David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members be able to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. I raise a point of order against consideration of the resolution because it violates clause 9(b) of House rule XXI, which states that it shall not be in order to consider a rule or order that waives the application of clause 9(a) of House rule XXI, the earmark disclosure rule. The rule waives the application of the earmark disclosure rule against the amendment printed in part A of the committee report. The amendment is self-executed by the rule and, therefore, evades the application of clause 9. I doubt that the self-executed amendment contains any earmarks; however, there is no statement in accordance with rule 9 that it does not.

Mr. DREIER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means is a great friend of mine. I'm always happy to yield to him. I was trying to yield to the gentleman from Worcester who is managing this rule----

Mr. DREIER. I would simply inquire as to whether or not the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the former chairman of the committee, was invited to participate in this much heralded bipartisan agreement to which Mr. McGovern has referred. And I guess the answer that I'm getting with all of this convoluted stuff is no. Well, you know what? Maybe I should yield to the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to inquire of him. Mr. Rangel and Mr. McGovern seem to be unable to answer the question as to whether or not the distinguished former chairman, the ranking member, was invited to participate in this great bipartisan package that we've got. I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for enlightening us on that, Mr. Speaker, and I will simply say that that demonstrates that, as we've heard about this great quest for bipartisanship in dealing with an issue which should have been completely bipartisan, and was when the Republicans were in the majority, I will say. The American people were represented here in a bipartisan way in fashioning a State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, that had, first, a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, sign it, and it was a Republican work product. It saddens me that today we now have a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, and this Republican President is going to veto the measure. Why? Because it dramatically expands the welfare state, undermines the ability for children who are truly in need to get it, and as was pointed out in an Energy and Commerce item, it's a reverse Robin Hood. It takes from the poor with a tax increase, the most regressive tax of all, as was stated by the Congressional Budget Office, and it gives to people who shouldn't even be able to qualify for this program. And that is, I believe, just plain wrong. It is a mischaracterization of what we should see in a SCHIP program. Everybody wants to make this happen. Governors across the country wanted to make it happen. Of course, they want to have access to these resources. And Democrats and Republicans want to make it happen. But this is not the right bill. If Mr. Barton had been able to participate, I'm convinced that we would have, Mr. Speaker, had a very decent bill on this. Now, let me just say that the other thing that really troubles me is what we held our last vote on just a few minutes ago. Let me just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, say that we tried very, very hard at the beginning of this Congress to take the majority at their word when they said there was going to be a great new era of transparency and disclosure and accountability. Well, 10 days ago, Mr. Speaker, we marked the first anniversary of our passing real earmark reform in this institution. What did it say? It said there would be transparency, accountability and disclosure on items, not just appropriations bills, but on authorizing bills and on tax bills. And, unfortunately, in this so-called new era of transparency and disclosure in this new Congress, we completely subvert the notion of transparency and disclosure on earmarks, as is evidenced in this bill. When we in the Rules Committee last night saw the majority, and they all voted, we had a recorded vote on this. They chose to waive the provision that would have, in fact, had an opportunity for disclosure and accountability; and they voted, again, against it right here on the House floor. That's why, as was said by Mr. Rogers earlier, we have a discharge petition so that we can do what we did last September 14, a year ago, and that is have real earmark reform. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER. I'd be happy to yield to my very good friend from New York.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I was happy to yield to my friend to answer my question. It was a yes or no question.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield me 1 minute so that I could ask the question again?

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield me 30 seconds so that I can ask the question? We've got a limited amount of time here and a lot of speakers.

Mr. DREIER. So the gentleman chooses not to answer my question then.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Dallas for yielding this time, and I thank him for his great, very thoughtful statement on this issue. I have got to say, as I did last night when we met in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, that it really saddens me that we are here at this point. It was very proudly in a Republican Congress with a Democratic President that we came together in a bipartisan way to ensure that the very, very underprivileged in this country, children, would have access to health insurance. It is something that existed for 10 years, and we know that there are still children who are in need and we want to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that children have an opportunity to have access to quality health care. Mr. Speaker, this ain't it. This is not the answer. I listened to my friend from Worcester begin this very thoughtful statement about bipartisanship. He mentioned two House Republicans and two Senate Republicans who made this a wonderful bipartisan measure. But I would like to yield to my friend and engage in a colloquy with him, if I might. I see here on the floor the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee that has had jurisdiction over this issue. And I would like to inquire of my friend if he knows if the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) was ever invited, as he hails this great spirit of bipartisanship, to any meeting that was held by the majority in attempts to negotiate this measure. I am happy to yield to my friend from Worcester.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Just to answer the question that was raised earlier, I will say to my friend, if we pass this motion to recommit, I will vote in favor of the legislation and I would recommend that some of the other committee follow the example set.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And I will simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the issue here happens to be jurisdictional as well. He is talking about conference committees and everything. The Rules Committee abdicates this responsibility through expedited procedures by going through this process.

Mr. DREIER. No, the institution is very important.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit to rectify what my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Miami (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), eloquently described as an outrage. What we have done in this measure is unprecedented, and we are undermining the goal that I think most all of us share of trying to have a responsible Federal backdrop to deal with the potential terrorist attack on our country. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we all know is that certainty is absolutely essential when you are dealing with the issue of insurance. Now, we know that people can't run a business without insurance, people can't hire people without insurance, they can't build without insurance. Insurance is absolutely essential. But it is critical that certainty be provided and, unfortunately, it is not being provided under this measure. I would like to quote the letter that was sent from our friend from New York (Mr. Ackerman) to Speaker Pelosi when he said, ``It is our strong belief, however, that making the entire program contingent on Congress passing a second piece of legislation completely undermines the intent and desired effect of the legislation. Under this proposal, policyholders would not know for certain whether their policies would pay out in the event of an attack and insurers could be placed in the unthinkable position of either not paying out on their policies or facing insolvency. The uncertainty that this proposed solution to the PAYGO problem would cause would render the legislation almost completely useless.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that that certainty be provided. Now, I have heard that there is a letter that has come from the Speaker to my friend from New York (Mr. Ackerman) that says this will be rectified. Well, Mr. Speaker, by passing this motion to recommit, we can guarantee that it will be rectified. We can guarantee that it will be rectified because we are in fact sending it back to the committee. Why is it we are doing this promptly rather than forthwith? We know there are PAYGO problems that need to be addressed by this committee. The problem with what we have done is that in the name of trying to protect this poorly crafted PAYGO rule that was put into place at the beginning of the 110th Congress, we are waiving PAYGO. That is exactly what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. So I urge my colleagues, if you in fact want a responsible Terrorism Insurance Act package, we need to recommit this bill to the committee so that they can come out with an even better work product than the one they have today. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DREIER. Absolutely.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, a week ago yesterday we marked the sixth anniversary of one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history, that being September 11, 2001. We all, in the wake of that tragedy, the likes of which we had never seen in our Nation's history, came together and united in a bipartisan way to deal with the aftermath of September 11 of 2001. One of the many things that we did was realize that we are a Nation at war, and in light of that, the private insurance industry, and I am a free marketeer, the private insurance industry needed to have some kind of Federal backdrop if another horrendous terrorist attack is thrust upon the American people. So I supported the notion of saying, you know what, when we are a Nation at war, the free market can't just automatically protect those who are victimized by that kind of attack. So I became a supporter of this and I worked on it early on and supported the extension of it. And as I stand here today, I still believe that we are a Nation at war and it is imperative that we do everything possible to ensure that we, the Federal Government, stand up and play the role that we have to in leading the fight. Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what we are doing with this rule is undermining something that Mr. Arcuri said in his opening remarks that this bill creates: certainty. Mr. Arcuri said that this bill creates certainty. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this self-executed provision in this rule, and my friend Mr. Ackerman from New York understands this very well, is we are completely obliterating any kind of certainty. Now, this was designed as a mandatory program. Mandatory, why? Because if we face the attack, there needs to be certainty that the Federal Government is behind it. Now, I know that many people will say, oh, of course the Congress is going to take action, of course the Congress will do it. You know what, Mr. Speaker? That is not good enough for people who are investors, people who are in an industry that is responsible for dealing with the aftermath of the kind of attack that we saw on September 11. That is why I believe it is absolutely imperative that we oppose this rule. We need to do everything that we can in a bipartisan way to defeat this rule. Why? Because we have been given this multipage, self- executing provision which undermines the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. And that is why I am really hard pressed to believe that any member of the House Rules Committee, the traffic cop for this institution, I believe the single most important committee in this institution, how any member could basically cede the authority that we would have on this. And you look at the other committees of jurisdiction that are completely ignored, the Judiciary Committee. The Budget Committee clearly should be involved in this process. We need to have budget process reform. Our committee, our Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, should be holding hearings on this. We should look at the issue of dynamic scoring. Yes, the hands of the Congressional Budget Office are tied because they have to look at 5- and 10-year projections. What we need to do is we need to bring about the kind of responsible reform that can ensure, that can ensure that we have the kind of certainty that is necessary. So, Mr. Speaker, I have got to say that I know that there is strong bipartisan concern about this issue. This is not the way to deal with it. I said if given a simple choice in the Rules Committee between a waiver of PAYGO, which is, I believe, a very flawed rule that was put into place at the beginning of this Congress, or this provision, this self-executing provision, sure, I'd prefer that waiver over that. But there has got to be another solution. And the reason is that this new Congress put into the rules this PAYGO provision, very well intentioned but very, very badly flawed, Mr. Speaker. So I think that if we look at what it is we are doing on this in the name of trying to avoid a waiver of PAYGO, this self-executing provision actually waives PAYGO completely. And so I've got to tell you, this is a horrible rule; it is a horrible process; it is unprecedented. And I hope the Democrats and Republicans alike will join in saying, yes, we need to have a responsible terrorism risk insurance measure passed, but we need to come down with a provision that responsibly budgets that, and this is not it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to my friend from Miami for his very thoughtful and eloquent statement going back to 1790 and the role that patents have played in the very founding of our country. I want to say also, as I look around the floor and think about the Rules Committee meeting that we had, I see the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) who was joined by Mr. Manzullo in the Rules Committee last night, my good friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who was here on the floor. What I will say is that there is bipartisan support for this bill, Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from California (Mr. Berman) correctly said, but there's also bipartisan opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker, and it is for that reason that I believe it is absolutely imperative that we do, as Mr. Diaz-Balart has pointed out, have the most open and transparent process imaginable in dealing with what is seen as a very dull issue. It leads many people to doze off or their eyes to glaze over when talking about patent law, but it is a critically important issue when we think about the basis of the United States of America and property rights and all. While I intend to support final passage of the underlying legislation, a great deal of concern has, in fact, been raised on a number of issues included in this bill, as I said, making it a perfect example as to why this fully open and transparent legislative process, which unfortunately this restrictive rule denies, is a mistake and shouldn't be done. The underlying bill deals with a tremendously critical and fundamental aspect of our economy. It addresses a significant problem but in a way that has raised concerns, and it involves incredibly arcane and technical policy. For all of these reasons, we should be allowing a full and open debate, and I see my friend Mr. Gohmert here who I know has also joined in raising very grave concerns about where it is we're going on this issue. We should be encouraging a greater flow of information, not cutting it off, and unfortunately, this restrictive rule does just that. Ensuring both the protection and the quality of patents is absolutely essential in our high-tech, knowledge-based 21st century economy. A cursory glance at the state of patent litigation is all it takes to see that we haven't gotten it quite right. Patent trolls acting maliciously and bewildered juries facing impossibly technical cases have wreaked a great deal of legal havoc on many of our Nation's great entrepreneurs. The result has been to stifle innovation, the lifeblood of our economy. We've seen some of the worst cases eventually reversed on appeal, but many others have not been. There's no denying that there is great need for reform in our patent law system. However, the underlying bill before us today is not perfect. Real concerns have been raised by a number of innovators and research institutions, many of whom are critical, in this effort, from my State of California, but critical to our economy and our place as one of the world's greatest fonts of innovation and entrepreneurship. We have to be very careful that as we address one problem we don't create another. We have to be very careful that we don't pick winners and losers in our patent system, but that we protect and uphold intellectual property of all kinds. The creators of computer hardware, the developers of revolutionary medical treatments, for example, use patents in very different ways. A piece of hardware may include hundreds of patents, some of which will be obsolete practically before they hit the shelves. On the other hand, a biomedical firm may spend $1 billion over a decade developing a single product using a single patent. Now, Mr. Speaker, these two types of innovators use patents in very different ways, but what they have in common is that intellectual property and innovation are at the very heart of their work, and they both contribute significantly to our economy and to our rising standard of living. We must ensure that our patent system protects both kinds of innovation. While I strongly support the need to move this process forward, these are real concerns that must be fully aired and openly debated. I find it troubling that unlike previous legislation dealing with the issue of patent reform, this bill does not enjoy broad-based support among all types of intellectual property creators. Because consensus was not reached in the committee process, it is all the more important that our floor debate be conducted in an open and transparent way. Yesterday in the Rules Committee, as my friend from Miami said, I proposed that we report out an open rule so that we could, in fact, have a full debate on these issues. Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, that proposal was denied. We also heard, as I mentioned, from our colleagues, Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Michaud, who were requesting at least two hours of general debate, divided not just between Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, but between supporters and opponents of this bill. Again, as I said, it is bipartisan, the opposition, as well as bipartisan, the support, for the bill. That request unfortunately was also denied. Absent a meaningful debate today, these concerns will have to be raised in the Senate and in the Conference Committee. It's unfortunate that our Democratic majority has so little institutional pride that they continuously deny this body an open debate and cede the hard work to another time and another place. That is why I'm encouraging my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule. We shouldn't be running away from a fair and honest debate of these tough issues. The underlying bill and the issues it addresses are too important for us to be shirking our responsibilities. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and let's have a real debate on this very critical matter. And I, again, thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like to join with our colleague in extending congratulations on behalf of all Republican Members to our new colleague, Ms. Richardson. We were all saddened by the untimely passing of our friend and former colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, but knowing that her former field deputy is going to be representing her I know would make Juanita extraordinarily proud. And to go from the city council to the State legislature to the United States Congress within a 1-year period of time is a very, very impressive accomplishment. And I will say that I know the California delegation will continue to work together in a bipartisan way. And we look forward to welcoming Ms. Richardson as part of that effort.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Democrats and Republicans alike have decried what took place late last Thursday night. This previous question which we are about to vote upon would allow the Democrats to erase the most unsightly of blemishes on the already tarnished record that we witnessed governing this institution. It would allow us as a body to heal, and to give democracy an opportunity to once again flourish in this hallowed institution. Mr. Speaker, this previous question vote will in fact give us as a body the opportunity to heal. I urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Diaz-Balart in voting ``no'' on the previous question so we can rectify this wrong. I thank my friend for yielding.