David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would say to my friend that, as we look at this issue, there is nothing in this budget, but there is this $1 billion set-aside there. I would like to ask my friend if he could guarantee that that $1 billion will not be used for the so-called cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax plan, or that it will not be in the budget conference report that we have returning to us. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

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

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. There are several different studies.

Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend and debating partner, as he has just outlined from Worcester, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I want to begin by saying that it was very obvious from the moment that he stood up, Madam Speaker, that we have been debating over the last couple of days, and I wish him well in his recovery as he seeks to get his voice back as our debate proceeds. I also want to say that as I listened to his account of his concern, that we all share, for those who are on food stamps, for those who are suffering during these difficult economic times. I want to congratulate him for his lifelong commitment to dealing with those who are suffering, and to say that I stand here with him committed to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that those who truly are in need, those who are on food stamps, do not see the rug pulled out from under them. That is a commitment that we are proud to make, standing with him on that. And I will say that I don't believe for 1 minute that our budget would in any way undermine those who are facing the serious economic challenges that we have. But I have to say, Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the budget that was sent here to this Congress was, interestingly enough, entitled, ``The New Era of Responsibility,'' proving once again that, in Washington, spin seems to trump reality every single time. Slapping the moniker of ``responsibility'' on a disastrous budget is far easier than actually crafting a responsible budget. But now is not the time to be taking the easy way out and abandoning our duties to wisely and effectively spend the taxpayers' money. We, as we all know, are facing the gravest economic crisis that we have faced in nearly three decades. If there was ever a time for true leadership, it is now. And, regrettably, my colleague's side of the aisle has chosen this very critical moment to shirk the responsibility for the great task that is before us. The Democratic budget imposes new taxes, new taxes on small businesses, increasing that burden on job creators. So that will mean more lost jobs, fewer capital investments, and greater strain on our credit markets. It also increases taxes on every single American household across this country with new energy taxes. In fact, families will see their taxes on energy go up by as much as $3,100 a year. Now, these are not--these are not, Madam Speaker, as we all know, tax increases on the super rich, which we regularly hear decried around here. These are regressive taxes that will hit every single family in this country. And, Madam Speaker, it is important to note this energy tax will hit the poorest of families in this country, because they need to turn the light switch on and turn the microwave on as well. This budget will have immediate and very, very painful consequences. But as painful as the short-term impact will be, the long-term consequences are even more troubling. This budget more than quadruples the deficit. My friend talked about how this budget reduces the deficit. All one needs to do is look at the numbers, Madam Speaker. This budget more than quadruples the deficit. It pushes our national debt to a level that threatens the solvency of this country for years to come, in fact, for generations to come. Now, some Americans may be wondering why the deficit should matter while so many families are struggling. Well, let me clarify exactly what it is that we are talking about here. Republicans are not advocating a complete eradication of the deficit in 2009. We have had deficits over the past several years. We all acknowledge that. And while we are committed to reining in wasteful spending, this time of serious economic challenges is not the time for sudden or extreme austerity. Our concern with this budget is not that there is any deficit at all; our concern is that the deficit itself is so catastrophically huge. It takes the largest deficit in the last 8 years and expands it exponentially by 450 percent in this year alone, a 450 percent increase in the size of the deficit this year alone. It is either amusing or tragic, depending on how seriously one takes this issue, to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whine that they inherited deficits. They justify their enormously wasteful budget by saying Republicans ran deficits, too. Yes, there were budget deficits when Republicans controlled Congress. We all acknowledge that. We have been fighting two wars; and, yes, we did not go as far as we would have liked in trimming down wasteful spending. We acknowledge that. But what twisted and contorted logic, Madam Speaker, is it to say: Republican deficits were bad, so we are responding by making them four times worse. Is this really the Democratic majority's justification for what it is that we are doing today? Do they really think anyone could be fooled by such preposterous reasoning? This argument is not just bizarre, it is downright dangerous. It fails to take seriously the impact of exponentially growing debt. It also fails to take seriously the nature of our current economic crisis. Some debt is manageable, as any working family knows. Americans borrow money all the time to buy a new car or pay for college tuition. At reasonable levels, debt is manageable. But as we have learned very painfully, irresponsibly and dramatically increased debt can be catastrophic. Our Nation's oldest, most prestigious financial institutions have collapsed under the weight of their irresponsible debts. And now the Democratic majority is careening down the path that led these institutions into ruin. Our current economic crisis has come as the result of irresponsible, unaccountable behavior. We all know that. We simply cannot begin our recovery unless and until we begin to learn from our mistakes. The Democratic budget simply repeats and expands on those mistakes. But, Madam Speaker, we do have another choice. We, as Republicans, have put forth an alternative that heeds the lessons of our economic crisis and applies some common sense to our spending priorities. It also heeds the lessons of history and previous times of economic crisis. We have experienced great economic challenges before throughout our Nation's history. And what have those experiences taught us? Now if we go back to the recessions in the early 1980s and the early 1960s, we see very clearly a Democratic President and a Republican President. President Ronald Reagan and President John F. Kennedy quickly righted our economies with pro-growth policies that empowered America's job creators. Again, a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, and a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, both put into place pro-growth policies that empowered the job creators here in the United States. John F. Kennedy, as I said, and Ronald Reagan after him, understood that all the government intervention in the world could never match the power of American entrepreneurship. Madam Speaker, I am going to quote a Democratic President, President John F. Kennedy, who in 1962 said the following: ``To increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.'' Madam Speaker, I'm going to repeat the words of the great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy. In 1962, as we were dealing with economic challenges, he said, ``To increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.'' Madam Speaker, history proved John F. Kennedy right. His pro-growth reforms reversed the recession and put our economy back on the path to prosperity. We all know two decades later. My colleague, Mr. Lungren, and I were part of that ``Reagan Revolution.'' Reagan followed John F. Kennedy's lead and accomplished the same thing. Now, Madam Speaker, today Republicans have proposed a budget built on the Kennedy-Reagan model, a budget that draws upon history's lessons and will allow our economy to grow once again. Our alternative also heeds the mistakes that led to our current crisis and rejects the Democratic majority's policy of massive, reckless new debt for the American people. This alternative will not eliminate the deficit immediately, but it responsibly funds our greatest needs while preventing the deficit from ballooning into an utterly unmanageable size. It does not raise taxes on small businesses and working families, but, in fact, reduces the tax burden they face and empowers them to lead our economic recovery. It meets our needs as a Nation without condemning future generations to a mountain of crippling debt. It is the responsible solution that the American people are expecting. It is the only budget proposal before us today that will carry us through this economic crisis and begin the process of the recovery that I know we all seek in a bipartisan way. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I know that the time was limited on the other side, so I'd like to respond to my good friend from Oregon and say that there are a number of studies which have indicated what this cost will be. The highest that I saw was this $3,100 figure. Now, my friend has just said, this will be worked out later. And in saying this will be worked out later, that creates a degree of uncertainty as to exactly what the tax will be on working families. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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. 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. 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.

Mr. DREIER. If my friend would further yield, under your budget how do you propose to have the cuts in agriculture if you're going to maintain the food stamp and nutrition program and not bring about cuts in subsidies?

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. I thank my friend for yielding. And Madam Speaker, I would simply say in response to the cap-and-tax issue about which my friend has just spoken, that we do share a concern about the poor. And as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there is a tax of up to $3,100 for every American family. That includes the working poor, it includes those who are impoverished who are still in their homes. And so the notion that we somehow are doing everything----

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, I would simply say maybe it is perverse that we somehow believe that if a burden is imposed on a business, that it is something that is going to have to be passed on to the consumer. I mean, is that--maybe there's something wrong with that interpretation.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will yield myself such time as I may consume. And I'm happy to further engage my friend. And I will say that we have proposed a 10-year budget. This is a 5-year budget that my friend has. And I know that if you have multitrillion-dollar deficits that are going to be run, the dramatic increase in debt servicing is going to increase the size of those deficits. I also have to say that it is very interesting, Madam Speaker, my friend said that I was able to talk about the Bush years. And yes, I'm very proud of the fact that in 2001 and 2003, dealing with the aftermath of September 11, an economic recession that existed in the early part of this decade and corporate scandals, that we were able, for 55 months, to have sustained economic growth. And I think that that is something of which we can be proud. But my point is, my arguments here were bipartisan. And John F. Kennedy was one of our greatest Presidents. And I'm very proud to say that we are standing on the shoulders of John F. Kennedy, if that will make my colleagues feel better. Mr. Lungren and I regularly argue that we are standing on the shoulders of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, we are standing on the shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to use policies that have historically been very, very successful and brought about economic recovery through difficult times in our Nation. At this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Gold River, California, our former attorney general and my good friend, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. If my friend from Worcester is prepared to close, I will yield myself the balance of our time. Madam Speaker, we all know this has been an interesting debate, a fascinating one, and I think there is going to be a very clear choice that is before us. The American people are hurting. The people whom I represent in California and people all across this country are suffering because of the economic downturn that we face today. It is a very serious and a challenging one, and I believe that every Democrat and every Republican wants to do what they believe is best to get our economy back on track. I will tell you that I think that it's important for us to look at history. We need to look at the history of spending and what it has created, and we need to look at the history of what it is that gets our economy growing. Dramatically increasing spending, as study after study has shown, does nothing to get our economy back on track, to get it growing. I believe that those words that were offered by President Kennedy, that I quoted earlier, in 1962 as he was dealing with a difficult economic time, when he said, ``to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases and public expenditures but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.'' Now, Madam Speaker, the reason that I point to John F. Kennedy is that at the beginning of this administration's term and at the beginning of this Congress, we heard Democrats talk about the need for us to work in a bipartisan way. So what we're using, Madam Speaker, is the model of a great Democrat, John F. Kennedy, who recognized that dramatically increasing spending is not the cure that we need to deal with this challenge. And history proved John F. Kennedy right. We know that tax cuts create jobs and jobs create revenues. It's true that we have a debt and a deficit that need to be addressed. The way to do that is to grow our economy. Tax increases do not increase jobs. And so it is absolutely imperative that we put a pro-growth policy into place, and that's what we do. We grow the economy, we recognize that there are serious societal needs out there, whether it is nutrition, whether it is food stamps. We need to address those. And we do provide for that in our budget. And at the same time, we focus on future generations by saying we are going to responsibly take the debt that exists and we are going to take it on a downward slope. Now, my colleagues continue to talk about the next 5 years. Our budget focus is on 10 years. Why? Because we know that the 5-year plan that they have where they talk about reducing the multitrillion-dollar deficits that we're going to have, that they skyrocket after that 5- year period of time based on the spending that they plan to have in their budget. So, Madam Speaker, we're going to continue with this rigorous debate that's taken place over the past hour-plus. We will see it happen throughout the day, and then we're going to have a chance to determine whether or not we are going to put into place policies that stand on the shoulders of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to grow our economy, reducing the tax burden on working Americans so that they can create jobs and increase the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury, or are we going to have a policy which taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that if we talk about the failure of the past, clearly the ideological baggage of the past has been the tax, spend and borrow policy which is being proposed here. Let me say I'm somewhat confused. I know that the President talked about reducing the deficit by half. Now, of course, if we run multitrillion-dollar deficits and you cut it down by a $1 trillion or $2 trillion, yeah, you can maybe cut it in half. But my friend has just said he is going to cut the deficit by two-thirds. I don't know where that comes from.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say from what it is now, based on the projections with all the spending that is in here, that will create deficits that are so extraordinarily high. That is the challenge that we have got here. When you dramatically increase the size of the deficits--I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Do I have any other option at all to discuss anything else? Is that all I can discuss is the failure of the past? If my friend would yield, and I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional minute, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Well, there was no amount of time yielded to him, Madam Speaker.