David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very privileged to yield 2 minutes to the senior Republican Californian on the Committee on Financial Services, my friend from Fullerton, Mr. Royce.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to your Illinois colleague, the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mrs. Biggert.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Roswell, Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our great new colleague from Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a hardworking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Paulsen.

Mr. DREIER. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time remains on each side.

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say to my friend, if I might, Mr. Speaker, that we are winding down. If the gentleman has no further speakers, we are prepared to close.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I have a slightly different take than was just offered by my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Golden, Colorado. As our economy, Mr. Speaker, and our jobs market continue to struggle and families face the coming year with deep worries for their own financial futures, I believe that our responsibility here in this institution as Members of Congress is very clear. We must reform our financial regulatory system to prevent the kind of catastrophic breakdown that occurred last year. We both can agree on that. We know that what happened last year, I mean, a year ago right now, many of us were sensing that our economy was in peril, and we could have seen a major meltdown. We need to ensure that that doesn't happen again, the threat that we went through does not happen again. We must do so in a way that preserves access to credit for families and small businesses, promotes job creation, ends taxpayer-funded bailouts, and allows us to begin to pay down this horrendous national debt that we're all facing. Unfortunately, the proposal that is before us this evening fails on all counts. At a time when we need to reform and streamline our regulatory regime, the Democratic majority proposes to make it more complicated and less accountable, more unworkable and less transparent. The majority wants to keep the taxpayers on the hook for a permanent system of bailouts. Now, my friend said we were going to ensure that we no longer had bailouts. Clearly, from our perspective, this will continue the pattern of bailouts; and they're attempting to use repaid TARP funds as what is little more than a slush fund that will create a wide range of additional Federal spending. The net effect of the underlying bill that the Democratic majority has put forward will be to reduce consumers' access to credit, destroy jobs, and leave our deficit spiraling out of control. This is not the solution that the American people were hoping for from this institution. They understand while the circumstances leading up to our current economic crisis involved incredibly complex and arcane regulations, policies and institutions, the lack of accountability and transparency was the core problem. They understood that a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency, that that really was the core problem that led up to the crisis. Financial institutions took on unsustainable levels of risk and used highly questionable practices that fed into a bubble that we all know inevitably burst. Individuals took on an enormous amount of debt that they simply could not afford, and we all know that the Federal Government did the exact same thing. The result was frozen credit markets, declining growth, and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. We're still trying to climb out of this hole, as we all know. The task at hand is not about increasing regulation or diminishing regulation. It is about making it smarter, more accountable, and more effective. The Democratic majority's so-called reform bill takes us in the opposite direction. By adding multiple layers of new bureaucracy and making agencies like the Fed even less accountable than before, they threaten to compound the very problems that led to our current situation. What's more, by further tangling this Byzantine mess of regulators and superregulators, they will further tie up credit that families and small businesses desperately need. This is credit that enables small companies to grow, expand, make payroll for current employees, and create positions for new employees. This is credit that enables responsible homeowners to make purchases and help get our housing market back on track. By exacerbating the credit crunch, today's underlying bill threatens further job destruction and stymied growth. The bill also creates this $150 billion fund paid for with new taxes to continue to bail out failing institutions. Now, if that $150 billion turns out to not be enough, who's on the hook for more bailouts? Well, surprise, surprise. It's the U.S. taxpayer. The Democratic majority was given the opportunity to remove these bailout provisions from the bill in committee, but they chose to keep them in place. And if that weren't bad enough, this bill will take the bailout dollars that are repaid to the taxpayers and put them into a slush fund for more government spending rather than paying down the national debt. The Democratic majority has apparently forgotten that they voted last fall to consider the taxpayer first as bailout dollars are repaid rather than putting it off into some other fund. The path charted by this legislation is utterly reckless at a time when prudence and accountability are more needed than ever. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say that we, as Republicans, have an alternative. We have a very viable alternative. We put forth the proposal that reforms our financial regulatory system without threatening access to credit or job creation. We enhance rather than diminish accountability for agencies like the Fed. We tackle the issue of fraud and give shareholders greater rights when it comes to executive compensation. We put an end to the bailouts once and for all, and we return repaid bailout dollars to the Federal Treasury where they belong. Our alternative accomplishes the goal of guarding against future crises without imperiling our recovery. This is what the American people are demanding of us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues--while we're considering this as a general debate rule, I'm urging my colleagues to reject this because we can do better. Reject taxpayer-funded bailouts, reject the credit crunch for small businesses with families, reject greater job losses, and reject a new slush fund for even more wasteful spending. With that, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate as we talk about where we are economically and the challenges with which we are trying to contend. It's a very serious time. The American people are hurting. People are losing their businesses, their homes, their jobs all across this country. They want us to get our economy back on track, and they want us to ensure that we do this in a very, very responsible way. Well, Mr. Speaker, my colleague Mr. Garrett has just put before us the 1,279-page bill that is to be considered under this measure, and I have to say that as we look at it, it is voluminous. And I will admit I haven't read every single page of that bill and I doubt that there are many of our colleagues who have. The fact of the matter is we have a 170-page alternative. This one, by the way, is on both sides of the pages, and ours is on one side, Mr. Speaker. It's 170 pages, and it's a proposal that clearly will ensure that we don't proceed down the road towards bailouts. It will make sure that we don't jeopardize our economic growth. It will make sure that we create greater transparency and accountability, and that is a key priority that I believe the American people want us to pursue. We all hear David Letterman's regular Top 10 list. I was just handed a Top 10 list as to why we should support the 170-page bill that provides transparency and accountability and will work to get our economy back on track without increasing taxes or permanent bailouts, and to oppose this 1,279-page bill. Number one: This one creates a permanent TARP-like bailout authority. Number two: It imposes a massive tax during a credit crisis and weak economy. Number three: It expands the powers of the Federal Reserve. Number four: It creates a credit czar with the authority to restrict access to credit and impose taxes on consumers and small businesses. Number five: It undermines the ``safety and soundness'' regulation of financial institutions. Number six: It rewards trial lawyers at the expense of investors. Number seven: It kills jobs by undermining the ability of Main Street companies to manage risk. Number eight: It empowers regulators to impose wage controls on workers and enterprises. Number nine: It continues ``business as usual'' at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And number 10: Our Republican substitute ends the bailouts, restores market discipline, and protects consumers, small businesses, and taxpayers. Reject this rule. Reject this legislation. We can do better. We have it in our hands right here, Mr. Speaker. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I know there are colleagues of ours who are anxiously looking forward to participating in this very important Special Order, and I want to congratulate all of you for the work that you're doing to demonstrate that there clearly is a wide diversity of views on this question of global warming. And I was listening to the exchange that my friend had with the chairman of the committee from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I was thinking about the fact that one of the things I think would be very helpful for us to do is to try and pursue some bipartisanship. That's a buzzword that is used around here regularly. People talk about how important it is for us to be as bipartisan as we can. But I think with the controversy that exists from both sides, there may be a way for us to come together on an issue. I wanted to come up and mention this very briefly. I have joined, Madam Speaker, with our colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich.) I know that might come as somewhat of a surprise that Mr. Kucinich joined in an effort to deal with this question in a bipartisan way--and it might come as a surprise that David Dreier would join with Mr. Kucinich in doing something that would address this issue. But it is a measure that I think is very important for us to look at. There is recognition--and Mr. Markey said this--that we have the potential to create a couple of million green jobs here in the United States. And I think there is a desire to continue to do what we can to improve our environment. I come from the Los Angeles basin. We have air-quality problems there. Very serious. I believe that if we were to take what is our comparative advantage--and my friend from Georgia and I have worked regularly on the trade issue--and take advantage of our comparative advantage, which happens to be the development of a wide range of alternative energy sources--whether it's algae, whether it's wind, whatever--and provide a chance for those technologies to move to these developing countries which have not yet been able to comply-- Bangladesh, India, China, other countries. So Mr. Kucinich and I have joined to introduce a resolution calling for the tariff-free export of all green technology. Now, I believe that that would create jobs in this country, and it would go a long way towards helping us in our quest to deal with overall environmental issues. And so while there is a wide range of views on this issue of global climate change, I do believe that it's important for us to know that improving our environment is something we can come together on. And I'd like to congratulate my friend and say that I hope that in a bipartisan way we can encourage entities like the World Trade Organization to negotiate a worldwide agreement that would allow green technology to be exported to all parts of the world.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Haven for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my Rules Committee colleague has pointed at the fact that this is a bipartisan measure. Dealing with issues of firefighting obviously transcend partisanship in every way. And this is a very, very important measure that will, in fact, have, I suspect, unanimous support here on the House floor. She has outlined appropriately the two grant programs, the Assistance to Firefighters program which will provide $12.2 billion, and the SAFER program which will provide $1 billion in assistance. And I believe that this is a measure which is critically important as we look at the challenges of the Federal Government's role in dealing with firefighting. Mr. Speaker, this past August 26 was a devastating day in southern California history. We saw the largest fire in Los Angeles County history burn 160,000 acres. It was a horrible, horrible time, because above all of it, we lost two courageous firefighters, Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones. And when one thinks about where it is that we are going on this issue, it is critical that we do every single thing that we can for the brave men and women who are firefighters. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us to never forget what it is that happened in Los Angeles or in other fires. There was a memorial service that was held at Dodgers Stadium several weeks ago. And I was struck at that service with the fact that firefighters stood up and said that the one thing that continues to happen is that while the populace at large may have a tendency to forget these things, firefighters never, ever forget their own. And that is why there is a redoubling of the commitment to the spouses, the children and other family members of Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones. This program is important, and it has a Federal component, I believe, in large part due to the fact that the area that burned just above La Canada, California, is an area that consists of the Angeles National Forest, which is Federal land. So I hope very much that we are able to proceed in a bipartisan way in dealing with this issue. If you think about the sacrifice that is made, on average 75,000 firefighters are injured every single year, and on average 100 firefighters are killed every single year as they are proceeding with their very, very important work. That is why this program will, I believe, go a long way towards diminishing the loss of life and the threat to those people and at the same time diminish the threat of fire overall. Now, Mr. Speaker, as important as this issue is, and my friend from North Haven has pointed to the fact that it is bipartisan, I believe this measure should be considered under either suspension of the rules, because while the five amendments that were offered were made in order, I'm convinced that under the able leadership of the committee of jurisdiction, there could have been an agreement that would have allowed this to come up with 20 minutes of debate. Just as the last measures that we have considered were considered under suspension of the rules, this very easily could have. But since it's not, it obviously should be considered under an open amendment process. Now it's very sad that we have gone through this entire Congress, this entire Congress without a single open rule. And that is, I think, a very, very unfortunate thing. It is a step forward that every amendment submitted upstairs to the Rules Committee was made in order. But why not consider it under an open amendment process which would allow any rank-and-file Member to stand up and offer an amendment to this legislation? So I also have to say that the amount of time that we are expending on this is, I believe, not necessary in light of the fact that as important as it is, it enjoys strong bipartisan support, as both of us have said. I believe what the American people want us to be doing here, Mr. Speaker, is focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. We all know that when the stimulus package, the $787 billion stimulus package passed, President Obama said that its passage would ensure that we would not see an unemployment rate that would exceed 8 percent. We all know that today, tragically, the unemployment rate is at 10.2 percent. In my State of California, it's 12.2 percent. In some of the areas that I represent around Los Angeles, it's up over 14 percent. And that's why what we should be doing is focusing on issues that will create jobs so that those individuals who are losing their homes and losing their small businesses are not going to continue to suffer. Now what should we be doing? At this moment, President Obama is in Seoul, South Korea. And we know that denuclearizing the Korean peninsula is obviously a high priority. But just as was discussed when President Obama was in Beijing, similarly in Seoul, the priority issue being discussed is the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement. Now there are a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, who say, why, when you're dealing with economic difficulties would you possibly consider embarking on a free-trade agreement? Well, guess what? There are very important reasons. The main reason is that it's one of the most important ways that we can create jobs right here in the United States of America. Let's take just a moment, and I wish we were debating this agreement which has been completed, similarly the Colombia and the Panama agreements have been completed which would be job creators right here in the United States. Automobiles, the automobile industry is hurting in the United States, and we know that there is this massive disparity between the number of automobiles going from the United States of America being sold in Korea, that number is actually just under 10,000, and the number of Korean automobiles that are sold in the United States; 700,000 Korean automobiles are purchased by Americans. Now I think everyone should have a right to buy the best quality product at the lowest possible price, but I believe we should do everything that we can to have an opportunity to create more jobs here in the United States of America in the automobile industry and every other industry that is tied to that, by creating a market opening, a market-opening vehicle for us in South Korea. Now, people ask, well, why would you want to do an agreement that would make that happen? The reason is very simple. The tariff is higher on U.S. automobiles going into South Korea than it is on Korean vehicles coming into the United States by and large. And even more important than that, Mr. Speaker, there is a tax and regulatory structure that exists in South Korea that prevents us from being able to sell those cars. So, again, fewer than 10,000 American-made automobiles are sold in South Korea today; and we purchase 700,000 cars and trucks from there. So what should we do? We should pass this free-trade agreement, pass this free-trade agreement which will create jobs right here in the United States of America and, I believe, go a long way towards dealing with the devastating 10.2 percent unemployment rate that we have. We can, we can implement job-creating economic growth policies. Unfortunately, based on the track record that we've seen over this past year, we haven't. So people are hurting. It's very important for us to pass this legislation which could be considered either under suspension of the rules or under an open amendment process, which unfortunately it isn't; and we could spend our time passing policies that will help the American worker. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was sorry my friend from North Haven didn't want to yield to me. I was simply going to tell her that I completely concurred with her argument that the job creation that will focus on firefighters is a very, very important thing, and I support that.

Mr. DREIER. Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Let me say that the notion of discussing a wide range of issues as I did, talking about the critical importance of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program of $1.2 billion and the SAFER Program of an additional billion dollars, is critical--and we support that. We support that very enthusiastically. But President Obama is at this point in Korea, and that is what led me to talk about the importance of our dealing with job creation. As I talk to my constituents, Mr. Speaker--jobs, jobs, jobs--that is the message that continues to come through loudly and clearly. And the notion of expanding private-sector jobs is something that I believe we should be encouraging through improved tax and regulatory policy, bringing about marginal rate reduction, decreasing the regulatory burden and, Mr. Speaker, opening up new opportunities for U.S. workers here in the United States of America, which is exactly what is being said to President Obama as he meets in Korea at this moment with their leadership, with President Lee and others. And so I think that we need to have our attention in this Congress focused on the priority that the American people have. Firefighting is very, very important. But, again, this measure will pass--if not unanimously, nearly unanimously--and it will do so, and I hope get the resources to ensure that we never have the loss of life, as I said, of Captain Hall and Specialist Quinones, and others. But I know from having spoken to their families, Mr. Speaker, that they believe that it's absolutely essential for us to encourage private- sector job creation and economic growth, and that's why I'm talking about this priority that needs to be addressed here. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question as we move ahead. Why? Because the issue of reading legislation is another very, very important one that is before us. There is a bipartisan proposal launched by Messrs. Baird and Culberson, supported by Mr. Dent and others, a bipartisan measure which will allow us to, if we defeat the previous question and debate that measure, which calls for 72 hours for the reading of legislation before we bring it to the floor. I suspect that my colleague from North Haven has heard, just as I, that the American people believe that we should read legislation before it comes to the House floor. Right now, we regularly waive the 72-hour, 3-day layover requirement. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. It will not in any way impinge on our ability to move ahead and pass this very important legislation dealing with firefighting. At the same time, it will do something else that the American people have been asking us, and that is to read, review, and consider legislation in a very deliberative manner, which is exactly what the framers of our Constitution wanted us to do. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Let me yield myself such time as I might consume to close by simply saying this is very good and important legislation. It needs to pass. It's being considered, unbelievably, under a structured amendment process. It enjoys strong bipartisan support and should pass with that. I think we should be focusing our attention, as I said, on job creation and economic growth, which is what the American people want us to be spending our time doing here rather than taking a long period of time to debate an issue on which we all agree. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider the bipartisan Baird-Culberson language that would allow us to read legislation before it's considered here over the 72- hour period of time. If by chance--if by chance--the previous question is not defeated and we don't have an opportunity to debate that very important legislation that will allow us to have the 3-day layover, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can come back with an open amendment process, which is another very, very important part of the transparency message which should be coming through. Amendment to H. Res. 909 Offered by Mr. Dreier At the end of the resolution, insert the following new section: Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. The American people have spoken very loudly and clearly. They do not want the Federal Government to control one-sixth of our Nation's economy, and they believe that we should be able to scrutinize legislation. We have over 2,000 pages here. Many of the changes were made late last night, Mr. Speaker, and we have not had what the American people said we needed to have following the debate on the cap- and-trade bill when we had a 300-page amendment dropped on us at 3 o'clock in the morning; that is an adequate amount of time to look at this legislation. My friend from Dallas has talked about unintended consequences. Obviously in those 2,000 pages there are things that none of us want to have happen that we don't know about now, but we've had reported here on the floor a wide range of things that we believe will happen. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the debate on health care reform has been cast on those who are in favor of reform and those who are opposed to reform. We have continued to hear that over and over and over and over again, unfortunately. There is no Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, who does not want to ensure access to quality health insurance and quality health care for our seniors, for our veterans, for our families, for individuals across this country. So let's make it very clear, we all want that to happen. We all want to do what we can, Mr. Speaker, to increase accessibility. We all want to increase accessibility. How do we do that? Well, I believe very fervently that increasing affordability will increase accessibility. If we can make health insurance more affordable, more people in this country will have access to quality health insurance. The substitute that we have offered does just that. It says that the opportunity to have access to the best quality product at the lowest possible price is a right that every American should have. They are denied that today by virtue of the fact that they can't buy insurance across State lines. If you look at our goal of trying to bring about meaningful liability reform, doctors today engage in, as we all know, defensive medicine. They recommend a wide range of tests simply because of their fear of being sued. In my State of California, we have a very, very viable package that deals with that. If we were to take the California model and apply it here at the Federal level, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that we will save $54 billion. $54 billion will be saved. I believe that we need to do everything we can to allow small businesses to come together so that they can, in fact, as large entities do, get lower insurance rates. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can also ensure that we address the challenge of preexisting conditions so that Americans with those preexisting conditions are not denied access to quality health insurance and health care. We can do that, and that is exactly what our substitute does. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have continued to have this characterization that if we don't support this measure, if we don't support this measure which takes control of one-sixth of our Nation's economy, we are not committed to reform. That is outrageous. We believe that a step-by-step approach is the proper route for us to take. I like very much what our friend from North Carolina earlier said: We don't need a complete overhaul. We need to fine-tune this system to ensure that every single American does have access to quality, affordable health care. Vote ``no'' on this rule. We can do better. It is truly unfortunate that the healthcare debate has come to be cast as a fight between those who favor and those who oppose reform. There is not a single Member of this House who does not support the idea of improving the accessibility and the quality of healthcare in America. We all want to expand access to coverage for the individuals, working families, seniors and veterans who are worried about their healthcare. I am a strong proponent of reforming our healthcare system in a way that enhances the affordability and availability of quality healthcare options, without limiting patient choice. There are a number of steps we can take to reduce costs for working families without rationing care or raising taxes. Lowering costs is central to expanding coverage, because affordability enhances accessibility. For example, we must implement medical malpractice reform and redirect resources from trial lawyers to patients. My state of California has been a leader in medical liability reform. We have realized substantial savings, simply by limiting exorbitant trial lawyers' fees, as well as speculative, noneconomic damages. Without limiting economic damages, medical expenses or punitive damages, the state of California has been able to save consumers tens of billions of dollars. The limit on trial lawyers' fees alone has saved nearly $200 million over 7 years. As a result, we have some of the lowest medical malpractice rates in the country. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that nationwide implementation of reforms similar to California's would result in savings of up to $54 billion over 10 years. This isn't just about companies' bottom lines or state budgets, these cost savings have a real impact on working families, especially during these difficult economic times. As I said at the outset, affordability and accessibility go hand in hand. One independent study showed that partially reversing the reforms that California has implemented would raise healthcare costs for families of four by over $1,000 a year. That is a tremendous burden that families cannot bear. And it underscores the reality that excessive costs are the biggest impediment to access to healthcare. Furthermore, medical liability reform has proven to not only reduce costs, but to increase quality as well. States with lower medical malpractice premiums tend to have more doctors per capita, including surgeons and specialists. For example, Texas implemented reform 6 years ago, and subsequently saw an increase in doctors of nearly 18 percent. Twenty-four counties that previously had no ER doctors now have emergency services. We must also address the challenge of overlapping government programs. The cost of providing services for those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid is nearly $250 billion every year. And yet, there is no comprehensive effort to coordinate these programs to ensure that overlap does not result in wasteful spending. As Governor Schwarzenegger proposed, states could be given the authority and flexibility to coordinate these programs, as well as the opportunity to share in the cost savings. We also need to empower small businesses to provide more affordable healthcare options. They should have the ability to band together, to achieve the economies of scale that large corporations and labor unions have. Small businesses and individuals should also be able to purchase insurance across state lines. And we can provide tax incentives to make coverage more accessible. Finally, we must eliminate the rampant waste, fraud and abuse that are dramatically and needlessly driving up costs. Each of these proposals would significantly reduce costs for individuals and families without diminishing the quality of care. In fact, they would enhance the quality of healthcare in this country. Greater competition and greater accountability in the healthcare industry would provide Americans with more choices--and better choices. Some have made the very dubious claim that expanding options for consumers would somehow diminish the quality of our healthcare. They have said that reforms, such as giving small businesses and individuals the flexibility to purchase insurance across state lines, would spark a race to the bottom. But increasing competition and accountability would have precisely the opposite effect. When patients have more choices and more flexibility, the result will be higher-quality care. And by addressing the root issue of affordability, we can effectively expand access for all, including those with pre-existing conditions. The commonsense reform measures we are proposing would accomplish this without raising taxes or diminishing coverage for a single American. And we would expand access while allowing those who are happy with their current coverage to keep it. Perhaps most important of all, these straightforward yet significant reforms would keep patients and doctors at the center of healthcare decisions--without the interference of government bureaucrats. This is a positive, workable, effective reform proposal, and it is the reform agenda that Republicans are pursuing. If we'd had a collaborative, bipartisan process from the beginning, I believe this is the kind of reform proposal that could have gained widespread support from both parties here in Congress. Certainly these are solutions that are widely supported by the American people. So it is extremely unfortunate that the Democratic Majority has chosen to put forward a divisive, unworkable, enormously expensive proposal that will improve neither accessibility nor the quality of healthcare. In fact, I believe this legislation would accomplish precisely the opposite of its stated goals. A dramatic expansion of the government role in our healthcare system is an utterly nonsensical way to try to enhance efficiency, cut costs or improve quality. Furthermore, government bureaucrats are the last people that Americans want to have making their healthcare decisions for them. Our national unemployment rate sailed past 10 percent last month, as we just found out on Friday, while California's is at 12.2 percent. As our economy continues to struggle on its road to recovery, now is the worst possible time to impose significant new taxes on the American people. And with the announcement of the Democratic Majority's $1.4 trillion deficit, we simply cannot afford to enact more than a trillion dollars in new government spending--an estimated figure that would be sure to balloon if implemented. The Democratic Majority's so-called reform bill is a fiscal disaster that will make our healthcare system--already in need of reform-- substantially more inefficient, wasteful and costly, and make quality care even less accessible. Today's vote is not a vote to reject or support healthcare reform. Today's vote is about the path we will choose as a nation to pursue better and more affordable healthcare. Republicans have put forth solutions that will cut costs while improving care, and we can achieve this without raising taxes or further crippling our nation with even more debt. The Democrats have put forth a proposal that would take us in precisely the opposite direction-- higher costs, lower-quality care, new taxes and a bigger deficit. I urge my colleagues to support real reform.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to object. Am I allowed to be heard under that reservation at this juncture?