David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Is the gentleman trying to argue that we have not submitted a budget with real alternatives and simply provided a political statement?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that that outline that my friend has is very similar to the package that was presented by the President. And if you look at Page 3 of the Democratic budget that we had last week, it did not have any numbers on it either. This budget proposal was submitted at 10 this morning. It does, in fact, have these numbers. And I thank my friend for yielding.

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. Good. Thank you.

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

Mr. DREIER. Would my friend like to yield me the balance of the time?

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to our friend from Stillwater, Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, by incentivizing, I believe that we as an institution, through tax policy, can do everything that we possibly can. For example, in the area of health care, just to touch on that, I believe that a dramatic expansion of medical savings accounts--of which we have been on the cutting edge--of encouraging people to put dollars aside and to save and plan for their health care needs is a better way to go rather than dramatically expanding a government program to deal with it. That is the response, I would say, as far as incentivizing. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Will my friend yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I completely concur with my friend on those two issues that he has just mentioned. Ensuring that we have access to quality health care in this country is, I believe, a right that needs to be pursued, number 1. Number 2, education is going to be critical. As we deal with our emergence from this economic downturn, the United States of America must remain on the cutting edge. The argument that one would get is regarding the exact role the Federal Government should play in every one of these things--in dramatically expanding the number of programs to deal with it or, in fact, in incentivizing those in the private sector. Do we do everything we can to, again, encourage greater access to health care and to quality education? I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I would say to my friend, if he would like me to talk for another 15 or 20 minutes, I would be more than happy to.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman 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. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And let me say that the American people are hurting. We know that. And Mr. Hastings has alluded to some of the challenges that we have. We're dealing with one of the most serious economic challenges that we've faced in modern history. And while the American people are facing their economic challenges, I think it's very important for us as an institution, especially as the body of the people, to realize that it's incumbent upon us to set an example. We all know that the Federal Government is filled, riddled with tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. It's a high level of frustration for Americans. And regardless of political party, people regularly talk about the challenge of dealing with waste, fraud and abuse. And I will say that one of our important responsibilities that too often is forgotten is our responsibility for oversight. We have to oversee the multifarious programs that have been put forward and established by this Congress. Now, from my perspective, we have way too many programs. The reach of the Federal Government is far beyond what it should be. And as we look at the budget which we're going to be debating later this week, the notion of having this dramatic increase in spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product is something that I find to be extraordinarily troubling. And we need to get our economy back on track. We need to make sure that we have in place an economic policy that will do that. And so the American people are clearly looking to this institution, they're looking to Washington, to make sure that we set policies that will allow them to, once again, keep their homes, meet the obligation of paying tuition for their children who are going to college, to pay their other bills. That is something that, on a regular basis, we as Members of Congress hear from the American people. So this issue of committee funding is an important one. And I will say that there is some concern that has been voiced on this side of the aisle. My California colleague, the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, is troubled over the fact that there have been increases in a number of other committees, and yet the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has not had the kind of increase that he believes is important. I also want to say that we should take our hats off to the chairman of the Administration Committee, Mr. Brady of Philadelphia, as well as my California colleague, Mr. Lungren, the gentleman from Sacramento, who is the ranking member. We have seen chairmen and ranking members of all of the committees go before their committee, and they have been deliberative and very thoughtful in this package that they have put together. But I do believe that there are, again, concerns that have been voiced by a number of our colleagues. I want to say that if we look at what has happened in the last couple of months, one particular entity that I think needs to have very, very, very close scrutiny paid to it when it comes to this issue of oversight is the Department of the Treasury. We know there have been programs that began last fall with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the so- called TARP program, and since that period of time we've had the 1,100- page stimulus bill, which we know has been flawed. And I think it was demonstrated when, the week before last, we had the issue of trying to deal with the $167 million in bonuses that have been provided in the stimulus package for the executives of AIG. And so we have unintended consequences that stem from a dramatic expansion of the Federal Government. And everyone acknowledges that that's the case. And that's why we, on our side, are regularly trying to, again, limit that reach because no one knows exactly what the unintended consequences will be. Now, Mr. Lungren, the ranking member, informed me yesterday that we are going to, in this resolution, have a scrutiny over the action of every committee when it comes to the issue of oversight. And I do congratulate the members of the Administration Committee for ensuring that we do have more scrutiny put into place. I also want to mention an item that is included in this measure that is, I think, very, very important, and that is funding for a commission which I was privileged to found when we were in the majority, and now serve as the ranking member under our colleague, David Price, the gentleman from North Carolina, who has chaired this commission. It's known as the House Democracy Assistance Commission. And our commission has basically taken the challenge of building democratic institutions in new and re-emerging democracies around the world and worked to share our example of the United States Congress with these new and re- emerging democracies. I mean, we are in Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Haiti, Colombia, Lebanon, Liberia, Kenya, Macedonia, Georgia, and Ukraine. I mean, we have worked closely with the parliaments to try and, again, share our example of the work of the United States Congress. And I regularly argue, Mr. Speaker, that we clearly don't have the answer, because we know that democracy is a work in progress. And I've often quipped that if some of these countries see the United States Congress in operation they may want to go back to totalitarianism. But the fact is we do have a 220-year example to which we can point as our work in progress. And this commission is, I believe, making great strides in trying to help build the parliaments in these countries so that, as we pursue economic growth and the rule of law in those countries, this commission is going to remain on the cutting edge of that very important work. So I will say that, again, there are concerns that have been voiced about the level of funding, and I think that there are a number of issues that we still do want to ensure that we address. But as the American people deal with the economic downturn that we're facing today, I think it is imperative that we, as an institution, do all that we can, Mr. Speaker, all that we can to ensure that we utilize those taxpayer dollars just as cost effectively as possible and, at the same time, redouble our efforts when it comes to overseeing this massive expansion of the Federal Government that has taken place. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate our friend from Pasco, the ranking member of the Resources Committee, for his very hard work on this issue, and to report to the House, unfortunately, the fact that the Rules Committee last night, after a very, very contentious debate, on a party-line vote, decided not to allow the very thoughtful amendments that Mr. Hastings has brought forward to be considered. It's interesting to note, if my friend would continue to further yield, that we in the last week or two have been dealing with the aftermath of the 1,100-page stimulus bill that was brought before us. We know that last week we spent all of our time trying to figure out a way around the $167 million in bonuses that were provided to AIG executives. Everyone was up in arms about this, and people are still pointing fingers to determine how it is that that measure got into the stimulus bill. Well, one of the things that we found is that unintended consequences continue to come forward and we, thanks to Mr. Hastings' efforts, found an unintended consequence. I have to say, Madam Speaker, for many, many years we, as Republicans, have been maligned, maligned regularly by our friends on the other side of the aisle for trying to pull the rug out from under seniors, starving children, and the disabled. I would not dream of standing here arguing that there is any Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, who would want to deny the disabled access to wilderness areas. But I know this, a problem was raised.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Let me say, and I thank both of my colleagues for their kindness, but let me say, Madam Speaker, as we look at this challenge which has been such a great one, there is no one, as I said, who would want to deny any disabled person access, Democrat or Republican, even though we are regularly accused of such heinous acts and have been for many, many years. But Mr. Hastings found the unintended consequence here, and last night in the Rules Committee we came forward and said here is a way to deal with this challenge. We want to ensure that people who are disabled have access to our wilderness areas. And again, Mr. Hastings had two amendments. We offered them, and on a party-line vote he was denied an opportunity to offer those amendments. Again this gets to this point, Madam Speaker, we are in this era of bipartisanship as put forward by Speaker Pelosi, a great desire to listen to the input provided by Members regardless of political party; and here we have a commonsense package of amendments that will deal with something that no one wants to allow happen, and yet Members of the Republican Party were in fact shut out from having a chance to offer those amendments whatsoever. And I believe it is a very sad day for this institution and the Committee on Rules that such action would take place. I thank my friend for yielding and thank him again for his very hard work on this important issue.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished former colleague, the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Archer, always provided us with a great directive. He said here in this institution we should follow the Hippocratic Oath, that being to do no harm. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know full well that the stimulus package had no Republican support, and many Republicans were maligned for having just said ``no.'' And we all know very well, Democrats, Republicans alike know that we as Republicans came forward with a bold, robust, strong stimulus package ourselves, but they said we were just the Party of No. Well, the fact of the matter is, again we offered a viable alternative. But we know very well that rushing as we did to this stimulus package is what has led to the challenge that our friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to clean up today. A great deal of harm has been done and this, Mr. Speaker, is just one tiny example. Over in the visitor's center right now a hearing is being held by our Economic Stimulus Working Group, and testimony was just provided by a man called Mike Stevens of Action Printing from Lubbock, Texas. He was talking about the challenge of trying to get a printing press, and he said that only those banks that did not accept TARP monies had the flexibility to get the credit that he needed to purchase his printing press. Mr. Speaker, if that example does not underscore, again, that the reach of government into our lives, trying to own companies and engage in this kind of activity is jeopardizing the potential for economic recovery, I believe that it is an absolute mistake for us to be going down this road. And I think those of us who stood up in opposition to this stimulus package have, in fact, had the statement made very, very clear.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to share with my colleagues the news of the passing earlier this morning of a very dear family friend and one of our Nation's greatest citizens, Mrs. Walter Annenberg. Lee Annenberg was an extraordinary person who lived every day with elegance, generosity, and a dedication to improving the quality of life of her fellow man. Members of this institution will recall countless instances of a strong commitment to the United States House of Representatives and both Houses of Congress. She in fact made it possible for us to, for the first time since the founding of our country, convene on the anniversary of September 11, when we all went to Federal Hall in New York. She underwrote the bipartisan civility retreat that we held. Several years ago, the California congressional delegation came together at her beautiful home, Sunnylands, in Rancho Mirage, California, to hold the first ever bipartisan California congressional delegation retreat. Mr. Speaker, no two people have been more personally committed to public service, education, and philanthropy than Lee and Walter Annenberg.