[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 36 (Friday, March 12, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1363-H1368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3650, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND
HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2010
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1168 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1168
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3650) to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and
integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia, and to provide for the development and
implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to
reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Science and Technology now printed in the bill,
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology;
(2) the amendment printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake of
Arizona or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read,
shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R.
3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control
Amendments Act of 2009, under a structured rule.
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The
resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution
provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Science Committee, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as
adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives
all points of order against the bill, as amended. The resolution makes
in order the amendment printed by the Rules Committee report if offered
by Representative Flake or a designee. The resolution waives all points
of order against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a growing problem
along U.S. coasts and they impact almost every coastal district. Some
algae, like red tide, produce toxins that contaminate shellfish and
shut down shellfish beds to local harvesters.
Severe red tide blooms can be harmful to tourism across the country.
When red tide affects an area, people can't go in the water, seafood
isn't bought and sold, and stores and hotels along the coast are empty.
Over the past few decades, harmful algae have begun to bloom more
frequently and with greater intensity. HABs are one of the most complex
and economically significant coastal management challenges facing the
Nation.
We know that algae growth is influenced by a number of factors,
including light, water temperature, salinity, and nutrient
availability, but the factors that drive outbreaks like red tide are
not understood as well, and additional efforts are needed to monitor,
control, prevent, and mitigate these outbreaks.
A professor at the University of Maine has done research that shows
that the blooms start offshore and are blown towards shore by easterly
winds. This sounds simple enough; yet in the field of red tide
research, this was groundbreaking work.
Addressing HABs on a national level requires a coordinated approach
that involves a number of Federal agencies, including the EPA and NOAA.
The underlying bill oversees the development and implementation of
regional research and action plans to help coastal managers understand
and deal with HAB outbreaks.
New England, and Maine in particular, have been especially hard hit
by outbreaks. Severe red tide events occurred in 4 of the last 5 years,
causing tens of millions of dollars in lost income to shellfish
harvesters.
The shellfish industry is vital to the Maine economy, Madam Speaker.
Over 2,000 harvesters and dealers depend directly on access to healthy
shellfish beds to make their living and support their families. Maine's
Department of Marine Resources estimates total annual economic value of
the shellfish industry in Maine to be about $50 million.
Last spring and summer, the shellfish industry in Maine was shut down
because of severe red tide bloom. At its peak, the density of the red
tide toxin was nearly 100 times the federally mandated quarantine level
and closed 97 percent of the State's shellfish beds and 100 percent of
the offshore beds in Federal waters. Many shellfish harvesters were
stuck on land for months with nowhere to go. This all occurred during
the peak of the tourist season, and the results were devastating.
Coastal families rely on the income generated during the short summer
months to carry them through Maine's long, cold winters; and the timing
could have not have been worse for these hardworking harvesters. Not
only were they missing out on the best time to sell their product, but
they had no way of knowing when it would be okay to return to the
mudflats. The uncertainty made it impossible to know whether to look
for other employment or to wait and see if the next week would bring
clear water.
Predictions for 2010 indicate that it could be an even worse year for
red tide in the Gulf of Maine. According to a recent NOAA report, the
cysts that cause red tide are at some of the highest levels ever
measured, 60 percent higher than what was observed in the sediments
prior to the historic red tide of 2005.
While red tide in Maine is a coastal issue, HABs are increasingly
occurring in our inland lakes and rivers. Blue-green algae blooms in
some Midwest lakes and the Great Lakes have killed
[[Page H1364]]
dozens of dogs and poisoned people all over the region. Frequently,
these freshwater algae blooms are caused by a combination of droughts
and fertilizer runoff. These outbreaks lead to rashes, sore throats,
and other health concerns. This bill helps address algal blooms in
lakes as well.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill, and I am glad
that Senator Snowe from Maine is a leader on this issue in the Senate
and is the author of the Senate companion legislation. I look forward
to continuing to work with her to improve the economic health of our
coastal communities.
This bill will help shellfish harvesters in every coastal community
by improving our knowledge and ability to predict red tide blooms. We
need a national strategy to address HABs and to provide for the
development of regional action plans to reduce HAB outbreaks.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the
underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. 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.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I appreciate my colleague's yielding, and I
appreciate his thoughtful comments about red tide and hypoxia research.
I can only answer for the residents of my home State, who are deeply
concerned about algal blooms, red tide, the economic impact in our
communities, and the importance of passing this legislation so that the
research is done.
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.
{time} 0930
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
[[Page H1365]]
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.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I had no idea that we were here
to debate health care this morning, but I appreciate that the
gentleman, my friend from California, has brought up the differences
between us. I would like to make a couple of points.
First off, we are here today to take up this bill that could have
been done under a suspension; but as I understand, my colleague voted
``no'' when this bill originally came to the floor, which is why we're
back here today--to pass what is a relatively simple, I agree, piece of
legislation but what is very important in coastal districts like mine.
Yes, we do have a disagreement on health care legislation, and I wish
that your caucus were doing what my caucus is doing right now, which is
going through the health care legislation that we hope to bring to this
floor soon, line by line, to make sure that we are confident this is
excellent legislation to move forward the cause of health care reform,
something on which he and I don't agree.
I support very strongly and am looking forward to the debate that we
will have on this floor about that health care legislation, and I am
thrilled with the year and a half that I have spent here and with the
number of hours that the committees and Members on both sides of the
aisle, Republicans and Democrats, have put in in crafting health care
legislation. Now, we may not agree on the final product, and that will
come down to a vote. You're right. It will depend on making sure that
we have enough votes on our side of the aisle, and I am glad that we
are making sure that everyone feels confident about that vote.
You know, it was interesting. I, as you know, am a freshman, so I
wasn't here in previous years when you were. But when you talk about
arm-twisting and about getting votes, I am reminded of the stories that
I've heard about passing the prescription drug legislation, and about
what it took for the other party, in the middle of the night and with a
vote open for many hours, to pass a piece of legislation. I have to
say, from my perch as a former State legislator from a State where the
cost of prescription drugs is crippling the health care costs for many
of our senior citizens, I was shocked to see what that final piece of
legislation came to be. I am thrilled that our health care legislation,
which I believe will be on this floor soon, will fix some of the
problems in there, but, I'm sorry to say, not all.
I remember hearing about that legislation. Was it 2 hours or was it 3
hours in the middle of the night when people were convinced to change
their votes so as to get the votes, and when every minute counted to
get one more vote? That was the legislation that left us with this
tremendous doughnut hole of which our senior citizens talk to me every
day. Frankly, that's the public opinion polling that I hear about when
I go back to my district.
Yet it's not a public opinion poll. It's senior citizens who come up
to me and ask, Do you see what it costs me to buy my prescription
drugs? Do you see what happens when I get into the doughnut hole?
Here is what they really ask me. They ask, How could the Republican
Party, in the middle of the night and in twisting arms for every vote,
pass a piece of legislation that doesn't allow us to negotiate with the
pharmaceutical manufacturers for the price of prescription drugs? I can
tell you, in my home State of Maine, this was an issue for years.
When I first got elected in 1992 to my State legislature, senior
citizens came up to me and asked, Do you see what it costs me to buy my
prescription drugs? Then, every year, it got worse and worse and worse
as the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which are some of the wealthiest
corporations and multinational corporations in this country,
[[Page H1366]]
were able to sell their drugs at the highest prices in the world to
senior citizens in America. Those people had to pay cash for their
prescription drugs. Those people had to decide whether to put heating
oil in their tanks to keep warm or put food on their tables.
The Republicans came to the point where they could have changed the
law like they've done in Canada or like they've done in virtually every
other country in the world. They could have done what they're always
telling us: Be like a good business, have good business practices. You
know, I own a small business. I wouldn't think of buying something I
didn't negotiate for. Well, that's what that bill said. It said we
won't negotiate. In fact, we'll give them sweetheart deals. We'll say
to our senior citizens, You know what? You're going to pay the highest
prices in the world, so there will be no cost savings. These are the
same Republicans who tell us now there aren't enough cost savings in
our health care bill. They use it as an excuse, but that was what was
done in the dark of the night, for 3 hours, in holding open a debate.
Do you know how I first found out about this? I got on a bus with
senior citizens from the State of Maine. Let me tell you how it worked.
We'd stop in Biddeford, Maine. Then we'd go to Portland, Maine. Then
we'd go to Lewiston, Maine. We'd stop at places all along the State of
Maine, and we'd drive all the way up to the Canadian border. We'd get
all the way to the Canadian border, and we'd visit with a duly licensed
physician so that they could have their prescriptions rewritten and
they could take them across the Canadian border legally. So then we'd
go to a Canadian drug store. This is a busload of senior citizens. We'd
go into that Canadian drug store, and they'd buy their prescriptions. I
want to tell you about one person I sat next to on one of the many bus
trips.
I sat next to a person who had to take Tamoxifen, which is a
wonderful drug that we're glad we have for breast cancer, but this
person takes 30 pills a month. At that point, I think it cost her about
$150 a month for her 30 pills. When we got across the Canadian border,
it was $12.35. In my opinion, that was highway robbery. Do you know why
that was? Because the Canadian Government, just like every other
Western nation, requires that they negotiate for the best prices
possible.
So, as far as I'm concerned, that's what should have been in that
prescription drug plan that was decided in the middle of the night when
arms were twisted to get every last vote. That is what should be:
closing the doughnut hole and lowering prescription drug prices in the
health care bill that we will debate soon.
{time} 0945
As far as I am concerned, I am thrilled that members of my caucus are
here today to go through line by line, to make sure that we are getting
the best possible health care plan we can get. And I will say, it is
not going to be everything I want in a health care plan.
I come from the State of Maine. Our doctors think that single payer
ought to be the health care plan in Maine, and I am right there with
them, but I know that is not what we are going to get to vote on here
on the floor. But I am anxious to make sure that we get the best
possible compromise, and I would be thrilled if some of the members of
your caucus would vote for that bill. I would be thrilled.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
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.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Well, thank you so much for yielding your time
and for allowing me to address this topic, and even though we are here
to address algal blooms, I appreciate the chance to go back and forth
on this important topic.
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.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you. And just to answer your point, I,
too, think it is essential that we continue our research and
development here in this country. Frankly, much of it is done around
the world on research and development. But I don't think that
negotiating for a better price, that lowering the prices to our senior
citizens, would cost us research and development. And, frankly----
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?
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. First off, I would prefer to answer you on my
own time, because it seems to me when you yield me your time, you
usually answer for me. So I would rather wait until I have my 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.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I have to say I am unprepared to answer your
question about the research and development tax credit for the
pharmaceutical industry--I know that I have industries in my State that
benefit from that tax credit--before I say yes or no about the solution
that you are proposing.
But I do want to go back to one other thing----
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just say, because I control the
time----
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. See, I don't think you are letting me finish my
answer, so you go ahead.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend further,
but the gentlewoman has chosen to say she doesn't know whether or not
she would support making permanent the research and development tax
credit, when we all know that would play a critical role in driving
costs down for our seniors and others.
Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is we are here at this juncture
dealing with a measure that may be important to some, but this measure
was
[[Page H1367]]
considered, as I said, under an emergency structure upstairs in the
Rules Committee.
Now, I ask the question, when the President made his decision to
delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia from March 18 to March 21 or
22, was that so that he could deal with the emergency of signing
legislation dealing with algal blooms and hypoxia research? I don't
think so. But that is the measure, as my friend said, she wanted to
discuss here on the House floor today, when in fact we know, we know
that arm-twisting is taking place. And to liken, to liken the structure
that is taking place with what happened 5 years ago is preposterous.
It is true, it is true that under the rules of the House that vote
may have been left open, and as a by-product of that we have seen
literally millions and millions of seniors have access to affordable
prescription drugs.
Madam Speaker, I have to say that that pales in comparison to this
unprecedented and outrageous structure that is being utilized, that is
being utilized to ram down the throats of the American people something
that they don't want.
Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I will just say a couple of more
things again.
I am thrilled that the President has decided to focus all of his
energy on health care. I think that the people of this country have
waited long enough for health care reform, and I am anxious to see it
come to this floor. I am anxious to see us bring it to final passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
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.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I have no further requests for time, and I will
continue to reserve my time.
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. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate so much the points my friend
from California has been making. Here there have been discussions about
health care and the White House wanting to take that over for the
American people, and it really is highlighted by something that I ran
into just this morning at the White House.
Now, we know from the prior hearings that were held that apparently
the Social Secretary had a meeting with people at security at the White
House and decided to change protocol so she wouldn't be there, and so
some people got waved in that shouldn't have gotten waved in. As a
result, what has happened now, with Members of Congress, it used to be
that if you gave 24 hours' notice with Social Security numbers, date of
birth, all that kind of thing, you could get six people into the White
House at 8 o'clock, 7:45, something like that the next morning. Now,
under this White House that was changed to where they want 48 hours.
Okay, fine.
As a result of the incompetent handling over letting people into the
White House that shouldn't have been, not by the Secret Service, not by
the armed guards there--now they have doubled the number of guards that
are out there--they now make both Members of Congress and those people
who are obviously law-abiding and have had their security checked and
double-checked with not one smudge on their record, now they have to go
clear down a block away to 15th Street and go through security there.
The Member of Congress, like today in the rain, has to go down a
block and then go through security there, with double the number of
guards, and then come up and go through security again and go through
guards again, all not because Secret Service messed up or the armed
guards that are now doubled in number, but because somebody in the
White House staff screwed up. Now they are deciding to punish Members
of Congress and law-abiding citizens that normally just get in.
The point here is that this is a circus over there. Nobody seems to
know what is going on. When accountability was demanded and the Social
Secretary was requested by Members of Congress to come testify, they
said, ``We are not going to let you come testify.''
The same thing happened on the Auto Task Force. Could you have them
at least come tell us about their secret meetings, these czars and all
that stuff? ``We are not going to be accountable.''
It is a circus going on over there, and now the people in the circus
want to be in charge of your health care. Good grief. It is time to say
we don't want clowns in charge of something as important as our health
care. I don't even want them in charge of algal blooms.
With that, I appreciate the time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful
remarks.
Let me just close--I know my colleague is prepared to do the same--by
making a couple of comments.
I began by pointing to the fact that in California we have a number
of counties with an unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent. In part
of the area I represent in suburban Los Angeles, we have an
unemployment rate in excess of 14 percent. We have, obviously,
tremendous numbers of home foreclosures and small business people are
unable to gain access to credit.
I believe that we can get our economy growing boldly, strongly, and
dynamically, with bipartisanship--and I underscore that term
``bipartisan,'' Madam Speaker--by utilizing the John F. Kennedy-Ronald
Reagan approach with marginal tax rate reduction which, during the
1960s under John F. Kennedy and the 1980s under Ronald Reagan,
stimulated economic growth by reducing marginal tax rates and doubled,
doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
Everyone is decrying the $1.4 trillion deficit and the $12 trillion
debt that we have today. And what is it we are doing? We are sitting
here with a discussion about algal blooms and hypoxia research, and we
are witnessing arm-twisting to see the Federal Government take control
of one-sixth of our economy, while the American people want us to focus
on job creation and economic growth.
{time} 1000
We can be doing that, Madam Speaker, if we can refocus our attention
to where it is that the American people want us to be. And I urge a
``no'' vote on this rule.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague from California.
We have had a lively debate this morning on a whole variety of
issues. I had no idea I was going to have the pleasure of coming to the
floor to talk about the bus trips with senior citizens, about the
prescription drug debate in the middle of the night and many of the
things that have been part
[[Page H1368]]
of our process for years before I was ever here. And I thank you for
that opportunity to go back and forth on those issues.
I appreciate your thoughts and our differences of opinion on this
issue of health care reform. I want to reiterate we are here today on
the issue of algal blooms and red tide and a variety of things that are
important to my constituents here in Maine.
The reason this bill is here on this floor today is because many of
those on the other side of the aisle, including my Republican
colleague, whom we have been going back and forth with today, Mr.
Dreier, voted ``no'' on the bill when it first hit the floor and we are
taking up again.
I would like to close and stick to the topic for a minute and let us
move forward with our business today making sure that we continue to
bring more bills around jobs here, and I hope that we have some
Republican votes on our future jobs bill and certainly on our health
care bill.
In closing, I just want to say that the 2009 red tide in Maine hit
our coastal communities hard. Most shellfish harvesters are self-
employed and make the majority of their living in the summer months.
Every day, shellfish harvesters were calling the State agencies and
asking for help with mortgages payments, utility bills, doctor bills,
car payments, and even food. In my State and in many coastal States,
these are jobs. These are jobs that keep families working through the
summer and help them get through the winter.
The economic impact of closing much of the coast to shellfish
harvesters, aquaculturists and related businesses was conservatively
estimated to be between $1.6 million and $2.5 million each week. This
is real money to coastal States in every corner of this country.
This bill will make a difference for coastal communities. With
improved testing and tracking, scientists will be able to accurately
identify localized areas. This means that smaller portions of the coast
will be shut down instead of entire regions. In addition, it will build
on so much of the good work that has already been done, improve our
prediction and monitoring capabilities, and take steps to mitigate the
impact of red tide and other HABs. We need a national program dedicated
to coordinating and integrating Federal resources to minimize or even
prevent HABs in both fresh and saltwater. Enhanced coordination will
help resource managers make better decisions, and with better decisions
will come less economic hardship in our coastal communities.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________