[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H129-H137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2990, QUALITY CARE FOR THE
UNINSURED ACT OF 1999
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion to instruct
conferees on the bill (H.R. 2990) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individuals greater access to health insurance through a
health care tax deduction, a long-term care deduction, and other
health-related tax incentives, to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to provide access to and choice in health care
through association health plans, to amend the Public Health Service
Act to create new pooling opportunities for small employers to obtain
greater access to health coverage through HealthMarts; to amend title I
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of
the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage; and
for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Berry moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2990 be instructed.
(1) to take all necessary steps to begin meetings of the
conference committee in order to report back expeditiously to
the House; and
(2) to insist on the provisions of the Bipartisan Consensus
Managed Care improvement Act of 1999 (Division B of H.R. 2990
as passed by the House), and within the scope of conference
to insist that such provisions be paid for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas),
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 3 months since the House passed a bipartisan
Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. The American people still do not
have protections they want and deserve. Mr. Speaker, last night, I
offered the motion to instruct conferees. The conferees deserve the
opportunity to meet on this legislation. We need to get to work on
finishing the job the American people sent us here to do.
Last October, the House passed a strong bill. That is what I am
asking the House to do now. Let the conferees meet. Let the Congress
vote on a strong bill that will give the American people the patient
protection they deserve and are asking for.
While we delay, millions of American families needlessly suffer from
the consequences of allowing HMO bureaucrats to make medical decisions.
Let us allow medical decisions to be made by doctors and patients, not
someone behind a desk. Americans want a bill that has a strong
independent review of HMO decision. They want a bill that is going to
address the unfortunate case when the HMO causes injury or wrongful
death, that they will be held responsible like any other business in
America.
Congress needs to take action on passing the bipartisan legislation
to provide the American people with basic protections and basic
guarantees when it comes to managed care.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, the kind of political move that
belies the argument that people want to come to a successful conclusion
on a Senate-passed bill and a House-passed bill. We would have no
ability whatsoever to reconcile the differences between the bills if
the Senate were to insist on its position and, in fact, the House
voted, as this measure indicates they want us to vote, to lock
ourselves into our position.
Now, first of all, we know that motions to instruct are not binding;
that Members do not have to follow the vote one way or the other. But
it is a clear indication that somebody wants political game playing
rather than a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I stand prepared as a conferee, as I am sure all the
other conferees are prepared, to sit down and, over some very difficult
subject matter, come to mutual agreement so that, as the Constitution
requires, bills that differ in passing the House and Senate can be
reconciled, repassed by the House and Senate so the legislation can
actually go to the President for his signature.
If somebody wants a patient protection bill with solid standards and
with the acceptable practices that several years ago we voted very
noncontroversially in the Medicare provisions, like emergency rooms,
like no-gag rules, like the other provisions that we have already
passed, then this is exactly the wrong motion to offer.
If Members want to keep a football kicking even after the Superbowl,
if they want to play politics with the issue, this is exactly the kind
of motion that they would offer.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we are beginning this year with this
kind of deceptive action, and I certainly would urge Members that what
they ought to do is allow the conference to do its work, come to a
successful conclusion, and not inhibit it by making demands that on
their face cannot be met.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution. It is one
upon which the House has, in substance, voted not once, but twice
before. It is a good resolution. It simply says two things: One, that
the conference should commence its business quickly; and two, that the
conference should keep in mind and support the House-adopted position
with regard to Patients' Bill of Rights.
I am rather distressed to hear the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), my old friend, talk about this as being political. It is not.
It is simply orderly business of the House provided for in the rules.
It is a resolution which is going to expedite the process. There is no
politics here.
The House has spoken on this matter not once, but twice. The people
want it. The country needs it. The House should vote affirmatively on
this so that we can proceed in an orderly and speedy fashion towards
the adoption of a piece of legislation that the people have said is not
only needed, necessary, but badly wanted and very, very useful to the
people in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a favorable vote on the resolution, I commend my
good friend for his resolution and I urge my colleagues to vote
affirmatively and to do so amicably and in the goodwill that is
deserved.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the cosponsor of the legislation. And I would
tell the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that my point is
substantiated by the next speaker. Most of us referred to that bill as
the Dingell-Norwood bill.
[[Page H130]]
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very
clear. I certainly support the conference committee taking action on
managed care reform as soon as possible, as Members on both sides of
the aisle would agree to.
But we do have to ask ourselves why are we bringing this motion
before the House again today? We have finally received a commitment
from House and Senate leaders to produce a final bill by early April,
which will include the ability to sue ERISA-governed HMOs that cause
injury and death. This is a massive concession by many who have been
opposed to restoring the rights to sue. They should be welcomed with
open arms.
Instead, I fear we may be poisoning the negotiations by rewarding
them with a political slap in the face. I do not know of any
nonpolitical reason why we have the motion today. However, because I
fully support patient protections, I will not vote against this motion.
This is only our second day back to voting. People who have been our
hard-core opponents are now offering an olive branch. We need to take
it and make the best of it that we possibly can make.
For that reason, I will not vote for this new motion. For now I will
simply vote ``present.'' We need to encourage negotiation. The GOP
leadership should be able to compromise in good faith on liability.
Democratic leaders should be able to do the same on accessibility. I
believe that President Clinton, the Republican leadership, the
Democratic leadership, should accept immediately the 90 percent of the
reforms that everyone agrees on that were in both the Norwood-Dingell
and the Coburn-Shadegg bills, and all three should work out a
compromise on liability and access.
Mr. Speaker, it can and it must be done, but now is not the time to
embarrass anybody. Now is not the time for politics from either side.
Now is the time for serious people to have a serious discussion about
the policy, the health care policy in this Nation that affects every
one of our constituents.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it was last October when this House, this
body acted on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Our colleagues ask why are
we bringing this motion forward? We are bringing it forward because it
is time for Congress to act. There is hardly a week that goes by that I
don't receive letters and telephone calls from constituents that have
been hurt by their HMOs, that have been denied access to emergency care
and denied access to specialists, whose physicians spend more time on
the telephone arguing with HMOs than treating their patients.
{time} 1530
It is time for this Congress to act, and that is why my friend from
Arkansas is offering this motion.
This bill has been in conference for too long. It is not a new issue.
It has been with us now for several years. Let us schedule a meeting of
the conference committee. Let us meet and act on the bill. We do not
need to wait until April or May. This issue has been debated. People
are being hurt. We know we need national legislation. It has been
acknowledged in a bipartisan way by Democrats and Republicans alike.
So let us put the politics aside, and let us get down to work and
bring this legislation forward. That is the essence of the motion of
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). I urge my colleagues to
support the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct the
conferees on H.R. 2990.
The American people have been waiting for years for Congress to enact
meaningful, enforceable HMO reform. With more than 120 million
Americans enrolled in managed care plans across the nation, we cannot
afford to delay action any longer.
Mr. Speaker, our citizens worry that to save money, insurers are
skimping on quality and endangering the health and lives of their
members. Our papers and our mailboxes are filled with accounts of
patients who are denied care on the basis of cost. Medical decisions
are being made by insurance company accountants rather than by doctors
and their patients.
Right now, our country has an illogical patchwork of state laws. This
patchwork has prevented the enactment of national standards that
guarantee all patients a set of basic rights. The right to be fully
informed of treatment options, the right to emergency care based on a
prudent layperson standard, the right to see a specialist, the right to
be treated by the drugs that their doctor prescribes for their
condition, the right to appeal health plan decisions to an independent
review board, and the right of action when they are harmed by a health
plan's decisions.
Our conferees have two bills before them that must be reconciled.
Only the House bill, H.R. 2990, contains these important basic rights.
Overwhelmingly, this body has supported not only the Norwood-Dingell
Bipartisan Managed Care Improvement Act, but also my distinguished
colleague from Michigan's motion on November 3 to instruct the
conferees to adopt this bill as the final legislation.
Without further delay, it's time for this Congress to present a bill
to the President that provides meaningful standards for all Americans
in managed care plans. I urge adoption of this motion.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to my friend from Maryland by saying that the actual process is
one of accommodation and compromise between the House and the Senate.
And I certainly would concur if this resolution or motion to instruct
had only the first section, which was to announce immediately a time
for a meeting. But the gentleman well knows that the second section
requires on the part of the House to, without change or amendment,
accept the bill that was voted on the floor of the House. That is pure
unadulterated politics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske), a doctor himself and someone who has worked long and hard on
this issue.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends on both sides of the
aisle who have supported patient protection legislation. We essentially
have voted on this motion to instruct before, and I voted yes on that.
But today I am going to vote present, and here is why.
Today, the Speaker has said that he wants the conference to convene
in the next couple of weeks. The Speaker kept his word about bringing
this issue to the floor when we did, and I trust that he will keep his
word on getting this conference started.
Do I think, as one of the three coauthors of the bill that passed the
House, that the House conferees should stick up for the bill that
passed with a 275 vote margin? Of course I do. But I think that I am
seeing some evidence of a softening of hard positions, and I think that
it would be, as my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood),
said, if an olive branch is held out, we should take it in good spirit.
I think that we should move to getting this legislation passed this
year, and that is why I am going to vote present. It does not indicate
any weakening of my resolve on getting good patient protection
legislation passed. I just simply think that at this point in time this
resolution is not warranted. Why do we not wait to see what happens in
the next few weeks?
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Berry) has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) has 23 minutes remaining.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
this issue.
Too often an insurance clerk gets right in the middle of the
relationship between doctor and patient, and the consequences of that
interference can be absolutely disastrous. We want to do something
meaningful about that problem. It is called a Patients' Bill of Rights.
The same Republican leadership that is up here today saying wait to
the American people is the same leadership that fought tooth and nail
to prevent us from ever taking up a Patients' Bill of Rights in the
first place. The same folks that say wait today are the same people
that came to this floor and voted for every amendment they could come
up with to kill this Patients' Bill of Rights.
The same Republicans that are here today saying wait are the same
Republicans that after their amendments
[[Page H131]]
were defeated, they all voted against a meaningful Patients' Bill of
Rights. The same Republicans that say wait today are the same
Republicans that, after the Senate appointed its conferees,
dillydallied around here, they waited, they delayed, they did anything
they could except act. They waited until the week before we went out of
session to even name conferees.
The same Republicans that say wait today are the same Republicans
that refused to even appoint the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), both doctors and Republicans
who knew something about this issue and cared about patients. They
would not even appoint them as conferees.
They say wait to the American people. We say do something to give
them a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. Is there politics at issue
here? You bet there is politics at issue today. It is the politics of
inaction, which is the whole story of this worthless Republican
leadership.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to talk about the politics
of the situation, except that this is the time. This session we must
pass a bipartisan HMO reform bill.
I want to encourage the conferees to maintain the many
noncontroversial provisions in H.R. 2723 in the conference report, such
as the requirements that managed care patients have access to emergency
care without prior authorization; access to specialized treatment when
it is medically necessary in the judgment of a health professional; and
access to approved clinical trials where the plan must pay for the
routine patient costs associated with the trials.
Also, I want to encourage the conferees to exclude medical savings
accounts in the FEHBP. I oppose MSAs because they would cause
cherrypicking in the FEHBP, resulting in higher premiums for those who
are less healthy as relatively healthy enrollees are included.
So I just ask the conferees to meet, to resolve it. I believe that
the Speaker is going to have a bill before us that will be bipartisan
and that we can all agree on.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
gentleman's motion to instruct conferees, to act quickly, and to pass
the bipartisan House bill.
This morning I read a letter on the floor that I received from David
and Suzanne Miller, two of my constituents from Niles, Illinois. They
asked, and I quote, ``Why can't Congress just do what is right for the
people whose well-being has been entrusted to them?'' Why indeed.
Last November we passed a bill that held out great promise for
millions of patients in managed care plans. That bill, that particular
bill, would make it easier for patients to enroll in clinical trials;
give direct access to women for obstetrician-gynecological services;
ensure that children could get to see their pediatricians and pediatric
specialists; make sure patients undergoing treatment for serious
illnesses can stay with their own doctors rather than being forced to
switch; let health care professionals, not insurance company bean
counters, make medical decisions; and, finally, hold health care plans
accountable and let patients sue if they are injured by HMO decisions.
But, Mr. Speaker, it will do nothing if it is not enacted into law.
Let us not let David and Suzanne Miller down or the millions of
patients who count on us.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Miss
Elizabeth Hines, stated very clearly my position on this issue when she
wrote a letter to me saying, ``As a registered nurse, I urge you to
persuade your colleagues on the conference committee to move ahead and
pass H.R. 2990, to honor the clear imperative from the American people
for enactment of strong, comprehensive and enforceable protections
embodied by the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell legislation. The final bill
must include protection for nurses and other professionals who blow the
whistle so that they can be advocates for their patients.''
I agree with Miss Hines. We need to move now, not tomorrow, not next
week, not next year. The American people are saying, ``Pass it now.''
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the
gentleman for his leadership and all those who stand here on behalf of
the American people.
Not anywhere can we go in this country that people are not begging
for a sensible health care delivery system. We passed this bill 4
months ago. There is no reason why the conference committee could not
have acted back then. But we are desperate now and we do need this.
People scream out for it.
I am a registered nurse, and I see the difference in the quality if
we do not have any accountability. These companies dictate to
physicians. We want to put the health care back into the hands of the
caregiver, not the bureaucrat. Because, my colleagues, what happens is
they dictate to the physicians, they dictate to the nurses, but they do
not want to take the responsibility for it.
Patients need rights. They need to be able to complain when they have
been wronged by the system. We cannot get it until we get a good,
aboveboard nonpartisan approach to it. It is very, very important.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say that I find it ironic that the gentleman from Texas used the
phrase ``you Republicans,'' ``you Republicans,'' ``you Republicans,''
when, in fact, as the gentleman from Illinois said, this is a
bipartisan bill.
I also find it interesting that the two individuals on the bill who
made it bipartisan, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) were our first two speakers, and they
said this does not make a lot of sense. They are not going to vote for
it.
It seems to me that the bipartisan part of my colleagues' argument
has been shattered. If we have a procession of Democrats offering 1
minutes saying this has to be passed now, but the Republicans who made
it bipartisan say this does not make a lot of sense, it looks like
politics is being played, then I think it is fairly obvious. The answer
is, politics are being played.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg), someone who has become very knowledgeable on this subject
matter, has been a major contributor to the debate, and is a conferee.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I want to make it very clear that I oppose this motion to
instruct, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
I think it is important that we look at precisely what the motion to
instruct does. There are two pieces to it, as my colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), pointed out. The first one is
that all necessary steps be taken to begin the meetings.
On that point I think it is very important to note, and for all our
colleagues to understand that, in fact, there has now been an agreement
that a meeting of the conference committee will occur. It will occur
either next week or the week after. It will precede the February break,
which is the week after that. And so steps to begin meetings have in
fact been agreed to, making the first point of the motion to instruct
moot.
I guess I would add on that point that I myself agree with the
concern that the conferees should meet and that we should begin the
process, because I wholeheartedly agree it is critically important
work.
But the second portion of the motion to instruct is the portion of
the motion I think our colleagues should be concerned about and, quite
frankly, which is the portion of the motion to instruct which makes it
technically flawed. And that is that we instruct the conferees
[[Page H132]]
that they insist that H.R. 2723 be included in the conference report.
What that means is that we insist on the House position and the House
position only.
Now, as a proud Member of the House, there might be occasions when I
would like to insist on the House position and the House position only.
But there is no one in this body, Republican or Democrat, who does not
understand that in this conference committee if either the Senate or
the House chooses to insist upon their position and their position
only, the net effect will be tragic.
My colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the proponent
of this motion to instruct, said just a moment ago that people are
suffering today and it would be tragic if we continued to delay because
people will continue to suffer. Well, I think it is very important for
our colleagues to understand that if either side, the House or the
Senate, insists that it is their position in these negotiations or no
position, then in fact what we will get is not a bill, it is not
legislation, it is not relief for the American people, whom I believe
are being abused, it is not legislation that will help them.
If we do as this motion to instruct requires, indeed demands, if we
insist that it is our bill and our bill only, the Norwood-Dingell bill,
which is bipartisan, if we insist that it is that bill and that bill
only, then what we are saying is we do not intend to legislate on this
issue this year; we do not intend to send the President a bill that he
can and will sign, and we do not intend to help the American people.
{time} 1545
Rather what we intend is to save for the election a political issue.
I understand there are people in this body who want a political issue.
I urge them to rethink their position. The reality is we need a
compromise between the House and the Senate version, and we need
legislation to help the American people.
And on that point, I would note that my colleagues, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood),
who were plowing this ground long before I, and who know it well, stood
up and noted that on the critical issue of liability, we have made
great strides in just the last 3 weeks.
Just a few weeks ago, barely a week and a half ago, Mr. Lott
indicated that any legislation which passes this year must include a
reasonable liability provision holding HMOs that hurt people
accountable in a court of law for their conduct; that is a tremendous
stride forward.
And I compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for acknowledging that. But if we
are making progress, then why step back from that? Why insist our way
or no way? I suggest that is a tragic mistake being advocated by those
who do not want to help the American people on this issue, but who
rather want a political issue to go forward on.
And, again, the net effect of insisting our way or no way is that
people will continue to suffer, the very goal this motion to instruct
is designed to alleviate.
There is another critical important issue to be discussed here, and
that is the contents of the bill on the issue of access. My colleagues
on the other side, when the bill passed the House floor, every single
one of them said, we do not want to accept nor will we embrace a single
provision of H.R. 2990 that addresses the problems of access to care by
the uninsured.
There are several pieces in H.R. 2990 that would help America's
uninsured get care. While I heard some movement in the Senate side on
the issue of liability, I have not heard today any movement on the
House side on the issue of access to care. I think that would be a
tragic mistake.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for this Congress to do
something, not just about HMOs and their abuses, but about America's 44
million uninsured. Clearly, we need to do something about that. Indeed
in his State of the Union address just last week, the President talked
about access to care. He proposes three solutions.
To sum it up briefly, the President in his State of the Union address
proposed that we expand government-run health care from two ends, that
we expand Medicaid to younger people and that we expand SCHIP. I would
suggest that that is the best answer. But that the best answer is one
that has a lot of bipartisan support and that is a tax credit, a
refundable tax credit.
And I would note that just last week, our Majority Leader Armey and
Senator Breaux, a knowledgeable expert on the other side of this issue,
proposed irrefundable tax credit. There are great things that can be
done on health care this year. We can support a patients' bill of
rights. We can enact legislation that will help the American people,
but not by this motion to instruct, not by an arbitrary demand that it
be our way or no way.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2990.
I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct the conferees to
begin meetings of the House-Senate managed care conference committee
and insist upon the provisions of the Dingell-Norwood Managed Care
Reform bill. The Dingell-Norwood bill was passed by the House of
Representatives by a strong bipartisan vote on October 7, 1999.
Nevertheless, the Republican leadership has made no progress whatsoever
towards the enactment of this critical legislation. There has not even
been a single meeting of the conference committee since the bill was
passed.
The Dingell-Norwood Managed Care Reform bill, also known as the
Patients' Bill of Rights, would protect patients and their families
from irresponsible actions by HMO's. It would prevent health insurance
companies from rewarding doctors for limiting access to health care,
and it would hold managed care plans legally accountable when their
decisions to withhold or limit health care result in injury or death.
The Patients' Bill of Rights would ensure that medical decisions are
made by health care professionals and not bureaucrats.
Health care should be provided by doctors--not HMO bureaucrats! It is
time that Congress hold health insurance companies accountable and
protect the rights of American families to quality health care.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct the conferees
and send the Patients' Bill of Rights to the President's desk without
any further delay.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who has done great work on this issue and
continues to provide great leadership, to try to help the American
people get health care.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Arkansas
for those kind remarks. And let me just say, I listened to the previous
Republican speaker on the other side of the aisle, and after I listened
to what he said, I am more than ever convinced why we need this motion
to instruct. He said, well, we are going to schedule the conference. It
will be scheduled sometime in February or early March.
Well, the bottom line is it has not been scheduled. The bottom line
is that it has not been scheduled. It is 4 months since we passed this
bill. I am tired of hearing about it is going to be scheduled, it is
going to happen. I hope he is right. But I think that we must insist
that we move to the conference straight with.
The other thing is there is a tremendous amount of frustration on the
part of Democrats and myself on this side of the aisle because so many
efforts have been made by the Republican leadership over the last 2 or
3 years to sabotage the effort to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights.
For 2 years, we saw both Houses of Congress pass what I considered
bad bills, it did not really do any reform. And now the gentleman
suggested somehow we have to wait on the access provisions and the
larger issues of dealing with the uninsured or other health-care issues
have to be brought into this. Again, I think that is nothing more than
an effort to try to delay and delay and delay the Patients' Bill of
Rights.
We know that there is almost unanimous support amongst the American
people for this legislation the way the House passed it. We must insist
on the House version. Because that is the only thing that is going to
be signed into law. That is the only thing that will pass both Houses
overwhelmingly, go
[[Page H133]]
to the President and be signed into law.
If they mess up this legislation with the Senate version that has the
MSAs, even one of my Republican colleagues talked about how bad that
is, the health marts and all these other poison pills that have been
placed in this legislation and get to those other issues, all that
means is that they are going to ruin any possibility of passing the
Patients' Bill of Rights in the way it was passed in the House, the way
the American people want it passed.
So I would maintain, after listening to my colleagues, I feel all the
more we need this motion to instruct. We need to go to conference
forthwith. We need to insist on the House version because that is the
only thing that is going to pass.
Let us get passed what we can get passed and show the American people
that we can accomplish something that helps them rather than
dillydallying for the rest of this year and the rest of this Congress.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) has 19 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 months since we passed
the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell bill and nothing has been done. We have
worked hard to reach that consensus, but the opposition continues to
delay the real reform with gimmicks and watered down proposals that
will wind up doing nothing for patients.
Not only is the conference committee stacked with Members who voted
against the bill, Mr. Speaker, there has not been one meeting since the
bill was passed 4 months ago. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
We have 48 million Americans who belong to self-funded health
insurance plans that have very little protection from neglectful and
wrongful decisions made by their insurance plans.
Now, I would like to have access like my colleague from Arizona talks
about, but it does not do any good to have access if we do not have a
plan that is worth anything, it is not worth the dollar that their
employer or they pay for it. It is not worth it.
We cannot stand by and allow the delay and the maneuvering to
continue to pass a weak bill. Millions of people need help and are
suffering from the consequences and decisions not made by doctors but
made by clerks. What I have heard is that some of the folks who are
making those decisions do not even have the training that a first-year
medical student may have even before they enter.
So we need to pass a strong bill. I am pleased that my colleague from
Arkansas is offering this motion to instruct conferees. We are going to
be here every week until we see some action from the conference
committee. And 4 months is too long.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Strickland).
(Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it has been over 100 days since this
House passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, 100 days. Nothing has
happened.
I have here in my hand a little booklet ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' We
give this booklet to schoolchildren so they will understand.
I suggest the leadership of this House read this book. It is rather
simple. The House passes a bill. The Senate passes a bill. And then
conferees are appointed, and they come together and come up with a
consensus that is then sent to the President for his signature.
We have done step one. We have done step two. It is time for step
three.
I urge the leadership of this House to read this pamphlet and to get
on with the business of the people of this country.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked for and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a miracle or a
coincidence, but for over 100 days after the House passed the bill
there was no meeting scheduled of the conferees. Then last night we
filed this motion calling for a meeting of the conferees, and we hear
there is a meeting going to be scheduled.
It sounds to me like a trip to Lourdes took place and a miracle
occurred, and we accept the miracle very happily.
I have no doubt that there are people in good faith on both sides
that want to pass a real accountability bill for managed care. But I
worry that we might be like the fans of the Tennessee Titans, like my
friend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who believes that if
they had time for just one more play the other night, they would have
tied the game and gone on to win the Super Bowl.
I do not want to be standing here in September or October and saying,
if we just had one more week, just a little more time, we could have
done what the huge majority of Americans want us to do.
Let us get to work right now. Let us have the conference meet, and
let us pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry) for his leadership in this.
Actually, this resolution should be encouraged from both sides of the
aisle. Because health care for families and their children is the most
pressing issue, and we should have to make sure we respond to this, not
waiting and delay. We should be eager that this is here.
This is an opportunity to respond to a pressing need. All across
America, in thousands of communities, families are trying to struggle
how to get the health care they already paid for. They want to make
sure that their adults and their children have emergency care. They
want to make sure they have specialty care. Women and children want to
have protective care. And certainly we want to have long-term
continuity of care.
Patients want to know that their doctors are free to make medical
necessity decisions, not just decisions based on how much to save the
HMO. Good medical decisions by a physician is good for business, and it
certainly should be good for the American people.
I urge the support of this resolution.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we have begun a new year, some say a new
millennium, and it is a new session of the Congress. Yet working
families have come no closer, no closer, to reclaiming control of their
medical decisions.
It is long past due that we enact the Patients' Bill of Rights. Let
us put health-care decisions where they belong, in the hands of doctors
and families.
Every single Member of this House has heard the heart wrenching
accounts of the prescriptions and the procedures that have been denied.
Quite frankly, that is why we were able to take that giant step forward
last year when we passed a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. It is a
balanced bill. It would protect patients' rights without reducing
health care coverage.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of this House has worked
long and hard to try to kill managed care reform. It continues to stand
in the way of this bill. Four months, 4 months they have taken, they
stacked the deck against patient care when they chose to negotiate the
final bill.
The fact of the matter is they are in charge, they could bring this
bill up anytime they want. They are stalling. Let us stop.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry) for all his leadership.
I want to take just a personal privilege and thank the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). When this bill is eventually signed into law,
and we hope it resembles the Norwood-Dingell bill, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) should be standing
[[Page H134]]
right next to the President. There has not been a greater stalwart in
the House in seeing this passed.
I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and all the others,
but the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has been a great
leader.
Cynicism abounds about what we do in this Congress and what we do not
do. We passed a bill here in the Congress some 100 days or more, so
many other colleagues have said, with clear instructions as to where
this body stood on this issue, reflecting where the American people,
regardless of what their political or party affiliations might be.
I was delighted to hear my friend the gentleman from California
(Chairman Thomas) say that we ought to adhere to what both the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and what the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Norwood) have said. I would hope that if some of my colleagues on
this side choose to vote ``present'' on this bill, and I have not made
my mind up, that they might change their opinion on this and support
the Norwood-Dingell bill itself, urge the conferees, the lead Senator
on the Senate side, Mr. Frist, and all the others to do what is right
on this bill, protect consumers and return medical decision making back
to the doctors.
We have an opportunity here today, I say to both my friend from Iowa
(Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), to do
right by the people and restore some confidence in this House in our
ability to do our job.
{time} 1600
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would only note that the gentleman who just spoke said that he
hopes the bill that comes out of conference resembles Dingell-Norwood.
If this motion to instruct passes, it has to look exactly like it. So I
think it is fairly clear that, just as the gentleman from Ohio holding
up the Constitution said, that what we need is a consensus. I think if
anybody looks up ``consensus,'' it means an agreement by all parties.
This motion to instruct says Members can only vote the bill that came
off the floor. The gentleman from New Jersey said that is the only bill
that will go to the President, which means, I guess, that they are
going to be opposed to any reasonable compromise, or something that
resembles Dingell-Norwood.
Once again, I think it clearly underscores what we are about is
politics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, this obviously is quite an emotional
issue. When people talk about patients' rights, all of us want to
protect patients' rights. I can understand how the gentleman from Texas
and other speakers on the other side would say this is a partisan
issue, because we can make it quite a partisan issue. But the point
that I would like to make is that politics is the art of compromise. As
the gentleman from Arizona said, many on that side of the aisle have
taken the position, it is either our way or it is no way. They also
would make the argument that government can best solve this problem.
Yes, I think government has a part and an important part in trying to
solve this problem. But I would also remind everyone that this patient
protection bill, we get the impression that it would affect every
patient in America. That is really not true. It affects only those
covered under ERISA plans, health plans provided by certain employers.
Those employers have a vested interest in helping their employees with
good health care. That is why they have initiated many of these plans.
The reason that we want some flexibility for these conferees on the
House side is that what the Senate passed is drastically different than
what the House passed. It would be unwise, it could not work, if our
conferees cannot have any flexibility whatsoever.
So if the other side really wants to try to solve this problem and
have a meaningful bill that can protect patients under ERISA plans,
then we need to defeat this motion. They can go to conference; they can
have disagreements. We can come back and vote on it again. But to tie
their hands before they even get there I think is not only a disservice
to the House, not only a disservice to the conferees, but a disservice
to the patients whose rights we are trying to protect.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who without his
leadership we would not have passed this bill. He has provided the
leadership to get this issue this far in the Congress and hopefully to
serve the American people well very soon in their effort to obtain good
health care.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend for his
kindness to me for yielding this time. I do not need much. I would like
to hear more from my distinguished friend from Arkansas.
We have here a chance simply to support what has been done by the
House in two prior votes and to do so with regard to a matter which was
decided in a thoroughly bipartisan fashion with leadership from Members
not necessarily in the leadership of both sides but on both sides of
the aisle. I would observe that we have a chance here to instruct the
conferees again. There is strong need for this because I would note to
my colleagues that the leadership on the other side of the aisle has
given no comfort whatsoever to those of us who favor this legislation.
They have included no strong friends on either the Senate band of
conferees or the conferees from the House side on the Republican side
of the conference.
How much better it would have been had we moved more speedily. How
much better would it have been had we considered these matters in a
fashion more consistent with the vote which was cast earlier by the
House by including Members from the other side of the aisle who were in
support of this. If the leadership wants to really demonstrate a
measure of bipartisanship, they can show it. They can instruct the
parties to the conference to move speedily. They also can construct a
pattern of conference members who will give comfort to Members on this
side.
I, for example, would be much more comfortable if I were to see the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) or the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) or other Members on the Republican
side who worked so hard in such a careful and thoughtful bipartisan
fashion and see to it that the conferees in fact fairly represented the
will of the House.
Clearly, events to this time show no comfort to any of us who believe
in this piece of legislation. The conferees are rigged against us,
over-long delay in appointing those conferees and exclusion of the two
principal leaders on the Republican side. Until that kind of action is
taken by the leadership on the Republican side, there will not be much
comfort on this side of the aisle, and there will be strong reason in
the minds of almost every Member who has supported this legislation to
see to it that this resolution and other matters which can be done to
move the process forward towards the House-passed bill are taken.
It is possible to say any number of things to the contrary, but
nothing which is either factual or which will bear weight in the minds
either of the average Member of this body or the ordinary citizens of
the country.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, just to respond briefly to my dear friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), all we want on this side are
for meetings to be scheduled, for an opportunity for a consensus to be
reached to actually be realized. Sure I would like the compromise or
the consensus to look like the Norwood-Dingell, but I am not alone. 250
of my colleagues wanted the same thing, including three out of the five
Republicans from my own State, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp),
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins). Unfortunately I cannot convince either of my
Senators, Senators Frist or Thompson, to support it; but hopefully if
we can arrange the meetings, we can find a consensus.
My other colleague mentioned how this would only affect a small
number of people, that we ought to be concerned with the uninsured.
There is serious and vast concern on this side of the aisle for the
uninsured, but why should we ignore the 160 million plus that this bill
would cover? I support
[[Page H135]]
State tax relief. That would affect a small number of people. I support
the capital gains tax relief. That would affect a small number of
people. I support special ed, fully funding at the federal level. That
would affect a small number of people. Do not act as if we are
unaccustomed in this Congress to passing bills or offering public
policy that would not affect everyone in America.
We have a chance to do what is right. Schedule the meetings and allow
an opportunity or a forum for a consensus to be reached. Do not play
games, leadership on the Republican side. Do what is right for the
American people.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I tell my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, that if this
resolution was the first section only, which reads, ``Take all
necessary steps to begin meetings of the conference,'' that would have
been a voice vote and it would have been agreed to, in my opinion,
unanimously.
The concern obviously, as indicated by the two cosponsors of the
bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), is that by adding the second
provision, it clearly means there is more of an interest in politics
than in getting the conference going. The gentleman himself has been
ambivalent in terms of his statement as to whether he is really going
to support this resolution or not. I think he and I would agree both of
us could support the first item. It is the addition of the second item
that makes it partisan, and indeed I will enjoy watching the gentleman
from Tennessee's mental wrestling bout with himself as to whether he
decides to make it partisan by voting ``yes'' or that his conscience
controls and he votes ``no.''
Mr. FORD. I will vote ``yes.''
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), someone who has been involved
extensively in this information, the chairman of a subcommittee which
is crucial to the resolution of this issue.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
California for yielding me this time and remind my colleagues that this
motion to instruct conferees is a nonbinding motion. It is within the
rules of the House to allow the minority to bring the issue to the
floor and to have a debate; but we all know that, any of us that have
been in this body for some time, that it is an opportunity to make
political hay. After all, it is an even-numbered year.
Now, we all know in even-numbered years that all of the Members of
the House are up for reelection or there is going to be an election and
all the seats are going to be contested. What that means to me in most
cases, unfortunately, is that the rhetoric in this body will certainly
increase. I think it is a little early in the year for that to occur,
but obviously it is not too early for some.
We have had an awful lot of debate here, and we have heard mention
about the 100 days that we have not acted on this bill. All of my
colleagues know that we have been in recess, out of session, back in
our districts for the last 2\1/2\ months. Since the week before
Thanksgiving, we have been home with our families and our constituents
trying to deal with what is happening out in the real world. To expect
that Members were going to come back here over Christmas, as an
example, to deal with this issue certainly is not realistic.
Having said all of that, the chairman of the conference, Senator
Nickles, has announced that the conferees are going to meet before the
February recess. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of
the House, have made it clear that they want this issue on the floor of
the House before the Easter recess.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, most Americans have to go to work every day. I
know they appreciate the fact that we were out to enjoy time at home,
being with our families.
Mr. BOEHNER. Reclaiming my time, certainly all of us, even though we
were not here in Washington, were back in our districts working. Part
of our job occurs in our districts. I am sure the gentleman from
Tennessee was back in his district working diligently, every day, as I
was around my district. So we are going to have this bill back on the
floor. But one of the concerns that I have heard raised here subtly
today I heard raised more pointedly yesterday in a different forum when
we talked about the need for patients' rights, and we all understand
that there is a reasonable way we can approach this.
But beyond the issue of patients' rights, we all know the number one
issue in the health care system in America today is the fact that over
44 million Americans have no health insurance at all. We have to be
very careful as we move to enact patients' rights that we do not
increase the number of uninsured. We ought to follow the Hippocratic
oath that says first do no harm. But as we try to provide better access
for people who have no health insurance, one of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle yesterday actually termed it a poison pill for
patients' rights. We have heard other references here today, rather
subtle, that that can wait, that we can deal with that later.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we are going to move reasonable patients'
rights to help the American people who are stuck in managed care, the
least we can do is to do something to help the 44 million Americans who
have no health insurance whatsoever. Why can we not provide association
health plans for them, refundable tax credits for them, medical savings
accounts if it will help? Anything that we can do to help employers
provide more insurance to their employees, we ought to be doing it.
But the reason I think that we are hearing access provisions, helping
the uninsured, it being described as a poison pill, it is kind of a
code word, kind of a code word to what the real plan here is, because I
think, as I said before, this is an election year; and I think some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would just as soon have
this as a political issue in November than actually do something on
behalf of the American people.
I am just listening, and I am watching and I am wondering why we are
dealing with this motion to instruct on the floor today.
{time} 1615
But I can tell you this: this conference will produce a reasonable
approach to patients' rights and a reasonable approach to helping
insure the 44 million Americans who have no health insurance. That bill
will come back here to the floor of the House, and then I want to see
where my colleagues are, whether they will be willing to stand up and
deal with this issue in a balanced way. The time of truth will come
very shortly.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and express my appreciation for
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), and all the others that have worked on this bill, that have
worked so hard to see that the American people get the kind of health
care that they are paying for. A majority of the Members of the House
voted for the Norwood-Dingell bill. Fifty-two Republicans voted for
this bill. If we are not going to conference this bill now, when are we
going to conference it?
Mr. Speaker, it is time that we move forward with the legislation
that the American people have said they want, that we move forward with
the legislation that the House has said it wants, in a bipartisan way.
It is time that we deal with this issue and take the politics out of
it.
If this resolution offends those that voted for it only 3 months ago,
then they should express that today. This is their opportunity. If they
thought it was the wrong thing to do, to support this bill, then this
is their opportunity to say, I do not think we need the Norwood-Dingell
bill, and we should know that.
This is a good bill. It is time for us to do this for the American
people. I urge every Member to vote for this resolution and bring this
issue to conference. Let us get the job done that the American people
sent us here to do.
[[Page H136]]
General Leave
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the motion to instruct conferees
on H.R. 2990.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if you listened to the debate today, virtually the first
day that we are back, and the argument, as the gentleman from Ohio
clearly pointed out, that for a majority of the days since this
legislation passed we were not in session, it was over the holidays and
we were in our districts working, that there really is only one purpose
to this resolution.
If my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) had presented a resolution
with the first provision, as I said, it probably would have passed
unanimously. If you are shopping for future motions to instruct after
this one is defeated, I would suggest perhaps that you look at
information that was made available to us during that period when we
were in recess, information that hospitals and doctors today are
killing close to 100,000 Americans. Now, if the Hippocratic Oath is
``do no harm,'' it seems to me not killing the patient falls in that
category.
I listened carefully until the time was yielded back to see if one
Member on the other side of the aisle thought that we ought to try to
speed up the process to get an ability to get a handle on almost
100,000 Americans being killed in hospitals and by doctors every year.
If you are looking for a Patients' Bill of Rights, if you are looking
for patient protection, it ought to start with the most fundamental
protections, and that is do not kill anybody.
But I listened in vain. All I heard was the usual rhetoric about
taking their bill, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said,
the only bill that will be successful, and that it has to be done now
``on our terms,'' clearly underscores the fact that this is a political
endeavor.
Two of the cosponsors of the bipartisan bill, the two Republicans,
said this is not the thing to do, not now, it is not appropriate. I
would support their position. It is not the thing to do; it is not
appropriate.
Those gentlemen, understanding that they are in a very difficult
situation, my father used to tell a story about a dog and fleas, but I
do not remember the details so I will not be able to elaborate on it,
but it seems to me that those of us who want responsible patient rights
protection should do the responsible thing, and that is rather than
vote present on this measure, vote no.
I would urge everyone on both sides of the aisle who want to speed up
this process, to reach a consensus, to reach something that looks like
the Dingell-Norwood bill, to vote no. By voting no, you actually
enhance the opportunity for a true bipartisan agreement. If you vote
yes, you guarantee the atmosphere around here becomes more partisan.
Let us lower the partisan rhetoric. Let us increase the accommodation
and compromise, and we will deliver a reasonable and appropriate
product.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all my colleagues to vote no on this motion
to instruct.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct
conferees regarding the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement
Act.
Since this bill passed almost 4 months ago, the Republican leadership
has purposefully delayed the start of the conference, giving more time
to special interests seeking to undermine the strong support for
patient protections demonstrated by the lopsided House vote in favor of
the Norwood/Dingell bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, this tactic is clearly
failing.
Just 2 weeks ago, a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found
overwhelming public support for a strong patient's rights bill. The
survey found that almost three out of four registered voters (72
percent) want strong protections against managed care abuses.
Despite this strong public support, it has unfortunately become
necessary for the Members of this body to once again send a message to
the Republican leadership that Americans want the freedom to choose
their health care providers. They want to have treatment decisions made
by physicians and not insurance company bureaucrats. They want health
insurance companies held responsible for the physical injuries they
cause.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republican leadership to stop stalling this
critical managed care reform legislation.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 175, answered ``present'' 28, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--175
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
[[Page H137]]
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--28
Bachus
Barr
Boehlert
Bono
Brady (TX)
Cook
Cooksey
Foley
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gilman
Hunter
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (NY)
LaTourette
LoBiondo
McCollum
McHugh
Metcalf
Norwood
Roukema
Saxton
Smith (NJ)
Weldon (FL)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--24
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Campbell
Carson
DeMint
Fattah
Graham
Gutknecht
Hinojosa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Myrick
Porter
Quinn
Rivers
Sanchez
Sanford
Tiahrt
Turner
Vento
Waters
Young (FL)
{time} 1644
Messrs. BATEMAN, WELLER, CAMP, PORTMAN, CANNON, DICKEY, and Mrs.
WILSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BACHUS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 6 on February 1,
2000, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on the motion to
instruct the conferees on H.R. 2990, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed
Care Improvement Act of 1999. Had I been present I would have voted
``nay.''
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained earlier today
and was not present for rollcall vote No. 6. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________