[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 175 (Monday, December 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H12846-H12854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H12846]]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--CIRCUMVENTING THE WILL OF THE HOUSE BY HOLDING
VOTES OPEN BEYOND A REASONABLE PERIOD
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of the
House and submit a resolution which is at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Privileged Resolution
Whereas on November 22nd, the Republican Leadership held
open the vote on rollcall No. 669 on H.R. 1, the Prescription
Drug Conference Report, for nearly three hours, the longest
period of time in the history of electronic voting in the
U.S. House of Representatives;
Whereas the normal period of time for a recorded vote is 15
minutes, and the Speaker of the House reiterated that policy
on January 7, 2003 saying ``The Chair wishes to enunciate a
clear policy with respect to the conduct of electronic votes
. . . The Chair announced, and then strictly enforced, a
policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after
the guaranteed period of 15 minutes'', and in addition the
Speaker pro tempore on November 22nd announced prior to the
vote on Prescription Drugs that it would be a 15-minute vote;
Whereas the amount of time for the vote on H.R. 1 went far
beyond anytime considered reasonable under established House
practices and customs, and was a deliberate attempt to
undermine the will of the House;
Whereas the opponents of H.R. 1, both Republicans and
Democrats, were on the prevailing side for more than two and
one-half hours and proponents never once held the lead during
this period of time, and the sole purpose of holding this
vote open was to reverse the position that a majority of the
House of Representatives had already taken;
Whereas, according to press reports, a Member of Congress
who is retiring was told on the House floor during this
extended vote that ``business interests would give his son
(who seeks to replace him) $100,000 in return for his
father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican
House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never
came to Congress'', and such an act is in violation of
Section 201 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which
prohibits bribery of public officials;
Whereas these actions impugn the dignity and integrity of
House proceedings, bring dishonor on Members of Congress, and
were a gross violation of the rights of Members who opposed
this legislation: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House denounces this action in the
strongest terms possible, rejects the practice of holding
votes open beyond a reasonable period of time for the sole
purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and directs
the Speaker to take such steps as necessary to prevent any
further abuse.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX.
The minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
will be recognized for 30 minutes. It is the Chair's understanding that
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) will be the designee of
the majority leader and will also be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 200 years, and 200 years ago, the Founding
Fathers designed this House of Representatives to serve as the people's
House. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that it is
essential to liberty that this House have an intimate sympathy with the
people. In the century since, this body has earned its status as the
greatest legislative body in the world. Yet perhaps never before have
the actions of this body fallen so far short of both the ideals
envisioned by the Founders and the sympathies of the people as during
last month's vote on the Medicare prescription drug conference report,
a vote that will surely be remembered as one of the lowest moments in
the history of this august institution.
The American people expected a fair and open airing of issues
affecting 40 million older Americans on Medicare, our mothers, our
fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Yet Republicans locked House
Democrats out of the conference negotiations and, in doing so, locked
out the 130 million Americans we represent.
This is a diverse country, but the Democratic Caucus is the only
diverse caucus. By shutting out the Democrats, they deny the conference
negotiators of the benefit of the thinking of the representatives of
the African American community, Hispanic community, the Asian Pacific
American community, the whole philosophical diversity within our caucus
from the Blue Dogs to the New Dogs to our Progressive Democrats.
{time} 1530
The American people expected genuine debate. Yet, Republicans limited
floor discussion on the one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in
its history to a mere 2 hours, 2 hours. And this behavior is not
limited and confined to the vote on Medicare.
For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the
Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the
American people, but where they are clearly on the wrong side of the
issue, have these votes taken in the middle of the night.
On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by
three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans
slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a
Friday in May, the House passed the ``leave no millionaire behind'' tax
cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:30 a.m. on a Friday in June,
the House GOP passed the Medicare privatization and prescription drug
bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a
Head Start bill by one single vote. And that Head Start bill was to
undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then
after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in
October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue the Democrats
and Republicans were on both sides of the issue. So were the American
people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this information.
It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the
legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans. No role in
the conference negotiations. No chance to offer amendments. No
alternatives and limited debates or discussion. It degrades our
democracy when secret negotiations, such as those on the energy
legislation, rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new
provisions approved by neither House.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the House our Founders envisioned. Such
behavior is unfair. It is un-American, and it is unacceptable. It is
not for this that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives, their
liberty and their sacred honor, so that we could have government of the
few, by the few, for the few, behind closed doors.
Why are the Republicans so afraid to subject their agenda to the
normal rules of debate? Republicans are afraid of fair and open debate
because they know that the American people reject their radical agenda.
As President Kennedy said, ``A nation that is afraid to let its people
judge the truth and falsehood in an open market, is a nation that is
afraid of its people.''
So afraid of the people were they that, again, this went into the
dark of night when we even took the first vote at 3 o'clock in the
morning.
A member of the majority in the other body, that would be a
Republican in the other party, warned recently, ``If you have to twist
people's arms over and over to vote for you on issue after issue, then
you would be wise to reevaluate your positions.''
Of course, Republicans have no intention of reevaluating their
reckless positions. As one newspaper editorial observed recently, ``It
appears the Republicans want to govern the Nation by themselves.''
A government of the few, by the few, for the few.
The ancient Greeks had a word for such audacity, hubris. Hubris, the
wanton arrogance that leads to the violation of accepted rules of
conduct.
In the tragedies of antiquity, mortals who defy the Gods in this
manner were punished for their hubris. Indeed, if there were ever an
argument for why Republicans must get their punishment at the polls and
be defeated at the polls next year, we need only look to their
unprecedented abuse of power and their neglect of the will of the
people.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will not stand by while our democracy is
denigrated. We will not be silenced. We will not be rolled over. As we
preach democracy to the rest of the world and we talk about in glowing
terms about our own democracy, we must also speak about the power of
example, the example we set in the conduct of our legislative business
for the rest of the world.
[[Page H12847]]
The Republicans are not setting a good example of democracy for the
rest of the world. Republicans must know we will fight this abuse in
the committees. We will fight this abuse on the floor. We will fight it
every day and every way we can. We will carry this fight all the way to
election day. On that day, the American people will reject the
Republican's special interest and their shameless abuse of power.
With all regard that I have for the distinguished colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who appear to be at the microphones, and I know
that the time will be led by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson), why is not a member of this House leadership on the
Republican side on the floor to respond to this privileged resolution
about how the leadership has conducted its business?
We all have a great deal of respect for the Speaker of the House. The
majority leader is a forceful personality. The two of those
orchestrated what happened that night. We would like them to at least
extend the courtesy to Members to be present on the floor as the leader
of this party on this floor to respond to the people's need to know as
to why, why the will of the majority is not respected here.
We will return the people's House to the American people, and we will
once again make this the revered institution worthy of its status as
the greatest legislative body in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is the designee of the majority leader.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentlewoman does not consider me a
forceful personality or a leader. But I am here to say that, as
chairman of one of the major subcommittees that wrote this bill, I
consider myself both a leader on Medicare modernization and reform and
a forceful personality, because I am dedicated to this issue. I have
worked hard on it. And I believe that I am better to be here than any
of my leadership.
This was a joint effort. It was late at night. No question. It was a
long vote. And it did inconvenience Members. No question. But the
stakes were very high. The need of America's seniors for prescription
drugs and a modernized Medicare that could deliver state of the art
disease management to help those with chronic illness prevent their
diseases from progressing. Yes, their need was urgent and intense. The
opportunity was enormous. We could not abandon our responsibility to
pass real Medicare prescription drug reform and modernization of
Medicare's ability to keep pace with quality health care initiatives.
And so, yes, we allowed ourselves to be masters of time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
I would like to pay respects to my California colleague, the very
distinguished minority leader, and I certainly respect her right to
come forward with this privileged resolution. I would also like to
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), for
the stellar leadership she has provided, ensuring that we would not
only bring about reform of Medicare, but make sure that we are able to
provide access for our seniors to affordable prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note a couple of items.
First, on the 2nd of April, 1789, the day after the first Congress was
put into place, James Madison who was, in fact, a member of that first
Committee on Rules, and I believe that as he talked about what my
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) referred to, that
intimate sympathy with the people, he did appropriately refer to the
fact that this is the greatest deliberative body known to man. And we
do have an extraordinary responsibility here to implement the will of
the people through this structure we have of a representative
democracy.
Now, what I would like to say is that as we look back on that debate,
that both of my friends, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) have just
addressed, I think it is important to note that our friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) came before the Committee on
Rules and made a request that we extend the time that is provided under
the rules of the House for the debate of a conference report.
Every single Member of this House is well aware of the fact that when
a conference report is voted upon, there is a 1-hour provision for
debate on that conference report. Now, request was made to extend that.
And my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as she
knows, made a rare appearance before the Committee on Rules and
requested that we increase the amount of time for debate on that
conference report. And in response to her request, the Committee on
Rules chose to double the amount of time allowed for the conference
report. That amount of time was granted.
I think it is also important to note that the 15-minute provision
according to clause 2(a) of rule XX, Mr. Speaker, specifically says the
minimum time for a record vote or a quorum call by electronic device
shall be 15 minutes. And so I think that there is no one who is
claiming that there was a violation of the rules of the House because
this was, in fact, in compliance with the rules of the House. And I
think that there needs to be recognition that during that 2 hour and 50
minute period a number of votes were changed. And I think it is
important for the record to note for the record, Mr. Speaker, that the
last three votes that were cast on that bill were, in fact, cast by
members of the minority.
I would like to thank my friend for yielding me this time. What I
have simply chosen to do here, Mr. Speaker, is make the record clear as
to exactly what the rules of the House consist of on this matter.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, since the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules is in the well, I just wish to mention one thing, because in my
comments I read a litany of concerns about very important votes were
won by a handful or fewer votes in the dark of night. One of these I
did not mention was the rule on the FAA bill that came to the floor,
and I would like to ask the gentleman if he is proud of the way the
Committee on Rules conducted itself on the FAA bill where it burned the
book on rule making in this House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend by saying that I made it
very clear in the record, when our friends were before the Committee on
Rules, that I believe that it was wrong for us to proceed with
consideration of the FAA conference report in the manner in which we
did proceed with. And I said there, and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) has recognized here on the floor that I said, we will do
everything possible to ensure that that does not happen again. And the
majority leader, in the colloquy that he had with the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) later that week, made it clear that he also wanted
to ensure that it would not happen again.
I appreciate my friend for bringing that issue to the forefront.
Ms. PELOSI. Indeed, that rule was an abomination, and I am pleased
that the gentleman recognizes that it was wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the eloquent
chairman of the Committee on Rules with all of the power of words and
influence he has, that after a seething attack on the majority, that he
would come into the well and say, but it is all in the rules.
What our leader is talking about is more important than the Medicare
bill. She is talking about the civility in this House of
Representatives. Every one of us here today are not here just because
we are so bright and so intelligent. We are here because some group of
Americans have thought that we would represent their interests. They
were not
[[Page H12848]]
talking about blacks and whites or Jews or gentiles or Asian Americans
or Hispanics. They were talking about Representatives in the House of
Representatives. And they invested in us the right to make judgments as
to what would be in their best interest.
How in the world can you come to this floor and take this privilege
which has been given to us to protect, not for ourselves but for the
next group that will inherit the seats that we are privileged to serve
in, and to say when the Speaker of this great House of Representatives,
here where we truly represent the people, it is not based on every
district being entitled to something because it is a State, it means
that they come together. They fight. They argue. And they elect.
{time} 1545
And then the Speaker decides who would be appointed to serve on the
conference committee so that our voices would be heard with that of the
other body. And when you have the votes, you have the votes; and that
is the way it goes. If you do not like it, wait until November and then
change it. But the audacity of the majority to say that when the
Speaker appoints you to the conference it makes no difference what rank
you are, it makes no difference if you are the dean of the House, it
makes no difference if you are the senior member of the committee of
jurisdiction, it makes no difference if the minority leader appoints
you to represent, who, us? No, to represent the millions of people that
we have been sent here to represent.
And to have the conference committee, to call it a bipartisan
conference when they from time to time will let a staff person come in,
is not only arrogance but it offends the very office of the
Constitution to be able to say it. Now, I have the utmost respect for
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) because she has said it
right; she thought this precious bill was so important that the rules
did not matter. It had to go through the middle of the night, whether
there was a conference or not. We had to get this thing through.
Sure, my colleagues had to get it through because there was a goal
beyond prescription drugs. And if that is what you want to do with
Social Security, if that is what you want to do with health care, I can
understand that; and that is why I am not a Republican. But for God's
sake, do not disrupt the system. Do not tear away what was left to us.
When you got the votes, by golly, use those votes and do what you want
to do to your own Members; that does not offend me. But it does offend
me if newer Members of Congress believe that is the way this House is
supposed to operate.
Sometimes when I go on the other side and I sit with a friend that
came here many, many years ago when I did, young Democratic Members
say, what are you talking to them for? And I suspect that some of the
Republicans that have been here a little while, when they come over
here, some of the younger Republican Members would say, why are you
talking to a Democrat? And what we would say is, we are talking about
our kids or we are talking about our grandkids. We will fight in the
committee and we will fight on the floor, but we respect each other.
It is a lack of respect not to me, you can look at me and know how
many doors have been closed to me; it does not even bother me. Because
in this great country, in this Republic, I can fight and I can win. But
when you stack the rules against those who follow me and those who
respect this institution; when you start saying it makes no difference
who the Speaker assigns to a conference, because we decided that it is
too important for us to let Democrats in, well, take a look and see who
the Democrats are. Take a look at the diversity on this side. We did
not make it this way. Democrats did.
Do you think there is a Republican way for solid health care? Do you
think there is a Republican way for Social Security? A Republican way
for a better America? Of course not. It is for us together to be
working together to try to do it. Would Democrats have contaminated the
precious bill, I ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)?
Would we have diverted so much attention for what you were doing, this
brilliant piece of work that you did in the darkness of night, brought
here early in the morning to have us out here waiting until you could
scrub up enough votes?
It was wrong for this Congress, and it would be wrong for any
Congress.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I would respond to the gentleman from New York that
I do think it is extremely important when half the women, retired
women, in America have the opportunity for the peace of mind of knowing
that they will pay no more than $1 or $2 for a generic and $3 to $5 for
a brand-name prescription and that is all, no matter how many or how
high their drug bills go. Yes, I think it is very important not to let
the clock outweigh the interest of half of America's retired senior
women.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time; and, Mr. Speaker, let me first say that this has
been a multiyear process. When we began our work in the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, we entitled it Patients First, because essentially
we wanted to make sure everything we did in the health care agenda
thought about patients and did what we could to make patients' lives
better in this country.
I recall when we got to the point where we began drafting and working
on the Medicare prescription drug bill, when we talked across the
aisle, as we often do in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, about
whether we could build a consensus bill at the committee level or not,
it was pretty clear that we could not; that there was a great
difference of opinion as to how to shape Medicare reform and
prescription drug legislation. And because there was this huge great
difference of opinion, the ranking Democrat, my friend, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I agreed we would have a great debate,
and we did. We had many, many hours of debate. We had a 23-hour markup;
23 hours of markup and amendments that went on for a huge amount of
time. And that literally, finally produced the Medicare bill that came
to the floor along with the Committee on Ways and Means effort that
became part of the conference report that we voted on.
This was not a one-night effort. This was not a 3\1/2\ hour effort in
the middle of the evening. This was a multiyear, very greatly debated
issue from top to bottom where we were deeply separated on approach.
And I think my mother summed it up best when I talked to her about it
after we passed the bill. The approach that we took, that we understand
some of the other side did not agree with, and that is a legitimate
difference of opinion, the approach we took was that we ought to
empower seniors to make choices for themselves about how they got
prescription drug coverage; to make choices for themselves about how
the health care that they would need in their senior years would be
delivered to them and how they would take this new benefit.
There were those on the other side who thought there ought to be one
choice only, the Medicare choice. There were those on this side, on our
side of the aisle, who believed that Medicare choice ought to be
available, and we made sure that it is available, but other choices
ought to come.
Now, that is what happened. We can argue about process and procedure
all we want. The bottom line is we were separated by a great division,
it was settled, and the American public are better for it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
note that it is interesting to hear Republican colleagues talk about
how urgent this bill was to pass. Then why does it not become effective
until 2006? Mr. Speaker, was it so urgent that the rumor had to be
around there that they were offering $100,000 to Members to vote with
them on the bill? Was it ever that urgent?
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our very distinguished whip, a champion for
America's seniors, who fought, fought, fought for them on the floor of
this House to defeat this Medicare bill. And defeat it he did, for 3
hours, until outside influences weighed in to reverse that outcome.
[[Page H12849]]
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority leader for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, there are many of my colleagues who are new to this
House and who do not know its history and do not know perhaps the words
of your side of the aisle. So I want to give you a little history. I
want to take you back to October 28, 1987. The House was considering a
controversial Democratic budget reconciliation bill, which I tell the
gentlewoman from Connecticut that we thought was very important. The
vote stood at 206 to 205. Twenty-four Members had not voted.
The Speaker of the House, in attempting to pass what he believed to
be a very important bill, kept the clock going for less than 30
minutes, a little more than 25; and a vote changed, and we prevailed.
Your side was outraged. Let me remind you of some of the quotes.
I am the minority leader. Excuse me, I am the minority whip. I
understand that. The minority whip at that time is now the Vice
President of the United States, Dick Cheney. He was angry. The vote was
206 to 205. This bill, for over 2 hours, had an absolute majority of
the House of Representatives supporting it, with 218 Members opposing
the bill, the proposition that we fought for.
Thirty minutes. And here is what Mr. Cheney said about keeping the
ballot open: ``The Democrats' tactics are the most grievous insult
inflicted on the Republicans in my time in the House.'' October 1987.
He was quoted as saying something else. ``It was,'' he said, ``the most
arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in the 10 years
I have been here.''
Less than 30 minutes, 206 to 205. The Vice President of the United
States. The most arrogant abuse of power he had seen. And then the
Republican minority whip referred to the Speaker as follows, and
listen, my colleagues, particularly those who are new. Referring to the
Speaker of the House, he said, ``He's a heavy-handed,'' and he used an
epithet that we know as SOB, except he fully articulated it, ``and he
doesn't know any other way to operate. And he will do anything he can
to win at any price. There is no sense of comity left,'' said Dick
Cheney.
I tell the gentlewoman from Connecticut, this was an important bill,
but so was the bill that Speaker Wright was following and trying to
pass. Dick Cheney, with less than 30 minutes, ``There is no comity
left. The most heavy-handed arrogant abuse of power.''
That is what this is about, treating one another with respect and
treating the American public with respect. My colleagues had an
opportunity to offer their bill. It was offered, we voted on it; and
218 people voted no, and they stuck no for over 2 hours. But my
colleagues refused to accept the judgment of democracy. You refused to
accept the judgment of this House.
Bob Walker said, ``We found out the majority is perfectly willing to
change its rules to crush the minority.'' I know this is not a rule, I
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); but I also know that
at the beginning of this session, the Speaker, whom I respect and would
never demean by addressing him in the terms that Dick Cheney addressed
our Speaker, this House's Speaker, said this at the beginning of this
session: ``The Speaker's policy announced on January 4, 1995, will
continue through the 108th Congress.'' That was Newt Gingrich.
On that occasion, referring to October 30, 1991, the House was
considering a bill in the Committee of the Whole under a special rule
that placed an overall time limit on the amendment process. We did it
in 15 minutes. The Speaker concluded at the beginning of this session,
``Each occupant of the Chair will have the full support of the Speaker
in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest
opportunity.'' In this instance it was almost 3 hours. Not 15 minutes,
not 17 minutes, not 27 minutes, but 3 hours.
``I just want to serve notice,'' this gentleman said, ``if the
majority, which clearly has the rights under sheer voting power,
insists on stripping the right away from the minority, then we have an
absolute obligation to take the necessary steps to communicate our
dissatisfaction with that kind of legislative process and do everything
possible to stop it.'' Newt Gingrich, August 5, 1991.
{time} 1600
Those of you who are new to this House who believe in democracy, who
believe that this is the people's House, ought to accord to every one
of us, Democrats and Republicans, the respect due a person chosen to
represent 650,000-plus Americans in this House, to put up our votes on
that board, to have the majority prevail, but to have them prevail in a
time frame that does not, as Mr. Cheney referred to it, reflect ``the
most arrogant, most heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in my
10 years.''
My Republican friends, let me ask something: If keeping the ballot
open for 25 minutes is the most arrogant abuse of power that Mr. Cheney
had ever seen, what is keeping it open 3 hours? Ask yourself that
question, and then understand why this resolution is on this floor.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
About 5 hours ago, I had what I consider to be one of the greatest
moments of my 11-year congressional career as I got to watch the
President of the United States sign into law a Medicare reform bill
that will finally provide a prescription drug benefit to our seniors
and our disabled.
For 38 years, every Congress, Republican, Democrat, every
administration, Republican, Democrat, had failed to accomplish this. It
was not because most Members of Congress did not want to do it. I dare
say every single Democrat sitting in this House and serving in this
House wanted to make sure that we got a prescription drug benefit
delivered to our elderly and our disabled, and most Republicans wanted
to do it for many years. And why did Congress fail year after year? Not
because of lack of desire to get the job done, but because the job is
extraordinarily difficult.
It is extraordinarily difficult to craft a bill that is conservative
enough to get most Republicans and liberal enough to attract some
Democrats. It is very, very hard to do. We had to thread a needle, we
had to say to the liberal-most Members of Congress, we cannot make you
happy, we cannot spend that much money. And we had to say to the most
conservative Members of our party, we cannot make you happy. We had to
say we are going to do this entitlement, we are going to expand this
entitlement, and it is not going to make you happy. We had to thread
the needle, and the eye of the needle in this case was so narrow and
the size of what we were trying to accomplish so large that yes, it
took us an extraordinary amount of time to get this vote done.
The Speaker did not violate a rule of the House. The Speaker is
entitled to take as much time as he wishes for a vote. And in this
case, in this case, the stakes were high, the cause was great. The
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said she will take this
message to the election. This is an election-year issue. I say to the
gentlewoman, take that message; we will take the message that we
provided seniors a benefit.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if it is an election-year issue and the other side of
the aisle is so proud of their work, why do they not make it effective
now, just as they make their reckless tax cuts effective immediately
and retroactively?
Mr. Speaker, the customs and traditions of this House have been
violated, and there is no person in the leadership of this House to
come here to defend the actions taken in this Chamber on November 22. I
will say more about that in a moment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Clyburn), the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I thank her for her leadership on this and other issues
in this great body.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected 11 years ago. Today I represent a
congressional district of 668,000 people. It is an interesting
congressional district, about
[[Page H12850]]
half and half urban and rural. There are people who run the gamut. I
represent the poor precincts and census tracts in the congressional
district, and I also represent some of the wealthiest.
Last week when I went back home after our Medicare prescription drug
vote, and I was asked questions by my constituents, they were asking me
things like is it true that in this prescription drug bill the
Secretary of HHS is prevented from negotiating on my behalf for lower
drug costs? And, of course, I answered them, That is my understanding
of the bill. And they have been asking, Is it true that I cannot use my
Medigap insurance to cover any shortfalls that may come as a result of
prescription drug costs? And, of course, I answered them, It is my
understanding that that is true.
And then they want to know from me, Why is it that I did not hear
from you about the possibility of these issues before you cast a vote?
You are there to represent my interests, and I would like to hear from
you about these kinds of things before they come to a vote.
Then I was obliged to tell them that the bill was completed around
1:30 a.m. in the morning, and I was given less than a day to take a
look at it, and we finally voted on this after they had gone to bed the
next night around 3 a.m. in the morning. Then they want to know the
ultimate: If this bill is not to be effective until 2006, what was the
rush? What was the rush? There is no good answer for many of us to that
question.
I just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am
the eldest son of a fundamentalist minister who taught me that it is
important to maintain balance in one's life, as well as one's efforts.
He taught me to be conservative. He said to me very often, if you make
a dollar, you ought to be able to save a nickel. He taught me when you
leave a room, you turn out the light, you conserve energy. But he also
taught me from those Sunday mornings when he stood before his
congregation and asked for an offering, he asked them to give
liberally. And so I learned that we must balance our liberalism with
conservatism, and our conservatism with liberalism, and with proper
balance and proper discussions, with proper input from all sides, we
will yield much better legislation and much better results. We did not
have that opportunity with this bill to have input from all sides to
try to get a better and more balanced result.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the failure on the part of this body to
do that sets us up, as the gentlewoman has said, for a very interesting
election year, and I am hopeful that this legislation will become the
centerpiece of our discussions next year because then we will have a
better result.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is because we felt the urgency of the need the
preceding Member alluded to so eloquently, that not only did we have to
pass this bill, but we had included in this bill a discount card that
will mean that one-half of all low-income seniors all across America
will get 100 percent of their drugs paid for in 6 months. There is
urgency for this bill because the need for the subsidies are so great,
and because of the average spending, we know that within 6 months, one-
half of low-income seniors will be 100 percent protected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and chairman of the
Subcommittee on Social Security.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minority leader, who has
pounded on that 2006 date several times, every one of the Democrat
bills that was out there had that same date. Why does it have that
date? It has that date because it takes that long to gear up in order
to get a bill moving, whether the Democratic bill or the Republican
bill.
What is the urgency? I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed
this out, and that is within 6 months, low-income people are going to
be getting a card that will help them.
This morning when the President signed this bill, he said this bill
is going to help those who need help the most. That is exactly what it
does. That is exactly what it does. That is the way it ought to be.
When one goes into a court of law, a court of equity, there is an
expression, to seek equity, you must do equity. In other words, you
have to go into court with clean hands. We have heard during this
debate such terms as representing their constituents, neglecting the
will of the people, and abuse of office. They have to come here with
clean hands if they are to complain.
Did not the minority leader threaten their Members? Why was it one of
the Members on the other side of the aisle who was holding out for 3
hours was completely surrounded every single moment by Members of the
Democratic Party because he had not yet voted? Why is it that after the
time was finally called, four Democrat Members came down to the well of
the House and changed their vote?
If you want equity, you have to come with clean hands, and that was
not done. We should have passed this bill last year, but the other body
refused to take it up because it was under Democratic leadership.
What is the urgency of this bill? If one is a senior, poor, or if you
have huge drug expenses and you cannot afford to buy your drugs, by God
to that person it is urgent. It is urgent. I would have stayed here 2
or 3 more days if the clock was to be left open, because that is
exactly how I felt. I felt this was so important to those people who
desperately need this coverage.
I would guess we would have won way over the top within 15 minutes if
the minority leader had simply told her Members, you are free on this
vote, come here and represent the people, vote for the people, and the
gentlewoman's very words, vote for those you represent. That is what we
want. That is what we should have gotten; and if we had, we would have
been out of here at 3:15, and that is the way it should have been.
I praise the Speaker and those of our leadership who kept the clock
open. I understand why those who tried to suppress the vote on their
own side and failed are upset. And it did take 3 hours to enlighten
some of the Members; but it is important that Democrats came back and
changed their vote also.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House a
little over 5 years, and we have managed three times in the House of
Representatives to pass a prescription drug bill.
Finally, this year the Senate passed a bill, too, which gave us a
historic opportunity to provide a desperately-needed benefit for the
people that I represent, and the people that we all represent.
{time} 1615
The truth is that Medicare is stuck in a 1960s model of health care,
a system that will pay claims instead of improve the quality of
people's health. We have a health care system that had to be changed
because it will pay $28,000 to amputate the feet of a diabetic and will
not pay $29.95 a month for the Glucophage so that they can keep their
feet. This system needed reform desperately because the people who rely
on it need that medicine. That meant that we had to work hard to find
the common ground that could make it through the House and the Senate.
But it was about time. It was about time for a voluntary prescription
drug benefit added to Medicare, supported by dozens of interest groups
in this country, to provide some equity and some help, particularly to
low-income folks who cannot afford their medicine and those who are
very sick. That is what we did. This House as a whole and this
institution will look back on this day when the President of the United
States signed that bill as a tremendous change for health care for
seniors in this country, and I thank God for it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues from the other side of
the
[[Page H12851]]
aisle that just as in childbirth, our labors in the Congress often
start in the morning sunshine and after long hours of painful work in
the full light of day then result in a delivery of a beautiful baby in
the dark of night. Had this debate commenced in the dark of night, then
the delivery would no doubt have been in the light of day.
In any regard, Mr. Speaker, in passage of the Medicare Modernization
and Prescription Drug Act of 2003, this President and the leadership of
this House have delivered on a promise made to our beloved seniors.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we, the Republican majority, are the promise
keepers on this issue. I am proud to have voted as a physician Member
of this body in the affirmative.
The gentleman from South Carolina talked about hearing from his
constituents. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from my constituents as well,
things like is it true that in this bill the neediest of our seniors,
those who are living at or near the poverty level, are helped the most?
Is it true that the new Medicare beneficiaries will begin to receive
for the first time ever a complete physical examination? Is it true
that in order to help save Medicare for our children and grandchildren,
the wealthiest seniors will have to pay for the first time more of
their part B premium? And finally, Mr. Speaker, is it true that it has
taken 38 years to finally provide seniors with prescription drug
coverage?
I answer to those seniors a resounding guilty as charged. I am proud
of this bill. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity to
speak.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority party is running
the Congress the way the Russians run basketball. You remember in 1972
in the Olympic championship in Munich where Americans won the game. We
were ahead when the game was over and the clock had run down to zero.
But then the Russians prevailed on saying, let's just put a little more
time back on the clock. Just like the Republicans when this clock ran
down to zero said, let's just put another 3 hours back down on the
clock. When they asked the Russian coach how he could justify that
outrage, he said, because it was an important game and we wanted to
win. That is the explanation we get from the majority party when you
corrupted the basic values of this House.
We have been searching for ways to describe this and you can say
disappointing, you can say belittling; but the honest thing is it is a
corruption of the traditions of this House, and it stinks to high
heaven like a mackerel in the moonlight. Your Members need to come to
the floor and explain this situation that not only were we violating
the rules and the traditions regarding time, but that potentially there
was bribery on the floor of this House. We need to get to the bottom of
this and end this tyranny and corruption.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans also run this Congress like
the Republicans run Florida. They cannot accept the result of a vote.
With that, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the 3-hour wheel of fortune that we
witnessed the other day is reflective of the 3-week wheel of fortune,
where the public interest and the public trust had been turned into a
piggy bank for the special interests. There are 635 pharmaceutical
industry lobbyists, a lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress.
If you walked down the hall, they were usually your shadow in this
place. The reason we are talking about the process today is because the
process was reflective of the policy and what happened and produced in
this legislation, that is, the pharmaceutical industry when it came to
dealing with the issue of price and affordability of prescription
drugs, the will of the pharmaceutical industry was reflected but not
the will of either our taxpayers or our senior citizens who are being
forced into a system that requires that they pay 40 percent more than
anybody in Canada and Europe.
What we can do for our veterans, we can do for our seniors and get
them to use bulk negotiations, which is a free market. Everybody on
this side always says, I wish the government would act more like a
business. We try to get it to act like a business, and what do you do?
You turn your back on it. We can use either way to affect the price
here.
This is a debate that has now taken the public interest and the
public trust and has turned it into a piggy bank for the special
interests.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today was a historic day. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) mentioned earlier that President Bush
signed into law the most sweeping improvements that our Medicare
program has seen in almost 40 years. Soon, because of this legislation,
millions of seniors will be able to afford the prescription medications
which will dramatically change, improve, yes, and sometimes even save
their lives. We should celebrate today that this bill has been signed
into law and that finally after years of inaction and obstruction, the
leadership of this Republican majority and the several thoughtful
Democrats who joined us have kept our promise to our seniors.
But on this historic day, instead of high-minded debate and
additional work to benefit our seniors and other Americans, what do we
hear from some Members of this body? We hear complaining. We hear
complaining because of an inconvenience. It would be an understatement
to say that an elderly person who relies on their prescription
medications struggles as they try to work through chemotherapy
treatment for cancer. Similarly, one could say that it is a big
inconvenience for a low-income senior who has to make decisions each
month as to whether they will buy their prescription medication or buy
their groceries. Indeed, I think each one of us would agree that it is
inconvenient, really inconvenient for the 70-year-old woman who works
not because she chooses to but because she cannot afford to retire and
she continues to work because she needs to pay for her diabetes
medication.
Yet the complaint today is not that rules were broken because, of
course, we followed the rules of this House. But now what we hear is
that it was inconvenient for us to be here working through the night,
to be voting until almost 6 a.m. and to stay up all night. And, of
course, it is inconvenient for us to do so. It is inconvenient to work
all night. It is really inconvenient, of course, to lose a vote on a
major piece of legislation. But I think it was worth some of the
inconvenience on our part. I think it was worth some of the
inconvenience to help some of the neediest and indeed some of the most
vulnerable in our society, older Americans who have worked hard and who
have sacrificed and who have paid their taxes and paid their dues and
made sacrifices to create opportunities for every single one of us. Is
it not worth a little bit of inconvenience for us to keep our promises
to them? Inconvenient for us, yes. But is it worth it to keep our
promises to our seniors? I say yes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
for yielding me this time. I, having been a minority leader in the
Georgia legislature for a long time, understand that role. But I have
to clarify the opening remarks that were made by the leader from my
perspective about the time, about the hours of the night and about the
comment; and I think I have got it about right, that in the dark of
night we passed legislation that benefited a few, referring, I think,
to the tax legislation in the past.
Mr. Speaker, at 12:12, 12:15, 2:45, 3 a.m., and 6:45 in the morning,
any morning, fishermen leave the wharves of San Francisco, California,
to go fish for a living and pay taxes. In the district of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), in the garment district they work in those
hours for the prime time of the evening to feed their families and pay
taxes. In every one of our districts in those hours of the dark of
night, Americans who finance this country and run it work doing an
important job.
[[Page H12852]]
I will submit to you, if you ask them, reforming a Medicare system is
important. I think if you asked them if dealing with prescription drugs
for their parents and their seniors is important, they would tell you.
I do not think any one of us on the campaign trail would ever belittle
a fisherman at 6:45 on San Francisco's wharf or someone in the garment
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We can have our
partisan arguments over procedure, but let us not ever belittle hard
work for a good purpose because it is the American people that do that
on the night shift every night that finance this country and allow you
and I to be here.
I am proud to have stood up to cut their taxes and provide benefits
to their parents.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for America. The American people are
celebrating today because the President has signed into law one of the
most, if not the most, dramatic improvements to the Medicare program
since its inception. Finally, Mr. Speaker, seniors across this country
will have an option of a prescription drug benefit. Finally, Mr.
Speaker, seniors will be given a choice in designing and selecting a
benefit of health care delivery under Medicare. And finally, Mr.
Speaker, American families across this country will be able to benefit
from health savings accounts, providing them an environment and
incentive to save for their own family's health care needs in a tax-
free environment.
No, Mr. Speaker, this is not about a system that is broken or a
process that has gone awry. This debate today on the floor is about a
Republican success, of a vision of how to improve health care for our
senior citizens across this great Nation. This bill is about doing what
is best for our constituents, in particular, our seniors, Mr. Speaker.
America's largest senior advocacy group, the AARP, has endorsed this
bill because it sees this bill as a way to move us forward and to bring
Medicare into the modern era and provide our seniors with a greater
health benefit.
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, it is Republican-led policies that move this Nation
forward today, not Democrat politics that we are witnessing on the
floor this evening.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
his eloquent remarks.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when I came here in 1993, the Republican
majority, then the Republican minority, spoke about a balanced budget
amendment and that we had to balance the budget not on the backs of
future generations. We no longer hear about a balanced budget
amendment. They came and they said if they would become the majority
that we would have term limits so that Members of Congress could be
people legislators and not stay here all of their lives. They no longer
talk about term limits.
But astonishingly that night, I could understand those changes.
Philosophically and politically they changed their mind and said it was
okay to run deficits, it was okay to bust the budget, that these were
okay things to do; that it was okay to tell the people that they were
only to come here for three terms, 6 years, and then return to their
districts, and that was okay but they had a change of mind.
But what happened that night was different because I never recall a
single instance in which a member of the Republican majority said that
I was offered a $100,000 bribe in order to break my promise to the
people, to change my position on a public policy issue. And that is
what the debate should be here about tonight, and until we get to the
bottom of that matter, it is a shame and a blemish on this House.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This is a great day for America. Today President Bush signed a
prescription drug bill that will deliver on a promise that this
Congress has talked about for 4 years and has passed three different
bills to try to achieve it.
Last year after we passed our second bill, the Senate, controlled by
the Democrats, would not even allow a vote, would not even allow a
vote. That is why when we had the opportunity to pass a bill that would
provide, deliver, prescription drugs as a part of Medicare on the basis
of voluntary participation to all seniors all across America, we were
determined to take it. Furthermore, it is the first bill that counted
all seniors in America as Medicare and seniors first and poor second.
That is why we are taking all seniors off Medicaid, bringing them on
Medicare's drug benefit so they will get the same benefit all across
the country because they are seniors first and poor only second. The
Senate bill did not do that. Our bill did that.
And we passed this bill and pushed it through and held the vote open
because we wanted to make sure that that half of women retired, living
on very low incomes, would get what this bill promises them, $1 or $2
copayments on generics and $3 or $5 on prescriptions, that is all.
But we had to pass this bill for another reason. It does more to
improve payments for rural health care providers and to link rural
health care to sophisticated medical centers than any legislative
initiative from this body ever has done, and without it the physicians
out now in the rural towns, who are my husband's age and who are about
to retire, will not be replaceable. We will not be able to attract the
next generation of physicians to rural health care without the really
rather arbitrary policy changes in this bill that reflect our
experience in rural health and its inability to attract providers. So
we saved rural seniors from not having access to doctors, home health
agencies, and hospitals. And, furthermore, we link through these
regional health plans rural medicine more tightly into sophisticated
medical centers. And, lastly, we passed disease management in this bill
for the plans on a mandatory basis and for Medicare as an integral part
of it in the years to come, and, thereby, for the first time, built
preventative health care into the Medicare structure. It is currently,
now, solely an illness treatment program.
With the new reforms the President signed today, and with great
leadership from Secretary Tommy Thompson, who deserves tremendous
credit, both for understanding the need for rural health to be linked
into the modern delivery capability of technology, and who understood
also the power that disease management is going to give us to help
seniors with chronic illness prevent their chronic illnesses from
progressing, and how urgent it is that when a plan like Medicare has
one-third of its seniors with five chronic illnesses using 80 percent
of program dollars that we do something about it, that we act. For 4
years we have talked and not acted. If acting required holding that
vote open, and then we saw at the end, two Republicans changed to
``yes'' and two changed to ``no.'' What happened was that my friends on
the other side of the aisle who understood the importance of this bill
both to the quality of care seniors could achieve and to the
revitalization of rural medicine then were free to lay their votes on
table, and it was those additional votes that made the difference, and
I thank them because bipartisanship is hard in this environment, and I
understand it. But we did it for America's seniors. We did it together.
The President signed it today, and it is an enormous victory for senior
health care and the greatest step forward in women's health that this
body has ever passed. And I am proud to stand here and say this
Congress passed the modernization of Medicare and the inclusion of
prescription drugs for our seniors with the President's help, and I
thank him.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is clear that the conduct of the Medicare prescription drug bill
is indefensible, and that is why not one member of the elected
leadership of the majority could show his face on this floor today to
defend that behavior. It is clear.
If we had so much time that night that we could wait, why could we
not
[[Page H12853]]
have time to debate? We had asked the Committee on Rules for more time
for debate. Were the Republicans afraid that the American people would
find out with further debate that they have a prohibition in the bill
from this government negotiating for lower prices for prescription
drugs for our seniors? Were they afraid that they would find out if
they make $13,470 a year that they pay $4,000 of their first $5,000 for
prescription drug benefits, $4,000 of their first $5,000?
I brought this privileged resolution to the floor not because the
Republicans had once again abused their power and once again had abused
their customs and traditions of this House. I brought this privileged
resolution to the House because there were newspaper publications of
rumors of bribery, of $100,000 on the floor of this House to a Member
of Congress and a threat to that Member of Congress that his son would
never come to Congress unless he voted with the Republicans.
The public deserves answers to that question. We will not let this
rest. The Republican leadership can run, but they cannot hide from that
rumor of bribery taking place on this floor of the House. The Member
himself has asserted that, but we could not come to the floor until we
had a written documentation of that assertion. That assertion is now
documented.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the President's signing this
historic legislation today. This is not historic legislation. This is
an historic missed opportunity to do what is right for America's
seniors. It is historic in this respect: 40 years ago when the
Democratic Congress and the Democratic President made Medicare the law
of the land, only 13 Republicans voted for the Medicare bill. They had
been waging war. The Republicans had been waging war on Medicare for 40
years. They had their opportunity to have a full airing of the debate
that night so the public could hear what they were up to with their
Trojan horse of a piece of legislation. They did not have time to
debate. They could not honor our request for more time to discuss this
very historic and important legislation. They did have time for bribery
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue about how we conduct the people's
business, how we set an example for the rest of the world. It is an
example of how people are not accountable for their behavior on this
floor by having business conducted here in a way that brings shame and
dishonor to this House and not even coming to this floor to listen to
the debate or to defend that conduct. This is a very historic day
indeed because this is a day when the American people are finding out
that the Republicans will go to any length to be the handmaidens of the
pharmaceutical industry. They will go to any length to be beholden to
the HMOs and the insurance industry, that the Republicans will go to
any length to justify the wrong actions that they are taking. So
convinced of the correctness of their position that they think that any
action is justified. Let that not be the rule that applies to any of us
on either side of the aisle.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to support our
privileged resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Motion to Table Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut moves that the resolution be
laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentlewoman by
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 182, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 677]
YEAS--207
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--182
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--45
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baker
Berman
Boucher
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Duncan
Everett
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Istook
Janklow
Kennedy (RI)
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lynch
Manzullo
Menendez
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Nadler
Oxley
Pascrell
[[Page H12854]]
Quinn
Rohrabacher
Schiff
Stark
Thornberry
Vitter
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette)(during the vote). Members
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1704
Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, DAVIS of Illinois, and HALL changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. OSBORNE, RYUN of Kansas, GREENWOOD, AKIN, BEAUPREZ, and
TANCREDO, and Ms. HART changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 677, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________