David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the next Governor of Oklahoma, Ms. Fallin. (Ms. FALLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. I will be offering an amendment to the rule. The amendment will require the Speaker to direct the Clerk to call the roll on the final votes on the Senate health care bill and the reconciliation bill. As the Republican leader has said repeatedly, it is time for the Members of this House to stand up and be counted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and explanatory material appear in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). (Mr. FRANKS of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins). (Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Is that correct, Madam Chair?

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam). (Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Lincoln, Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and of course congratulate her on her fine management of this extraordinarily important rule because of what we are going to be doing when we deal with the previous question. Now, before I get to that, I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my good friend from Worcester, and say that we have had this constant drumbeat of us versus them, class warfare. The Democrats are for the people; the Republicans are only for the insurance companies. I mean, we continue to hear that over and over and over again. So what I would like to do, Madam Speaker, is to disabuse my friend and others on the other side of the aisle and many people in the media who continue to put forth this argument by saying or making the charge that we have tried to do nothing to deal with this issue out there, and that is crazy. And, Madam Speaker, I would like to go through a few of the things that we have done that have been designed to bring the cost of health insurance down to make sure, to make sure that more Americans have access to quality health insurance. Let's begin by something that I introduced, and I am happy to say we have put into law. I introduced it 23 years ago in 1987, the first bill to call for the establishment of medical savings accounts, which incentivize Americans to put more dollars aside to save for direct health care costs or health insurance costs. The second thing that we have done, I am very proud of the work product of Medicare part D by ensuring that more seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs. But, Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is talk about a couple of things that we have worked on and when we were in the majority that we passed through this House, but, unfortunately, were blocked by my friends on the other side of the aisle in the other body. Those two things are, number one, associated health plans. Now, President Obama has said that he believes that the notion of allowing small businesses to come together to pool so that they can have the benefit of lower insurance rates is something that he finds somewhat appealing; and yet, when we passed that in this House, sent it to the other body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose, unfortunately, to block that measure. And what is it that has happened? Well, we have seen an increase in the number of people who don't have health insurance in this country because of the fact that Democrats in the other body chose to block our establishment of associated health plans so that small businesses out there can come together. And the second issue, which, again, the President stood here in his address to the joint session of Congress, Madam Speaker, and talked about and he believed was important for us to utilize, and that is real lawsuit abuse reform. Now, unfortunately, one of the reasons that we see this dramatic increase in health care costs is that--what has happened? Many doctors--and listen to this: Many doctors have to engage in what is described as defensive medicine. They have to constantly prescribe all kinds of tests which are unnecessary, but they do it for one reason, Madam Speaker, and that is they do it because they are afraid of being sued. Now, Madam Speaker, in the last Republican Congress, in our attempt to bring the cost of health insurance down we passed out of this House real lawsuit abuse reform legislation. It was blocked in the other body by our Democratic colleagues. So this notion that was put forward by my friend from Worcester that we somehow have done absolutely nothing to deal with the plight of those Americans who don't have access to quality health insurance is preposterous. Now, Madam Speaker, we have heard about this issue of transparency, and disclosure, and accountability, and I listened to my friend from Worcester argue that we have had this great deal of transparency. Then I ask you, Madam Speaker, why is it that the American people are saying that we should start over and we should in fact have a process that is transparent and open? Never before, never before in the history of the Republic have we seen the process that is being contemplated used on such a massive issue and on the signature issue of an administration. We all know that this is the signature issue that has been put forth, argued for more than a year; and now what we've had is the Speaker and the majority leader and the distinguished chairwoman of the House Committee on Rules say that it is acceptable for us to completely deny accountability, to avoid accountability, and to prevent Members from actually being responsible for the votes that they cast. Well, Madam Speaker, the American people get it. No matter how diligently they work overtime in the back rooms in this Capitol to block any opportunity for transparency, the American people are able to see through what it is that they're doing. It's one of the great benefits of the new technology that exists today and the fact that there are Democrats as well as Republicans who are decrying this. I joke with my friend from the Grandfather community that sometimes I watch some of the programs on television that may be a little left of center. And I'm proud to do that. I watch them with regularity. And I have listened to a number of their commentators who would in no way be considered supporters of the Republican vision that is out there actually say that it is wrong. It is wrong for Democrats to go down this road of self-executing this massive, massive bill. They're arguing for transparency and disclosure and accountability, and I believe that it makes a great deal of sense. When we defeat the previous question--I hope, Madam Speaker, we will be able to do that--we will take the initiative that has been launched by our newest Republican colleague, Parker Griffith, who has come forward and offered a proposal to say that if we're going to debate this health care bill, we should have an up-or-down vote and we should have extended debate, because the process that's being contemplated right now, Madam Speaker, would not allow one single minute of debate on the floor of the people's House to debate the health care bill. The only thing that we would debate is 30 minutes on either side on the special rule that would come to the House floor. And so, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And when we do that, we will bring up and allow a vote on the Griffith proposal that will ensure that we will have an up- or-down vote on the health care issue and the kind of free-flowing debate that the American people deserve.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it was an interesting irony. When I woke up this morning, I heard on the radio that this week has been dubbed ``Sunshine Week,'' meaning that there needs to be greater openness and transparency. We all agree that we need to do everything that we can, as my Democratic colleagues have said, to increase competition and bring the cost of health insurance down. We all agree that that needs to be done. But, Madam Speaker, this measure will not accomplish that at all. We have commonsense solutions that I believe we can utilize and implement in a bipartisan way. So here we are in the midst of Sunshine Week, and as my colleagues have been saying: What is it that is happening? We are seeing every effort made to try and avoid the kind of transparency, disclosure, and accountability that were promised in that document, ``A New Direction for America,'' that then-Minority Leader Pelosi put forward. Madam Speaker, I am convinced, I am convinced that we can do better. But we need to make sure that, as we proceed with this process, we have the kind of openness that the American people insist upon.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to yield to my colleague to engage in a colloquy, if I might, so we might have a discussion. I found it very interesting, very interesting, Madam Speaker, that she talked about that amazing drug that is used for breast cancer, and, unfortunately, the huge disparity in the cost that that woman she was riding on the bus had in Canada versus the United States of America. There is an important reason for that, Madam Speaker, and that is the fact that we want to make sure that there are more amazing drugs created. There are many very serious ailments that exist out there today, and one of the things that we have as our great comparative advantage here in the United States of America is that we are the center for research and innovation. And, unfortunately, we have had to shoulder the financial burden for that research so that that woman riding on the bus with my friend from North Haven was able to have a drug that would never have been developed had it not been for the kind of innovation that exists here in the United States of America. I would like to yield to my friend to see if she would recognize that the innovation and creativity that exists in the United States of America is what allowed that friend of hers on the bus to have. I am happy to yield whatever amount of time my friend consumes from my time.

Mr. DREIER. Well, Madam Speaker, let me reclaim my time and say that we had an emergency Rules Committee meeting yesterday to bring this measure up. Now, I understand the importance of dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research, but in my State of California we have many counties, Madam Speaker, that tragically have an unemployment rate that is in excess of 20 percent. We have a nationwide unemployment rate that is hovering right around 10 percent, 9.7 percent--it's been around 10 percent for 7 months--and we know that millions and millions of Americans have lost their homes and many more continue to face either the threat of foreclosure or years of upside-down mortgages. Our deficit is $1.4 trillion, and we all know that our national debt has exceeded $12 trillion. Credit remains very scarce. We hear regularly decried from both sides of the aisle about working families and small business owners who depend on a robust financial services system. We have serious, very serious issues as a Nation that the American people expect us to deal with aggressively and responsibly. And I would argue, Madam Speaker, that while we are considering the algal blooms and hypoxia research measure under an emergency structure that was put forth by the Rules Committee, I'm not in any way diminishing its importance, but I think these issues that I just mentioned are what are on the minds of Americans all across this country: job creation and economic growth. So what is it that we do in response to the economic crisis that we're facing in the United States of America? It is, as I said, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments. Now, Madam Speaker, I yielded to my colleague to say why it is that we are really here, which is the fact that we were promised transparency. You don't need a really, really good pair of reading glasses to know exactly why it is that we are here. Very simply, we are here because the Democratic leadership is doing everything that it possibly can to twist arms and to line up votes. Based on public opinion polling and on three elections that have been held within the last couple of months in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, they are twisting arms to try and pass a very, very, very unpopular and, I believe, outrageous, horrible measure that would see us have the Federal Government take control of one-sixth of our Nation's economy. The most recent maneuver they were considering to ram this thing through was something that has been dubbed the ``Slaughter solution.'' Many media outlets have tried to explain to the American people what exactly the Slaughter solution would be. Most explanations have left listeners more confused and outraged than when they started. It is a twisted and contorted process that can make anyone's head spin, but this is it in a nutshell: Madam Speaker, the Slaughter solution is an end run around a vote in the House of Representatives on the health care bill. As the health care process has moved forward, the substance of what the Democratic majority is trying to accomplish has become ever more unpopular. The result is that they simply do not have the votes to pass a bill that can get to the President for his signature. We all know that. In the last 30 minutes, the President has announced that he is delaying his trip to Indonesia and to Australia. We know that they are doing everything within their power to try and twist arms and to encourage people to vote for something that is extraordinarily unpopular and that, I believe, would be devastating for our Nation's economy. So, Madam Speaker, what is it that you do if you don't have the votes? What is it that you do? Do you start over and work for a bipartisan solution, which is what the American people want? This is not a partisan issue on our part. We are saying let's take the commonsense approach that the American people have said we should take, a step-by-step approach. So is that the message that has come through? Do you listen? Do you listen, as many of us have, to what it is that the American people are saying through town hall meetings and through other fora, and do you incorporate their ideas into this quest that we all share of trying to drive health care costs down so that we can increase access to health insurance for our fellow Americans? Apparently, the answer to every single one of those, Madam Speaker, is ``no,'' for this Democratic majority; when you don't have the votes, you simply come up with a scheme to avoid a vote altogether, which is what the Slaughter solution is. This so- called ``Slaughter solution'' would allow the House to wait for the Senate to pass a fix-it package to their flawed health care bill. When the fix would be passed by the Senate, the bill would magically be deemed passed by the House without our ever having a transparent up-or- down vote on the original bill. Let's remind ourselves of a new direction for America, the document that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put forward, one promising transparency, disclosure, accountability, and the kind of openness that we all aspire to, but which tragically has deteriorated over the past 3 years. The approach that we have with the Slaughter solution is a hopelessly cynical attempt to completely upend the democratic process. It also, Madam Speaker, I believe, creates the potential for a real backfire. For months, the Democratic majority has blamed the Senate for their own inability to provide leadership and decisive action on the pressing challenges that we face, and now they want to put the fate of their convoluted plan on the ability of the Senate to pass a clean fix-it bill. Madam Speaker, the Senate has disappointed my Democratic colleagues yet again. We got the report just yesterday which seemed to undermine the Slaughter solution. It appears that the Senate parliamentarian will insist on the enactment of the Senate health care reform bill before he will recognize the fix-it bill as reconciliation, meaning that reconciliation can only be utilized to deal with existing law. That means, if the Democrats won't take a straight up-or-down vote on the bill, their only option is the light version of the Slaughter solution, having the bill deemed as passed by the rule and sending the Senate bill to the President for his signature. Now, that's what the lawyers call, Madam Speaker, a distinction without a difference. The reality is that a vote on the rule will be a vote on the Senate health care bill, complete with all of the special interest provisions that it contains--the Cornhusker kickback, gator aid, the Louisiana purchase, these kinds of things that we have heard about. Then there are all sorts of hidden items in there which some friends of mine have been discussing with me, like promises that there won't be a middle class tax increase. What does the measure do? It slashes FSAs, Flexible Savings Accounts, which have been utilized by people who are trying to address their health care needs. By doing what they do in this bill, it will be a slap to the taxpayers of this country who are middle-income wage earners. Their problems don't end there. There will be, Madam Speaker, challenges to some proposed fixes and, therefore, changes to the Senate package. Then there is the question of the Federal funding of abortion. If this cannot be banned through reconciliation, would the Slaughter solution be further expanded to implement a fix on that issue as well? How would that fix make its way through the United States Senate? Now, with serious unanswered questions like these, why would any Member of this House take the bait and support the Slaughter solution, even in its light version, by deeming a measure passed with the passage of a rule? There is a high probability that House Democrats would be forced into taking the tough votes they tried so hard to avoid after putting themselves on record as supporting an end run around a real transparent vote. In the end, Madam Speaker, rank-and-file Democrats would be making themselves all the more vulnerable for having supported their leadership's egregious tactics. The Slaughter solution is bad policy, bad process, and bad politics. The fact that the Democratic leadership is pursuing this option exposes its unwillingness to abandon the most fundamental element of legislating. The most fundamental element of being a deliberative body is a transparent up-or-down vote, and they are doing that in order to achieve what everyone recognizes, based on public opinion polling. And I don't make my decisions based on public opinion polling; I make my decisions on what I think is right, but it just so happens that public opinion overwhelmingly has pointed to this as a very, very, very unpopular, unpopular proposal. Today, on which I have just had an exchange with my colleague from North Haven, they are hiding behind blooming algae as they twist arms and try to work their backroom deals. But, Madam Speaker, your leadership cannot hide forever. If the Democratic majority proceeds with its plan to ram through their health care bill without actually holding a vote, it's going to take more than algae to protect them from the American public's outrage. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my Rules Committee colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, I sat and listened attentively as my colleague talked about the challenge of dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research. And I am reminded, as I mentioned in the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon, of the rather famous vice presidential debate that took place in 1992. Now, vice presidential debates, Madam Speaker, are not terribly memorable, but in 1992, for those who are old enough to remember, we saw three top-tier Presidential candidates, George H.W. Bush was running for reelection, Bill Clinton was the Democratic nominee, and H. Ross Perot was running as an independent candidate. In that vice presidential debate we saw Vice President Quayle, challenger Al Gore, who went on to become Vice President, of course, and this totally unknown figure, Admiral James Stockdale, a great man whom I was privileged to know. The famous line that came from that vice presidential debate, Madam Speaker, was from not Vice President Quayle or Vice-President-to-be Gore, but from Admiral Stockdale, who looked into the camera and said, ``I'm sure you're asking who am I and why am I here.'' That term went on to be used throughout the decade plus in our vernacular. I was reminded of that as we look at what it is that we're doing right here, Madam Speaker. One can't help but ask, who am I and why are we here? And having listened to the very thoughtful statement on algal blooms and hypoxia research from my friend from North Haven, I would like to yield to her, if I might, Madam Speaker, to see if she could give us a really good description of why it is that we are here at this moment at 9:25 Friday morning when this was a measure that had been considered under a suspension of the rules and we had, mid-afternoon yesterday, completed the work and I know many of my colleagues have gone into their districts. So I would like to yield to my colleague and ask her to provide us a clear, clear definition as to exactly why it is that we're here.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that I am very happy that we are here to address an issue that is of concern to the American people. With all due respect to the importance of algal blooms and hypoxia research, I believe what we are talking about today is much more important. And the thing we should be talking about is not something that happened 5 years ago, which, frankly, many, many seniors are benefiting from, but what we should talk about is what is about to happen and what is happening behind closed doors throughout this Capitol at this moment. I am happy to further yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just say, because I control the time----

Mr. DREIER. I just asked the question on my own time. I am happy to yield to my friend. I asked a question, and I would welcome your answer.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time just to say to my friend that she is right. She is right, Madam Speaker, that there are other parts of the world where research and innovation are taking place. But it all pales, it pales in comparison to the kind of research and development that takes place here in the United States. I would like to ask my colleague, Madam Speaker, if she would support making permanent the research and development tax credit so that we could have the kind of incentive for our pharmaceutical industry and others out there who are creating these innovative new ideas to deal with Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes and other ailments that exist. Madam Speaker, would she be supportive of the notion of our pursuing that kind of incentive to deal with these problems that can play a role in driving costs down?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it looks like my friend from Texas is here and would like to be recognized. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say that I was just reminded by my staff, Madam Speaker, and I have got a couple of articles that were just handed to me here today, about this process issue. I regularly argue that process is substance. And excuse me, I am not talking, by the way, about algal blooms or hypoxia research. I am talking about this convoluted process known as the ``Slaughter solution.'' For some strange reason, the Democratic leadership has said that, regardless of what the Senate is going to do, we are going to proceed with taking our action here, when reconciliation itself is a Senate process. That was designed, as we all know, it is called budget reconciliation, put into place in the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act. It was put into place by Senator Byrd, and the goal of providing an opportunity for reconciliation, budget reconciliation, was so that there could be an opportunity to deal with tax increases or spending cuts. I will say, the last time we dealt with meaningful spending cuts under this kind of structure was when we tried to tackle the issue of entitlement reform, and we were able to bring about a very, very modest $40 billion reduction. I think that we need to work harder on that and we need to utilize that process in doing it. But what we are seeing right now and these reports that are out there, the confusion that exists in this House, and certainly with the American people, who are just casual observers of this, is that this is not what we were promised, Madam Speaker. It is not what we were promised. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.