportation include truck safety as one of its major determinants of effective real-time data collection and dissemination. There are cutting edge technologies in the navigational device, mapping software and data collection industries that are available and deployed to fleets right now. However, with so many small trucking companies and owner/operator small businesses, not all fleets have access to these sophisticated systems. In addition, challenges remain in the industry with respect to timely and accurate data collection specific to trucks, including changing road conditions or restrictions, as well as grade inclines and declines. There is also a lack of information dissemination to drivers, fleet managers and dispatch centers with no real national framework for real-time data, especially for interstate trucking needs. Unfortunately, my district has seen the tragic consequences of these gaps first hand. Last September, a tractor trailer filled with over 75,000 pounds of onions was routed onto the Angeles Crest Highway in Southern California, State Rte. 2, by a driver using a GPS navigation device seeking the shortest route to his destination. The Angeles Crest Highway is not suitable for tractor trailers due to its turns and grade inclines and declines. However, the road is often used by drivers as a short-cut in order to avoid congestion on 1-210 and 1-5. With his brakes losing function on the decline into the City of La Canada Flintridge, the driver lost control of the truck and it plowed through one of the main intersections in the city, through a parking lot, and fortunately only resulted in one injury. Earlier this month, on April 1, an eerily similar accident took place at exactly the same location, but the result was tragically fatal. A driver was using the same Angeles Crest Highway short-cut. His brakes were seen smoking, indicating they had burned out on the steep grade of the road. He hit a vehicle, killing Angel and Angelina Posca, a father and his 12-year-old daughter; struck several more vehicles seriously injuring a dozen more individuals, three critically; and crashed through a bookstore in a local shopping center, causing significant property damage. While the investigation is ongoing, we know that there was a GPS navigation device in the cab of that truck. In the aftermath of these accidents, our local leaders in La Canada Flintridge have been working tirelessly to find solutions that will prevent this kind of accident from happening again in our area and in any other community across the country. I am very pleased that CalTrans banned truck traffic on Angeles Crest Highway for 90 days and that they are now working with the city and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on mitigation measures that will ensure this road remains free of trucks. I also applaud California State Assemblyman Anthony Portantino and State Senator Carol Liu for introducing State legislation to prohibit, with specified exemptions, truck traffic on the Angeles Crest Highway. I am honored to be working alongside our local leaders in pursuing all means necessary to improve safety on our roads. Like them, I am committed to seeing real-time information provided to drivers through GPS navigation devices that can relay the kind of information drivers need to make the safest decisions on the road. I strongly believe we must partner cutting-edge safety systems with the kinds of incentives provided in this bill to improve truck safety on our roads. I want to thank my colleagues Mike Thompson and Geoff Davis for providing the leadership they have on this issue and am proud to join them in this effort. I encourage all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. There are several different studies which show----

Mr. DREIER. There are several different studies.

Mr. DREIER. There are studies that show there's an increase. The highest I've seen is $3,100.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would simply like to state to the Chair that the gentleman said that there was nothing in this budget that specifically referred to that. When he made his point in response to my question, I asked you to allow me to reclaim my time. I said it three times loudly and with enthusiasm, so I don't believe that I was talking over the gentleman. I was asking to reclaim my time. Am I wrong?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And, Madam Speaker, I would simply say to my friend, how does he justify the $3,100 tax that is imposed on struggling families who are impoverished with the so- called tax?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. It's not a page in the budget. It's the fact that there is, in fact, a tax increase that several studies have shown ranged from $1,600 to $3,100 for a working family in this country.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I may, what I said was I'm reclaiming my time. Did the Chair not hear me say that I was reclaiming my time from the gentleman?

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

Mr. DREIER. I think that I control all the time on our side, Madam Speaker, and I think that I've been yielded to.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me state very clearly again for the recording clerk: What I was saying was ``reclaiming my time.'' That was the statement that I was making as the gentleman was speaking.