David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I assume my friend has seen this Congressional Budget Office study, and I want to add, as we talk about this Congressional Budget Office study, that it is important to note that while our friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee talked about his acceptance of amendments, it is fascinating that the Energy and Commerce Committee had a rigorous debate on a number of amendments. They accepted four Republican amendments by voice vote that dealt with things like COBRA qualification, health information technology, the rights of pharmacists, and they dropped those four amendments from the bill. So what kind of bipartisanship is that, I ask my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say to my good friend from Clayton County, Georgia, who does a spectacular job, that we all want to ensure that schools and the other very pressing needs out there are addressed. Getting our economy growing is critical for that and I know my friend concurs with the importance for us to do that, and that is why I point to this independent, professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study which has indicated that there is going to be a tremendous lag time in getting those resources to those schools to which my friend has referred. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I simply wanted to engage in a little debate here, if I might, and that is the reason I yielded time to my friend, so that we could ask the question as to whether or not the gentleman has looked at the Congressional Budget Office study, the professional, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office Study.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I understand that. And let me reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, and say that even though it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, this kind of proposal is something that I would like to work with my colleague on and others on as a way to deal with the challenge of this huge supply of housing that exists in my State of California and in other States as well. And the fact that, unfortunately, over the past several years we have seen a wide range of people treating homes that they have purchased like rental units because they put zero down and have very low interest payments, and so they're encouraged to walk away from it, our proposal here is one that is designed to ensure that people actually have a vested interest in that home. And with that, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Hayes, Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. If I could reclaim my time, I will say that I know that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, but I think it is very important for us to do everything that we can to look at a broad range of creative proposals to try and deal with this crisis. And I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. And I would simply say to my colleague that we all recognize that there is a pressing need out there, and the issue of foreclosures is one that does need to be addressed. And I know that we had a discussion in the Rules Committee the night before last on the issue of--and this is prospective, as I had said earlier--but this notion of trying to encourage people, prospective homebuyers, to buy up that surplus of housing out there by incentivizing them to put a down payment. Now, I know that this is an issue that transcends what we're dealing with today--

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, I will simply say that I look forward to yielding when we're having an exchange as we proceed with the 111th Congress. And I always want to, as I believe this institution deserves, to encourage a free-flowing debate on a wide range of issues. Today actually, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, marks the first time, the first time in the 111th Congress--and we've gone through quite a bit of legislation in the last week--that we are not dealing with a completely closed rule. But this process has been so utterly flawed that this rule simply exposes just how far we have to go rather than standing out as a step in the right direction. The most serious problem is that the underlying bill is not a product of any semblance of order whatsoever. No hearings, no testimony, no markups. Now, anyone who looks at how a bill becomes a law, they understand that the process of hearings, testimony, markup, that's all part of the process. There has been absolutely no opportunity for any of that. No opportunity for scrutiny whatsoever as this bill was written. This has continued into this amendment process. While I appreciate the fact that the Democratic majority has actually considered amendments for the first time, we're still left guessing as to what is actually in this bill. Most of the amendments that have been accepted will never even be debated here on the House floor. They'll not be individually considered in a transparent way. And one of the great statements of the many statements made by President-elect Obama--and we all look forward in 5 days to his inauguration--is that he regularly talks about the need for transparency. Well, a measure that we're about to consider under this so-called manager's amendment will not allow the kind of transparency that Mr. Obama believes should be the case. These amendments were simply added en masse into this one amendment. The point of considering amendments, Mr. Speaker, is not just to have the opportunity to improve legislation. It is also meant to be an opportunity for debate. It's a chance for Democratic and Republican Members alike, not to mention the American people, to examine the key components of a bill and have a real debate. Unfortunately, this rule simply perpetuates a very flawed process, protects a flawed bill, and prevents the real scrutiny that is very, very deservant on the way in which this $350 billion, taxpayer dollars, will be spent. The Troubled Assets Recovery Program Reform Act, the so-called TARP, has itself become quite troubled. As we've heard in yesterday's discussion, we have serious concerns for how this program has been implemented. We can't begin to consider the wisdom of releasing another $350 billion until we understand how the initial money was used. And we cannot begin to consider a bill to fix the system until we understand what exactly this bill does. These are obligations we should take seriously. In the meantime, there are a number of far more limited and targeted proposals that could easily be considered and enacted to address the economic challenges we are facing. Our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have proposed a number of ideas for restoring our economy. They have suggested options that don't pick winners and losers and don't ask the taxpayers to pay for an unaccountable program. One proposal that I've advocated is a tax credit for new home purchases that are made with a down payment of at least 5 percent. The housing industry has been at the center of our economic crisis from the beginning. It remains the core impediment to our economic recovery. As home prices have fallen and foreclosures have risen, the impact on working families has been enormous and the impact on our economy has been, as we all know, very widespread. By encouraging and enabling responsible home purchases, we can start to clear out the excess supply in the housing market. This will help to stabilize prices, prevent foreclosures, and put us back on a path to economic recovery. Now, I don't believe that this proposal that I've outlined and have been talking about for the last couple of weeks is a panacea, but it is a targeted measure that would help to address a key economic challenge that we face. Now, I would have offered my proposals and amendment to the underlying bill, but it was not germane to the measure. But Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm making is that there are many other creative ideas out there that I believe should be given full consideration. Unfortunately, we are spending our time on a bill that its own author--I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services has joined us here--has indicated will not be enacted into law. The Democratic majority is merely concerned with providing what I consider to be a fig leaf for the impending vote that we're going to face to release this additional $350 billion. The underlying bill will not safeguard the taxpayers' money and it will not ensure that we have the proper tools to restore our economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our very diligent former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. DREIER. Of course, I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, he's one term less senior than I.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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. So the gentleman will be able to continue his very brilliant closing statement.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to offer his closing statements then. I would just like to take a moment if I might, Mr. Speaker. The distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, as he reminded us in the Rules Committee the day before yesterday, and I came to Congress in 1980. We did so at a very challenging economic time for the United States. I would like to remind our colleagues that Ronald Reagan was elected President the same day that Mr. Frank and I were elected to serve in the House of Representatives. At that time we were dealing with double- digit unemployment, interest rates that were well into double digits and economic news that was, in fact, very, very dire. Now, I am no way diminishing, diminishing, the seriousness of the economic challenges that we face today, but I think that it is very important for us to note that the economy that Ronald Reagan inherited, when some of us first arrived here, was, in fact, in a more serious and dire circumstance than we face today. The reason I say that is that it has become a standard line over the last week or two to say that we are, in fact, in the most serious economic time since the Great Depression. Now, I hope and pray that that is not the case, but, again, if we look at simply the numbers that existed in the early part of the 1980s, when Mr. Frank and I arrived here in the Congress, to what they are today, we still have a lot of work to do, but I believe that Ronald Reagan faced more serious challenges than we face now. Now, I will say that I don't know what tomorrow is going to bring. No one knows what tomorrow is going to bring, but I believe that the solutions that we put into place in the early 1980s were, in fact, very positive ones, which brought about marginal rate reduction, which increased by $1 trillion the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury through the 1980s. And, yes, we did see an increase in the size of the Federal deficit. This Congress ended up spending an awful lot more money than had been anticipated or than Ronald Reagan or some of the rest of us would have wanted. We also know that there was a dramatic buildup in defense spending that took place during the 1980s, and I believe at this juncture we have seen the great benefit of that. In fact, this year we marked the very important 20th anniversary of many, many, many of the great accomplishments that came from what Ronald Reagan did during the 1980s.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say the gentleman we were waiting for earlier has arrived. I was wondering if I might reclaim a little of my time and allow my friend to offer his remarks.

Mr. DREIER. Well, if I could reclaim my time, I would say that Ronald Reagan did not like a lot of that spending. Maybe he tolerated some of that spending, is what I might acknowledge. But the fact is there was more spending than Ronald Reagan or any of the rest of us would have liked in the 1980s on a wide range of programs, but I did acknowledge the dramatic increase in defense spending. Again, this year, 2009, marks the 20th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and dramatic changes that took place in Asia, Africa, Europe that I think need to be realized that came from that very, very difficult economic challenge that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it's important for us to use the kinds of solutions that worked in the early 1980s, if we can. All I am arguing, as we look at the debate on this rule and the underlying legislation that, we, unfortunately, are not turning to those very thoughtful time tested alternatives. It's for that reason that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying legislation. I appreciate my colleagues allowing our friend from Florida to have the chance to speak. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Brilliant idea. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would be very, very happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Palm Harbor, Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to our friend from Columbus, Indiana, the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And I have got to say that the notion that somehow the measure that we're trying to consider here today is not related to this idea of releasing, within this 15-day period, the additional $350 billion is preposterous. It's clear that it's tied together.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield to my friend from Indianapolis an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DREIER. Correct. Okay. I thank my friend for yielding on that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Worcester, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time, the customary 30 minutes. And I would also like to say in response to the exchange that Mr. McGovern and I had yesterday, that I am more than willing and happy to yield at any time if he asks me to yield to him during debate. Yesterday, he was very reluctant to. One of the things that has troubled me is that as we deal with this and other issues, people begin with prepared statements, but as we get into a period of time during which I believe this institution should have a free-flowing debate, the option of yielding is one which should be taken up as much as possible. That's my perspective, and I understand the right of individuals not to yield, but I will say that I'm happy to yield to individuals at any point. At this point, I'm happy to yield to my distinguished friend.