David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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. If my friend would yield, the fact of the matter is it has not been put into place, and it's very, very clear that there is a $1 billion place holder there, which is what they're planning to utilize.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just finish my thought, and then I will yield to my friend. The fact is, if you look at that $3,100 figure, it does stand because the budget does not have a penny for those rebates. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

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. What do I think happens to that money? I will tell you. Whatever the tax burden is, it is imposed on the families in this country who are on food stamps, who are on nutrition programs and who are struggling to make ends meet but still have to pay their energy bills. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, may I reclaim my time? I reclaim my time to ask again as I just did of my friend: Can the gentleman provide a guarantee that that $1 billion will not be used for this so-called ``cap-and-trade program'' and that it will not be included in a conference report that comes back to the House? I'm happy to further yield to my friend to respond.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. There are several different studies.

Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional minute. If the gentleman would further yield, the fact of the matter is, with this proposal that our colleagues have, they regularly point the finger of blame at us, that we somehow are trying to hurt the poor by cutting food stamps and nutrition programs, which is just plain wrong. But they fail to recognize that the tax burden, with this energy tax imposed on any family that turns the light switch on, is going to be overwhelmingly strong.

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

Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield my friend additional time if he would yield to me.

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me respond to his very thoughtful comments with a couple of points. First and foremost, we need to remember that it was a Republican Congress that got us back on the road of fiscal responsibility leading up to what President Bush did, in fact, inherit. And I'm not going to stand here as an apologist for spending that did take place. But we have to remember that most of the spending that took place dealt with the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when we saw dramatic increases in defense and homeland security spending. And in the last 3 years, there were actually real spending cuts that took place in every other appropriation bill at that time. And so the issue of economic growth----

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would be happy to yield to my friend. Clearly, I think we have a problem of maybe talking past each other. We all concur with the notion of getting the economy back on track. The question is do we grow the economy by growing the size, scope and reach of government? And that is what my colleague is arguing that we should do, that we should get the economy back on track by dramatically increasing the role of government. The exact opposite is the case. Now as my friend said, that the same old same old of what we did in 2001-2003 with creating tax incentives for economic growth. That is, I believe, the single best answer to this challenge. Why? Well, remember what we faced in 2001. Many people thought after we had this unprecedented attack on the United States of America that we would see a huge economic downturn. We also were dealing at that point with corporate scandals that existed in the early part of this decade and a wide range of other challenges. And we had already had an economic slowdown. It was those policies of growth-oriented tax cuts that were able to see 55 months of sustained job creation and economic growth. We all know that over the past year we have seen serious economic challenges, we are in recession and the American people are hurting. We also believe that we need to have priorities established like dealing with the issue, as my friend has correctly said, of building roads and bridges. That is what I'm saying. We are not talking about extreme austerity. We are talking about a commonsense approach. And we do embrace that. But this notion of this huge expansion which doubles the national debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years is, in fact, I believe, a prescription for disaster. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If not, I'm prepared to close if the gentleman will be the closing speaker after I speak then. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I will say that if my friend would like to interject any points during my remarks, I certainly would be more than happy to yield to him if he'd like to ask me any questions as I proceed. As I look at last fall's election, the mantra, ``A change we can believe in'' was something that got a great deal of attention. Well, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend, I encourage him to change the talking points that he has provided because they are, in fact, the same tired old talking points that we've received for many, many, many years. Blame the Republicans for whatever difficulty we face. Don't work together in a bipartisan way for a constructive solution, which is exactly what we want to do. I agree with my friend that we need to grow the economy to bring the debt down. We have this area of agreement. We all talk about and decry deficit spending, and we want to pursue this quest of trying to diminish that debt burden imposed on future generations. The question is, how do we do it? Well, I'll tell you what the rest of the world has learned and what the United States of America has learned. What we have learned is that increasing taxes and spending and the reach of the Federal Government does not grow the economy. So if we can work together in a bipartisan way to do what my friend says we want to accomplish, and that is, growing the economy, so that we can reduce the debt, then let's recognize what it is that works. And I think it's also important to note that, as my friend continues to point the finger at President Bush, he left office in January, I will say. And it's also important to remember that my friend and his colleagues have been in charge of taxing and spending for over 2 years now since they have had the majority. And so I think that it's a bit of a stretch for us to continue down this road of class warfare, us versus them, saying that Republicans don't care. It is crazy. We know that the budget that's before us, as we've all been saying, taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much. And we know that, as the rest of the world has found, that it is a prescription for disaster. Now, I hesitate, but I am going to proceed with quoting the President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Topolanek, who made it very clear, from the experience that they've had with the expansion and the reach of government, that he does not believe that that is, in fact, the answer for the future. I met a year ago, a little over a year ago with the President of Peru, who had been President in the 1980s in Peru. And he embraced the very, very hard-left, Big Government policies. He's President today, and he said that the worst 5 years in modern Peruvian history were when he was President in the 1980s. He learned from that experience that dramatically increasing the size and scope and reach of government, increasing the tax and excessive regulatory burden has failed. The rest of the world has learned that it has failed. And now, for this new majority to try and bring about a complete transformation of government with this budget that does, in fact, double the national debt in 5 years, and triple the national debt over the next 10 years, is a prescription for failure. We have come forward, Madam Speaker, with a very positive, pro-growth budget. We focus on growing the economy, number one, and realizing that, as my friend has said, growing the economy can help bring the debt down. But we also know that one of the other ways to grow the economy is to diminish the reach of government. And so we, over the next 2 days, are going to have a very clear choice that is put before us, as Members, and the American people. And I believe that an overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the United States of America believe that a dramatic expansion of government is not the answer, and allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned dollars is, in fact, a better prescription to do what we all want to do, and that is to get our economy back on track. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to say that this is incredibly ironic. Again, we're here on April Fool's Day, and I wondered if the statement that was just propounded by my friend was, in fact, an April Fool's statement. He continues to use the line, ``We're tired of the same old same old.'' Well, the arguments that I just heard from my friend are the quintessential same old same old: Republicans don't care about children, about senior citizens, about the homeless. That is absolutely preposterous. We care, and we truly are compassionate because we want to ensure every American opportunity, and those who are hurt the most, those who can't take care of themselves, we clearly want to do everything that we possibly can to assist them. And to argue to the contrary is the standard class warfare, ``us versus them'' argument which is the epitome of same old same old. And with that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Cherryville, North Carolina, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of my friend if he has any other speakers at all.

Mr. DREIER. Madam 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. I would inquire of my friend if he has any speakers on his side.

Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we begin this April Fool's Day with the budget debate. You know, we have some very, very serious economic challenges here, and the sad thing from my perspective is the fact that this budget, which was just described by my friend as the Democratic-Obama budget, is not a joke. The thing that is so incredibly ironic is that 45 seconds ago my friend just said we must get a handle on these deficits. ``We must get a handle on these deficits,'' is what my friend has just said, and yet this budget, this Democratic-Obama budget of which my friend is so proud in fact over the next 5 years doubles the national debt and over the next 10 years triples the national debt. We all concur on this notion of trying to get deficits under control. It is a very high priority. Everyone says this. What we need to do is we need to work to rein in government spending rather than trying to bring about this transformation, this transformation in an economic downturn which dramatically expands the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. Madam Speaker, as every parent or small business owner knows, a budget is about choices. Often, it is about very hard choices that need to be made. During times of economic hardship or uncertainty, those choices get even harder, and that is clearly where we are today. When we look at our expenses for the coming month or year, we have a number of factors that have to be taken into consideration as a family, as a small business person. There are expenses that are absolutely mandatory, mortgage payments or meeting a small business payroll. There are expenses that are essential but can be reduced with greater flexibility and frugality, like the grocery bill. There are expenses for luxury items that are simply not affordable any longer. And then, Madam Speaker, there are those expenses that are important and worthy and useful, but just aren't possible when funds are tight. These choices are clearly the very hardest. We want to buy the kids a new laptop for college or build a new addition onto the house, but we know that the money just isn't there right now. So we tighten our belts, figure out a way to spend our money more wisely, and save for the things that are most important. This is how America's families and businesses are dealing with the economic difficulties that we all face today. If only the Democratic leadership and this budget that my friend touts as the Democratic-Obama budget would do the same. They could learn a lot from the American people, Madam Speaker. The Democratic budget before us today recklessly abandons any semblance of responsible decisionmaking. It spends as though the money is just flowing in, and it raises taxes as though American businesses and families have endless cash to spare. But we know all too painfully well that this is far from the case. Ask anyone out there. It is time for the Democratic majority to wake up to our economic reality. This is not the time to raise taxes on small businesses and working families. They like to claim that their tax hikes will only hit the super-rich. They are wrong. Their income tax hikes will hit the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. And their cap-and- trade program, the great source of revenues, which is really a cap-and- tax program, will raise taxes on every single household in America. Families will get slapped with new energy taxes of up to $3,100 a year. Every time our constituents flip on a light switch or turn on the microwave or drive the kids to school, they will feel the pain of the Democratic tax plan. This is also not the time to recklessly add hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending that our Nation cannot come close to affording. Republicans aren't advocating extreme austerity, but we are advocating a little common sense. We must own up to the hard choices that are a fact of life for the American people and should be a fact of life for their representatives here in this institution as well. After all, this is not our money. This is money that belongs to the hardworking people here in the United States of America. We must be realistic about which expenses are mandatory, which leave room for greater flexibility, frugality and efficiency, which spending items are luxuries and which are worthwhile but simply not affordable at this time, just like the American people must do. We have to use the same kind of prudence when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars as people are as they face the challenges of today's economy. Instead, what this budget does is shirk all responsibility for our tax dollars and bury the American people under a mountain of debt that won't be paid for generations. This is not just an issue of deficits. It's an issue of deficits so catastrophically huge that they threaten to put our recovery off for years to come and permanently saddle all of us with staggering amounts of debt. In this year alone, the deficit, Madam Speaker, will be $2 trillion, that is trillion with a ``T.'' I know in this age of constant $100 billion bailouts, we have forgotten just how much money that is. Everyone has their illustrations of how to visualize $1 trillion. And I know that it seems a little gimmicky, but it is important to understand what we are talking about when we refer to $1 trillion. And let's remember that the deficit for this year under this budget is $2 trillion. If we were to spend $1 million a day, a day, $1 million a day, it would take 5,475 years to spend our deficit for this year alone. Not our national debt as a whole, just the part, just the part that would accumulate this year. In other words, it would take until the year 7484 to spend our deficit if we were spending $1 million a day. Or put another way, we would have to go back to the 35th century B.C., the 35th century B.C., to spend the money by the year 2009, back to the rise of the early Bronze Age in order to spend $2 trillion at that rate of $1 million a day. Now that's an awful lot of debt, Madam Speaker. That is an astronomical amount of debt. And that is what this budget leaves us with. It taxes recklessly, spends wildly and borrows almost too much for us to even comprehend. Now I have talked a lot about hard choices. Now I want to say something about false choices. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to want the American people to face a false choice, the choice between their very dangerous budget and the status quo. They like to think that they can convince our constituents that their disastrous budget is the only option out there. But, Madam Speaker, we clearly have an alternative. There is a commonsense way. Republicans, contrary to what our friends said about the lack of numbers in our budget, we have our budget. It was submitted by the 10 a.m. deadline to the Rules Committee. It is an alternative budget that will not tax small businesses and working families and will not balloon the deficit to untenable proportions. It is true that it will not entirely eliminate the deficit. That might not be possible during these very, very tough times. But it does own up to the hard choices that responsible legislators must make. It does accept our tough economic reality and it does exercise common sense and accountability in the spending of taxpayer dollars. And it does not punish the small businesses and working families who are already struggling with new burdensome taxes. Now, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to be drawn into the false choice that has been provided by the Democratic majority. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.