David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

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.

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. 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. 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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply say that I hope very much that this spirit of bipartisanship that has been exhibited here today in our quest to ensure that we responsibly ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and empower those inspector generals across the spectrum, including right here in this institution, will be an example and a model for the days, weeks, months, and years ahead. We have all been inspired by the words of President-elect Obama in which he has said that he wants to work in a bipartisan way. As I've said here on several occasions in the past week, I was pleased to receive a call from him, as I know many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have received telephone calls from him, saying that he wants to work with us and that he wants our input. I will say, up until this moment, Mr. Speaker, I have been somewhat troubled over the issues that we have addressed that have completely shut out any opportunity for the minority to participate. The evidence of that took place on the last vote that we just went through on the very important State children's health insurance plan. At this moment, we have the Rules Committee hearing the amendment process for the troubled asset rescue package. TARP 2, it's called. Unfortunately, there has been no opportunity for minority input on this issue. If you look at the votes that we held last week, we had two closed rules that came right out of the chute, and they prevented the minority from having any opportunity to participate. Then if we go to a week ago yesterday, unfortunately, the opening day rules package, from my perspective, did shred this Obama vision that has been put forward of trying to work in a bipartisan way. At this moment, we are dealing with an issue, that being our quest to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and to talk about how we can responsibly deal with ensuring that we do not waste taxpayer dollars. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have joined in that effort. This measure is being considered under suspension of the rules. We know that everyone is going to be voting in favor of it. While the Framers of our Constitution wanted there to be a clash of ideas, at the end of the day, it is imperative that we come to a resolution in a bipartisan way, I believe, if we're going to responsibly govern. Let's hope that this resolution designed to deal with responsibly ensuring that we do not waste taxpayer dollars is, in fact, a model for the future. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. DREIER. Just in case you need any additional time, please don't hesitate. I would be happy to yield it to you. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Good. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his response, and I would also like to thank the majority staff, particularly majority council Sampak Garg, for their consultative approach to this resolution. I believe that this measure puts forth a workable and effective means of improving committee oversight and I believe that the quality of the end product is a direct result of the bipartisan collaboration that took place throughout the process. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that future efforts of the Rules Committee can be similarly driven by consultation and collaboration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I very gladly rise in strong support of this resolution, and, more importantly, in the bipartisan spirit in which it has been shaped. The basic idea behind this resolution, as my friend has said, is to ensure that committees are fulfilling their oversight duties and fully addressing the need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse from our Federal budget. While we always have a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, as we all know, this obligation has never, ever been more critical than it is today because of our economic environment. We cannot afford to waste a penny of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. But the best of intentions must be implemented wisely or the effort will be wasted. Republicans had a number of suggestions for strengthening this resolution and to make it more effective. While we would have preferred to have this resolution go through regular order, we were very pleased, nonetheless, to find the process to be both consultative and collaborative. Ultimately, our modifications were incorporated into the final product. Our primary concern was one of transparency. Requiring committees to hold hearings on egregious reports of waste, fraud and abuse is important. But without transparency, there can be no accountability. We simply asked that hearings on the reports of inspectors general or the Comptroller General be included in each committee's survey of activity. These surveys are a matter of public record. By including this information, the taxpayers will be able to directly follow the oversight activities of committees. They will have the opportunity to judge for themselves the level of scrutiny that is given to serious allegations of wasted taxpayer dollars. Our request for greater transparency is reflected in the resolution that is before us today. We also asked for further clarification on the protections put in place to safeguard classified material. Again, the majority was receptive to our request and provided the necessary clarifications. We have one final area of concern which I would pose as a question to the majority manager: As we work to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, it is essential that we do not neglect to turn the microscope inward and examine our own operations right here in this institution. The legislative branch must also be fully accountable to the taxpayer. I would hope that legislative branch inspectors general, such as those in the Offices of the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, be subjected to the same scrutiny as other inspectors general are imposing on their parts of government. I would ask the gentleman for a clarification in this matter. Do these legislative inspectors general fall under the definition of the Federal Office of the Inspector General pursuant to the proposed subparagraph (n)(2)? I yield to the gentleman for his response.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking new ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, my friend from San Diego (Mr. Issa).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to some of the remarks made by my friend from Wisconsin. I have to say that this notion of our working together to put in place what I believe should be a bipartisan, bicameral effort to deal with this overall question of budget process reform is something that I've been privileged to champion for a long period of time. And I think that it is now way, way, way, overdue. I personally am a strong proponent of our moving towards a biennial budget process. I think that if you look at the potential benefits to having the Federal Government contract on a 2-year basis for something like energy, think of what the savings for the U.S. taxpayer would be. And if you look at a wide range of other areas, as many States have done, the notion of having a 2-year cycle would enhance our ability to do exactly what this resolution is encouraging, and that is, greater oversight. So I think that that is something that is important, and I hope that we will be able to put that into place. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking second-term Member, the gentleman from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the bipartisan nature of this resolution that we're considering here on the floor, I would like to inquire of my friend if he would want me to yield him any additional time that he might need on his side.

Mr. DREIER

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, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to my friend from Worcester, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the financial rescue bill, we only released half the funds. We put in place a mechanism requiring the President to come back to Congress to ask for the second half of taxpayers' dollars. This was necessary to ensure accountability to the process, and I strongly supported the notion of not providing a $700 billion blank check. The actions of the Treasury would have to be justified under this new structure that we have. If Congress wasn't convinced that the initial money was wisely and appropriately spent, we would have the opportunity to block the release of the remaining funds. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am one who is not yet convinced. Very serious questions have been raised regarding the handling of this program. Where has the money gone? How have the recipients of assistance used these taxpayer dollars? What protections and safeguards have been put into place? What mistakes have been made, and what are the lessons learned? Has this program been effective? Should it be modified? Are the remaining funds necessary? These are all critically important questions that must be investigated and must be answered. It would be downright reckless to release another $350 billion without a thorough vetting of these very tough issues. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority is not interested in that thorough vetting about which I've just spoken. The underlying bill, we're told, is intended to restructure the financial rescue program to bring more accountability and transparency to the process, yet not one single hearing has been held on this bill. No markup was held, no opportunity to hear expert testimony or receive input from our constituents. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Committee is just in the process of organizing. I think they may have done so today. But they've not gone so far as actually putting all of their subcommittees into place. Yet somehow, they are ready to magically fix the Troubled Assets Relief Program and adequately address all of the questions that I just outlined here. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced. With all of the talk of bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus bills, some of my colleagues may have grown accustomed to the idea of very, very extravagant spending. I know this may be perverse, but I still consider $350 billion to be an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars. We can't be so cavalier with the American people's hard-earned money that we would ignore very serious questions about how such a large sum would be spent. While the underlying bill does not release this money, it does set the stage for it to be released. Today's bill is meant to assuage concerns about the financial program and give the veneer--and it is nothing more than a veneer--of transparency and accountability. It's meant to provide, with all due respect, political cover. When we do vote on releasing the new funds, the Democratic majority wants to be able to say that it's not writing a blank check. They want to be able to say that they fixed the process and responded to the concerns that have been raised. I would say to my colleagues, don't be fooled. This is a hastily written bill, and we saw a very, very contentious exchange in the Rules Committee last night that underscored that. It's been hastily written, and it has never been subjected to scrutiny, as our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee made very clear last night. Congress was right to reserve the ability to block funding for this program until proper oversight could be conducted. We should not shirk our obligation to exercise that authority. We should not be so gullible as to believe that transparency and accountability can be enhanced by a completely closed and irresponsible process. Mr. Speaker, as we've all been saying, the economic crisis that we face today is clearly our biggest challenge, and we all feel--Democrat and Republican alike--a sense of urgency in addressing it. Mr. Speaker, urgency does not preclude responsibility. We are not asking for a needlessly lengthy process. We're simply asking for some semblance, some semblance of due process at all. Those who argue that we must act immediately on this bill should consider the statement of our colleague (Mr. Frank) when he said to the press yesterday as the author of this legislation, he indicated that it would likely never become law. He last night said the same to our Rules Committee. Rather than rushing to dispense with an exercise in futility, we should be conducting true oversight and developing a real solution. The only way to responsibly and effectively address the concerns that have been raised is to have a full, open, and accountable process. We need a bill that is developed through public hearings and a committee markup, through bipartisan collaboration--something that we just saw with the resolution that is going to pass and passed on voice vote here, the last measure we just went through--this can be done. But we need to do this very, very important issue of addressing this $350 billion through a process that is bipartisan with collaboration and real debate. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to say that this bill fails on all counts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This rule is simply going to allow for general debate. Right now the Rules Committee is hearing proposed amendments to this measure, and I know that in excess of 70 amendments have been submitted to the committee. But I will say that regardless of how those turn out, the fact that we have ignored completely the committee structure, the deliberative process that should be used for this, leads me to urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say that I recognize that action in the 110th Congress was taken, and I herald that. We have many new Members on both sides of the aisle. This is a new Congress, and the notion of completely throwing regular order out the window when it comes to the question of dealing with $350 billion is wrong. Yes, I have constituents who are losing their homes, just as all of our colleagues do, and that's why I believe we need to responsibly come forward and ensure that the taxpayer dollars that are involved will go directly to eliminate this problem. And that's what my concern is, that we, in fact, are not allowing that to take place with the kind of deliberation that regular order in this institution calls for.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very challenging time for our Nation and continues to be. I guess the stock market closed 1 minute ago, and when I last saw it before coming down here on the floor, the DOW was down an additional 250 points. We are going through what obviously have been difficult times all the way across the board. My friends have pointed to the fact that we have had an unprecedented level of foreclosures on families who are in homes across the country, and my friend from Worcester correctly said that California has seen a 51 percent increase in the number of foreclosures. And it seems to me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure, to ensure that the difficult economic times through which we're now going come to an end just as quickly as possible. And when I think of action that needs to be taken, I believe that we need to do what we can to ensure that the American people are encouraged, through good public policy emanating from the United States Congress, to engage in behavior that will help us reemerge. Now, as we look at this issue of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the notion of without any hearing, without any deliberation, without any discussion of trying to resolve those pressing questions that have been put before us that we would just go ahead with a bill that everyone acknowledges is not going to become law as cover for us to then release the $350 billion is just plain wrong. I personally think that we should be incentivizing the American people with private market-oriented solutions to this problem. Now, as I said in the Rules Committee last night, what I'm about to say I know will not eliminate foreclosures, but I think it will help to get at a very important problem that has been diminishing the value of homes across this country, and that is the number of foreclosures, by encouraging people to actually have a vested interest in their home. Unfortunately, right now homes across this country are treated like rental units. Now, what do I mean by that? What I mean is that we know that many people have put absolutely nothing down on their homes, zero down, and have paid interest rates that have been dramatically below market, meaning they have no vested interest, no equity in that home. So what has happened? People have naturally walked away from those homes because they haven't had equity in it. And then, of course, we have the problem where, because of the diminishing value and the size of mortgages that have existed, people's value, the asset, the equity that they have in that home is substantially less than what they owe; so they've been led to walk away from it for those reasons. And it's very tragic. And we all know from having spoken with families, as I have, I've had friends who've tragically lost their homes, and it's not easy. So a week ago yesterday, I introduced legislation that would call prospectively for us to do the following over the next 2 years: What we would do is we would say that an individual who agrees to put 5 percent down on their home, a 5 percent down payment, that they would have a $2,000 Federal tax credit. If they were to put 10 percent down, they would have a tax credit of $5,000. And if they put 15 percent down on that home, they would have a $10,000 tax credit. Now, why is it that I believe that that would play a role in solving this challenge that we have, Mr. Speaker? Because people would then have a vested interest. Remember I said that many people have put nothing down on their homes and have paid below-market interest; so they have been treated like rental units. If we will encourage people to develop equity in their homes, I believe that that would go a long way over many of these proposed massive multi-billion dollar expenditure packages, it would go a long way towards dealing with that huge surplus, the inventory of housing that we have. So these are the kinds of creative proposals that we need to address. Unfortunately, the package that is before us has not allowed for a single hearing, a single discussion, a single debate in the 111th Congress on it. I will acknowledge, as I said, in the 110th Congress, sure, there were some hearings that were held. But we have so many new Members of this institution, both Democrat and Republican, and they have come here and are expected to be part of this process, and they have been completely shut out when it comes to the issue of deliberation on this measure that is going to be before us tomorrow as we move through this general debate period later this afternoon. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation that is before us because it is not, it is not, unfortunately, going to create the kind of positive solution that I believe the American people deserve and expect from us. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend from the Harrison Township of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply congratulate my friend from Ohio for her very thoughtful remarks and to associate myself with the remarks that she offered. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking colleague from Humble, Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I will say that I don't know of a Democrat or a Republican who has not been inspired by President-elect Barack Obama's statement that he wants to reach out and work in a bipartisan way. I am convinced that he is very sincere in his quest to bring us together to deal with very important challenges that our Nation faces. What we're dealing with here today is a reversal, frankly, even before he takes the oath of office in 6 days, of exactly what he's trying to do. As my friend from Dallas has pointed out, this is a completely closed process, denying us, Democrat or Republican alike, an opportunity to participate. Let's look at the history of this program. The State Children's Health Insurance Program was put into place as we proudly in a bipartisan way worked to reform the welfare system in the mid 1990s. And what happened? We wanted to ensure that those who were on Medicaid as they gone onto the first rung of the economic ladder that they would have an opportunity to keep their children with the kind of health care that was needed. Our goal has been to ensure that the children of the working poor have access to quality health care. And yet this program, unfortunately, as Mr. Sessions has just said, takes 2.4 million children who are presently receiving private health care and it incentivizes them to go into a government program. It also takes the adults, people up to the age of 25, and allows them to be part of this program. It imposes a massive tax increase on hospitals, which I think is just plain wrong. And it's a program which creates the potential for people who are in this country illegally to benefit. Now, I know that there are statements that it won't, but many reports have indicated that that is a threat that is there. And it also creates an opportunity for the children of wealthy families, families earning in excess of $80,000 a year, to benefit from this program. We need to have a good State Children's Health Insurance Program. This is not it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Sacramento, my Rules Committee colleague, has just said, this resolution will allow the Judiciary Committee to continue its very important oversight work by reauthorizing an investigation of G. Thomas Porteous. The committee's ongoing inquiry into his conduct and the question of whether to pursue impeachment by the House should continue in this 111th Congress. This is a bipartisan ongoing effort. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is so utterly bipartisan and noncontroversial that our colleagues could very reasonably expect that this measure would have been considered by unanimous consent. Such widely supported procedural matters usually do not demand a formal debate. I certainly do hope that today's consideration of this resolution under suspension of the rules is not an indication that the Democratic leadership needs filler time for the schedule. I mean, it would be a little disconcerting to think that they have nothing more important to do in the House, just 1 week before this very, very important inauguration. So whatever the motivation of today's procedure, I do strongly support this measure. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as we look at this debate on this resolution that we're considering under suspension of the rules that, as I said, could be considered by unanimous consent, we know that the pressing issue for the American people right now is our effort to get our economy back on track. That's what so much of the talk is going on right here in Washington, and we know that virtually everyone across this country and, frankly, around the world, as we deal with this global economic downturn, virtually everyone is talking about what steps can be taken for us to get our economy back on track. And it would seem to me that, rather than taking time on a resolution such as this, which could have been considered by unanimous consent, that we should be moving ahead as expeditiously as possible with legislation that will, in fact, get our economy back on track. That's why I, on opening day, just a week ago today, in fact, I was proud to introduce a trio of bills that I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, will play a key role in getting our economy back on track. The first bill is known as the Fair and Simple Tax Plan. We all know about the complexity of the Internal Revenue code, and we regularly hear from our constituents about the level of frustration. And we all know that it is very time consuming and costly to deal with this complex code. The Fair and Simple Tax Plan is a package that I was privileged to work with the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani; former nominee for Governor in California, Bill Simon; former economic adviser to President George H.W. Bush, Michael Boskin at Stanford University, and several others. It is a plan, Mr. Speaker, that would take the six tax rates that we have today and compress them down to three rates. The top rate, Mr. Speaker, would be 10 percent on the first $40,000 in income, 15 percent on income between $40 and $150,000, and a top rate of 30 percent on all income above $150,000. Now, I believe that that kind of rate reduction would increase compliance and stimulate very important economic growth that the American people know is desperately needed as we deal with these tough economic times. This measure also has some other very important components that would take the complex Internal Revenue code and bring it down to a single page, one page. It does maintain, Mr. Speaker, some important provisions, like the ability for the American taxpayer to deduct the interest on their home mortgage; the ability, and we talked about the resolution earlier, encouraging volunteerism; the ability to continue to deduct the charitable contributions that people make as we encourage this level of volunteerism. Very important. It also maintains the important child credit and the provisions that have existed. And it expands incentives for retirement, and it includes a $15,000 exclusion to deal with the challenge that we have with health care. And that $15,000 could be utilized for the purchase of health insurance or direct health care costs, because we know what a pressing need that is that exists today. It also is important, if we're going to get our economy back on track, Mr. Speaker, and I wish that we were having a full debate on this issue right now, for us to, I believe, completely eliminate the inheritance tax, the so-called death tax. When you see people having to sell businesses, to sell homes, simply to comply with the Internal Revenue code, and I know that with that death tax, I believe that completely repealing that, nailing the coffin on the death tax is something that is very important. We also know, and today we got the news about the fact that we've seen an actual narrowing of the trade imbalance, we also know that one of the important things for us to do is to deal with the challenge of jobs leaving the United States and going overseas. And so that's why the Fair and Simple Tax Plan also reduces the top tax rate on job creators from 35 percent to 25 percent, and economists across the board have recognized that that would go a long way towards creating good jobs right here in the United States of America. We also know that the tax on capital has been very, very high and people are living with the threat of it possibly going up. And so the Fair and Simple Tax Plan brings about a reduction to 15 percent of that tax on capital gains. And not many people are witnessing capital gains at this point, but as we seek to get our economy back on track, I believe it's very important and that would be a key to helping us in our effort to do that. So this is, again, a very simple plan that I believe could dramatically stimulate economic growth and get to the kind of permanence that we need. I will say that I heard some remarks being made by our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Conrad, in which he was referring to some of the concerns that he's had with this massive economic stimulus bill that is about to come before us. And one of the concerns that he raised as he talked about it being timely and targeted, that we--and temporary, those three Ts--that we do everything we can to ensure that. And he pointed to the fact that the notion of dramatically extending and making permanent the unemployment insurance would not be temporary. Making permanent COBRA provisions would not be temporary. Those are two issues that our colleague, Mr. Conrad, has raised as concerns. So I think that there's a lot of controversy swirling around this so- called economic stimulus package, and I think that if we want it to be timely and temporary, these government spending programs, we need to spend time and effort focused on how we can permanently, permanently get our economy back on track. I mentioned the first of the trio of bills that I introduced a week ago today, Mr. Speaker. The second one is dealing with an important sector of our economy which we all know has played a key role in the downturn through which we're now going, and that is the housing industry. And we've seen huge sums of money pushed toward the housing industry right now, and I believe that one of the things that we need to do is to reward responsible behavior. Now, unfortunately, government policy has encouraged people to purchase homes with zero down, and have interest rates that are extraordinarily low; basically turning the home ownership, something that we very much want to encourage, into little more than homes into little more than rental units, creating incentive for people to walk away from them. So the second bill that I introduced, Mr. Speaker, is designed to incentivize people to responsibly have equity in their homes. One of the problems that we found is that as we see this credit crunch, it's been difficult for people to have what is now necessary for a down payment for those homes. And so the measure that I introduced, which, again, will encourage people not to walk away from their home and have equity in it, provides a $2,000 credit if one provides a, establishes a 5 percent down payment, a $5,000 credit if they have a 10 percent down payment, and a $10,000 tax credit if they will put 15 percent down. Now, let's think about that. I mean, if someone puts 10 percent down on a $200,000 home, they automatically have $20,000 in equity and would be much less inclined to abandon that home as we've dealt with the challenges that we face out there. There is an inventory that needs to be addressed, of housing, that has yet to be purchased. We have neighborhoods that have been emptied, and I believe that this kind of incentive could again take this industry, which has played a role in the economic downturn, and actually, as has historically been the case, play a role in leading us back to economic strength. And the third measure deals with the other industry, Mr. Speaker, that, as you know very well, we've spent a great deal of time talking about here; the administration has recently taken action on it, and it has to do with the automobile industry. Now, I will say that I'm not personally one who believes that we should be using the Tax Code to encourage the selection of winners over losers, but we know that both the housing industry and the auto industry have historically been very critical when it comes to moving back to economic strength. And so, having worked with a number of automobile dealers who, frankly, were here in December when we were having the debate in the 110th Congress on this issue, one of the things that was said to me was that we need to make sure that people are encouraged to get off the couch and into the showrooms to look at the purchase of automobiles. Now, we know, one dealer, a fellow called John Symes, about whom I've spoken here, a 60-year dealership in Southern California in the Pasadena area, a number of dealerships, has said that historically the ability to deduct the interest on automobile loans has been very, very helpful. Well, I don't know that we should go back to that. So, instead, the third bill that I introduced on this, Mr. Speaker, would do the following: We basically are saying that today we know that the sales tax, both State and local sales tax in States has been very high, and so we called for a credit that would allow an offset for the State and local sales tax to encourage people, again, to get into the showrooms to purchase automobiles, regardless of where those automobiles are from. I regularly like to say when people say, well, what about American- made cars? And I ask the question somewhat rhetorically, what is an American-made car, Mr. Speaker? Is it a Ford manufactured in Canada with Mexican-made parts, or is it a BMW manufactured in South Carolina with American-made parts? And so I believe it is important for us to ensure that any automobile, any automobile would, in fact, qualify for this provision. So if someone's buying a $20,000 automobile and the sales tax is 8 percent, that would be $1,600 right off the top. And we set that at the sales tax rate for January 1 of 2009. Both the housing and the automobile provisions, Mr. Speaker, apply for a 2-year period of time during which I'm convinced we can, in fact, see our economy grow. The reason that I have raised these issues, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe, as we deal with a resolution like this one that could be brought up under unanimous consent, we should, instead, be debating and voting on measures like these three bills that were introduced last week. I know there are a wide range of other creative ideas that have come from Democrats and Republicans as well as to how we can deal with this. So I hope very much that we can take on this challenge and that we can ensure that whatever we provide in this economic stimulus package that it is, in fact, going to be a package that will get our economy back on track. I am very concerned at the reports that we have gotten of massive, massive spending, and I, again, congratulate our colleague Senator Conrad for pointing to the deficit as being an issue with which we are going to have to contend. If we want to have sustained and not temporary economic growth, I believe the best way that we can do that is to take steps to encourage greater and greater and greater private- sector growth in our economy. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in support of this resolution. I hope very much that we can move ahead with it so that we will be able to deal with the pressing challenges that the American people have sent us here to address. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.