David Dreier

I thank my friend from Brigham City. I appreciate his generosity of yielding me such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate the fact that my friend from Worcester said we should have a defense capability that is second to none. We should be preeminent in the world. I appreciate his statement. I also appreciate the fact that he talks about the multifarious societal needs that are out there, ensuring that we don't see those who are struggling to make ends meet suffer. We concur wholeheartedly in that goal. But I have said this time and time again. I said it in the Rules Committee and Mr. Bishop and I had a discussion about this. And Mr. Hastings of Fort Lauderdale got into there as well.

This is my perspective. Thomas Jefferson said that two thinking people given the exact set of facts can draw different conclusions, but I've concluded as I looked at the preamble to the Constitution with all the important statements in there--We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States--I argue, Mr. Speaker, that the five most important words in the midst of that preamble are ``provide for the common defense.''

And the reason I say that is that as we look at all the things that the Federal Government does, virtually all of them--not all, but virtually all of them--can be handled by individuals, by communities, cities, families, counties, and States. But there's one thing that cannot be handled by those other entities, and that is our national security. We can't have the individual States providing for the national security. And that's why I believe it is the single most important responsibility for the National Government.

I believe that we can have a cost-effective national defense. I believe that we can correctly focus on waste. We know and have heard the horror stories, and we've heard about some of the waste that's taken place in the Pentagon. We've got to bring an end to that, no doubt about it.

At the same time, my friend from Utah just talked about the fact that our allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are spending a greater percentage of their gross domestic product on national security for the reason that they have felt threatened. They've lived under repression. There are NATO allies that have been countries that were basically under the control of the former Soviet Union. And in light of that, they continue to live with an understanding of how important national security is. We have important countries in Eastern and Central Europe that are struggling to not only become members of the European Union but to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization because they still are seeking a chance to be free of that kind of repression.

I'm reminded of what took place during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Georgia, when we saw the incursion from Vladimir Putin's Russia into Georgia over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We continue to see lots of threats. It is a very dangerous world. Tragically, Plato said: Only the dead have seen the end of war.

And I remember that as we saw the demise of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, many of us did believe as Francis Fukuyama famously wrote about the end of history, believing that political pluralism, the rule of law, and self-determination and democratic institutions would thrive all over the world. Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way in the last couple of decades. And we all know what the consequences of those threats have been. For the first time ever, we had the kind of attack that we did on September 11 on our soil.

All this is to say, Mr. Speaker, it's important that we have a strong, balanced defense authorization bill. And I believe that the National Defense Authorization Act that is before us is right. And I appreciated hearing the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, praise the fact that it's focusing on some of those very important social issues that she has raised and addressed. She complimented this defense authorization conference report for doing that.

And there are other things. This morning, I was listening to WAMU. I wasn't aware of this, but I heard the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, talk about the fact that we are going to have recognition of flags in the District of Columbia for our veterans. And there's inclusion in this conference report that deals with that issue. She pointed to the fact that flags are very, very important. When we have foreign dignitaries come to the United States of America, flags are used to recognize their presence. Of course, veterans from the States across the country have that, but the District of Columbia hasn't. I'm pleased that Ms. Norton was able to have that issue addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report.

And so this is a measure which I believe really transcends political party. There's great bipartisan support for it. And it also covers lots of important issues that do come back to our Nation's security. And so I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as we look, again, at those five most important words, from my perspective, in the middle of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution,

``providing for the common defense,'' that we are doing that--and exactly that--with this measure.

So I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report that we will have. I believe it will be a great benefit to our men and women in uniform and to the future security of the United States of America and our allies.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 841 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about the fact that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and we have had the first three letters used in discussion here on the House floor today, A, B, and my friend from Worcester brought up the letter C in talking about this. We have what is so-called letter B. And I'm not doing a Sesame Street skit here, Mr. Speaker. Letter B is what we are talking about, Plan B, and I think about Plan A.

Plan A is what the majority in the House of Representatives has been trying for the last 2 years to implement, and it's, very simply, a plan that is designed to put into place something that, interestingly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike say that they support. That plan is meaningful, strong, bold plans for a simpler, fairer Tax Code.

The President of the United States supports tax reform. I'm pleased that the President of the United States strongly supports the notion of taking the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That, again, is a very positive area of agreement that we have. But I will say that we in the majority have been trying to put into place real, meaningful tax reform that can ensure that people will see reduced rates, and we will generate enhanced gross domestic product growth.

Coupled with that, our Plan A, Mr. Speaker, has been designed to bring about a reduction in the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government. And everyone knows what that means. Everyone knows what has to be done to reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government, and that is real entitlement reform.

So Plan A consists, Mr. Speaker, of two simple things: pro-growth tax reform that will keep taxes low for individuals, job creators, and small businesses in this country so that we can encourage that kind of job creation to which we all, Democrat and Republican alike, aspire; and a reduction of the mammoth size of this behemoth, which, as we all know, encourages a cycle of dependence which has been generational, and it's essential that we turn the core of it.

So just getting our fiscal house in order dealing with the 16-plus trillion dollar national debt is, again, only part of that. But encouraging individual initiative and responsibility, creating pride in individuals by, again, paring back entitlement spending is the right thing for us to do as a nation. That's what Plan A consists of, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if you look at where we are today, we know 11 days from now we are going over the so-called proverbial fiscal cliff. What does that mean? It means that every single American who pays income taxes will see a tax increase go into effect. We also know there will be a massive sequester, which, as we have just passed the rule, and I guess we're going to have a vote on that, as we've just debated the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act, we know it could have a devastating--devastating--impact on our national security.

We know, I think Democrat and Republican alike--not universally, because I know there are some people who do want to go over that cliff, but very few--I think Democrat and Republican alike by and large recognize that increasing taxes on working Americans, in fact, will create a scenario which will impinge on our ability to encourage the kind of gross domestic product growth that is important for us and for our security as well, economic security and our overall national security.

So I think about my former California colleague, the now-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who said to this institution:

Please do what you can to ensure that we don't have that

sequester take effect. Do what you can. Work hard to try and

make sure that we can address abuse that's taken place within

the Pentagon spending, but have what is necessary for our

national security.

So as we look at these issues, we're going through a troubling time. We have divided government, something that those nations that live under a Westminster-type system don't have. We have a Democratic President and a Republican House of Representatives. I happen to believe that that creates an opportunity.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I do believe that having a President of one party and a United States House of Representatives of another party does create an opportunity for us to work together in a bipartisan way tackling entitlement spending.

We know that if my party had won everything, it would have been tough for us. It would have been tough for us because of the political attacks that would have taken place from the other side of the aisle to take on entitlement reform. But working together now that we have, again, a President of one party and a House of Representatives of another party, I believe that we can tackle this issue, and that's really what we desire. I think it's the right thing to do.

We're in the midst of very tough negotiations that are taking place between two people, as we all know: the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. And I want to express my appreciation to

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I've been in the minority. I've served in the minority up until--from 1980 until 1994, 14 years I served in the minority, and from 2006 until 2010, for 4 years I served in the minority. And it's challenging. It's not easy.

But we are, as I said, 11 days away from going over the fiscal cliff, and we feel strongly about the need for this institution to state its position on this. I know that we've heard that the majority leader in the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has indicated that he doesn't want to bring up, if this bill passes the House of Representatives, this measure, and the President has put out a Statement of Administration Policy that this bill would not gain his signature.

I don't think that anyone is convinced that the bill that we're going to pass here is one that is going to end up being the agreement, but it's very important in the negotiating process for work to proceed and for institutions to stake their position.

We happen to believe that Mr. Boehner has really made some bold steps in working to ensure that we do not go over that fiscal cliff, and I think that we are in a position today where I think that the action that we will take will be a positive step to enhance the chance for a negotiated resolution to this.

I want to say that the process hasn't been perfect, and I'm not claiming that everything that took place upstairs in the Rules Committee last night was perfect. But I will say, look at what it is that we've included: basically a reduction of $238 billion over 10 years in the reconciliation package that passed this House of Representatives earlier this year. The measure that we have before us that is going to be debated separately is one that is actually pared back from the measure that passed the House of Representatives. The only changes that have been made have been made to accommodate the date change, putting in this month of December in place of the earlier month this year when the debate took place.

We know what this is. And for those who might claim that the so- called ``reconciliation package'' that we have is imposing draconian cuts which will be devastating for those who are struggling in this country, I remind them of the alternative, which happens to be the sequester. It's our hope that this reconciliation package, Mr. Speaker, will play a role in ensuring that the sequester that would be devastating--I acknowledge it would be devastating--does not take place. This is the alternative to the sequester, Mr. Speaker.

The package that we have will, in fact, see rate increases for those earning in excess of $1 million. That's .19 percent of the American Federal income taxpayers. That means that all the rest of the Americans, an overwhelming majority, will actually avoid seeing that tax increase go into effect.

I also would like to say that we have to remember that if you look at the '01 and '03 tax cuts that became public law, part of that law, current law, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that we actually would see those rates with the top rate at 39.6 percent. That's part of the '03 agreement that we had. So any action that we take that is less than that top rate of 39.6 percent, Mr. Speaker, is actually a tax cut, and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here--and I appreciate again the understanding of the minority--is simply trying to move ahead with this good-faith negotiating process that Speaker Boehner and the President of the United States are in the midsts of. I hope that in light of the balanced approach of this package, that we'll be able--by the way, this package has enjoyed at least statements of support from Democrats in the past from both the House and the Senate--I hope that this can be a positive step as we seek to resolve just as quickly as we possibly can this question.

We all know that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity; and our goal is, Mr. Speaker, to put into place a policy that will have the kind of certainty that will encourage our job creators and encourage those who are out there seeking to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder to have the kind of opportunity that is necessary.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

If the measures before us constituted the Republican Plan A, they would be a package of sweeping tax and entitlement reforms. They would provide considerable new revenues through economic growth and a simpler, fairer tax code. They would rein in our ballooning deficit by making our entitlement programs solvent over the long term. Together these critical initiatives would put our economy back on the path toward prosperity and opportunity.

For two years, this Republican Majority has worked tirelessly to enact Plan A. We have passed dozens of bills. Speaker Boehner has spent countless hours negotiating with President Obama. All in an effort to advance our Plan A. I still have hope that we will reach an agreement that will substantially achieve the goals that we have outlined: growth and balanced budgets through meaningful tax and entitlement reform.

But the measure before us today is not Plan A. It is Plan B. Time is running out. We are 11 days away from the end of 2012. 11 days away from our last opportunity to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. 11 days away from significant tax increases on every single tax payer in America and devastating cuts to our military.

The Members of this body may disagree on many things, but we all agree that the across-the-board tax rates that become effective on January 1 will have a very damaging effect on our frail economy. The first of today's underlying bills is a safeguard against the most detrimental aspects of the fiscal cliff. It extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the 99.81 percent of Americans who make less than $1 million a year. This action protects the middle class and virtually all small businesses. No other single action would go further to mitigate the crisis that is looming before us.

The second of today's underlying bills makes responsible spending cuts that will help to rein in our deficit without compromising national security. Defense Secretary Panetta has tirelessly exhorted Congress to avoid these draconian cuts to our military at all costs. We are absolutely committed to getting our fiscal house in order. But we must do so in a way that does not sacrifice our security. The underlying spending package makes essential cuts, while ensuring that we do not put our homeland and our troops at grave risk.

We of course want to go much further than simply limiting the worst of the damage of the fiscal cliff. We will continue to strive for a comprehensive solution until the tremendous challenges before us are addressed. These challenges will not be resolved in any sustainable way until we substantially reform our tax code and deal with the fundamental insolvency of our entitlement programs. But we would be utterly derelict in our duty to first do no harm if we failed to implement these critical stopgap measures.

It is essential to recognize that current law raises taxes for every single Federal income tax payer on January 1. Every working American, every small business owner, will face a higher marginal rate 11 days from now. That is the current law of the land. Today's underlying tax bill maintains current law for 0.19 percent of taxpayers, while cutting taxes for 99.81 percent. This is not a tax increase. It is a tax cut for very nearly everyone. Without it, we run the real and serious risk of plunging our economy back into recession.

Today's measures represent neither a comprehensive solution nor the end of our efforts to reach one. It is simply action that must be taken to protect our fragile economy and beleaguered workforce until a long- term solution can be reached.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the remarks that my good friend from Rochester has made as it relates to the sequester. I agree with her completely, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that we not let the sequester take place, and I hope and believe that she is right, that we will not see that happen.

Number two, I'd like to associate myself with her remarks as it relates to ensuring that we do not go over the fiscal cliff. That's something that is very, very desired on our part as well.

I'd also like to respond to just one point very quickly, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Roseville and say that I can provide my friend from Rochester, our distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, assurance that we will not be adjourning the Congress today and ending our work. I have said--I said in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--that we are going to continue with our work.

The action that we are going to take relates to these two measures: again, the reconciliation package, which is designed to ensure, as my friend from Rochester has said, that we don't see sequestration, which we all know would be devastating if it were to take effect. It is a package of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time. It is a very responsible measure that is not going to be gutting programs but is going to responsibly begin to tackle entitlement reform.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York.

If I could reclaim my time, I will say again that I have served as long in the minority as John Dingell. I have served longer in the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, than the dean of the House, John Dingell, has served, and I understand. I've served 18 years in the minority, and I

understand that it is challenging, and I respect that fact. To say that as we're dealing with the very end of this session that we're not trying to get to an agreement is a mischaracterization of where we are.

I've associated myself with the remarks of my friend from Rochester as it relates to our quest to ensure that we don't see the sequester take effect or that we go over the fiscal cliff, and to say that the package that we have that deals with the reduction of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time is, again, virtually identical to what passed this House. It has actually been reduced by 100 pages. It's much smaller than what was passed in May by this House, and I believe that it's a package that is, again, one that can responsibly be a first step towards something that we all know does need to be done. As I talk to Democrats, there is recognition that entitlement reform has to take place, and so I believe that that is the right thing to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a very, very strong budget hawk, my fellow Californian, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining. It looks like she has a couple at least. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a very hardworking, thoughtful member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

So I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) might want to exhaust some of the speakers she has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask my friend to yield? I will yield her an additional 30 seconds.

I just wanted to inquire. I didn't understand this ``there is no sequester here.'' We're dealing with the threat of a sequester, and our idea is $238 billion in spending reductions within the reconciliation bill that passed the House last May is what we're including. So I just didn't understand, if I could just ask my friend.

And I'm happy to yield her an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

If the gentlewoman would further yield, let me just say that there is a plan to respond to the sequester, and that is the $238 billion reduction over a 10-year period of time that is the reconciliation bill that was passed by the House last May.

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