[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 178 (Thursday, December 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12261-S12263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we in this Chamber, a lot of times, talk 
as if no one is listening to what we are saying, as though we are 
talking to ourselves. But that is not true. The American people are 
listening and they are watching. That is good. But this morning I have 
good news and I have some bad news. The good news is, Senate 
Republicans finally--finally, at long last--have put a detailed plan 
down on paper. The bad news is, it is not as we had hoped--a plan to 
make health insurance more affordable, it is not one that makes health 
insurance companies more accountable, and it is certainly not a plan to 
reverse rapidly rising health care costs and draw down our deficit, 
such as the plan that has been submitted to the Senate and is now 
before the Senate by the Democrats.
  Again, the plan we had hoped to receive from the Republicans would be 
to

[[Page S12262]]

make insurance more affordable, it would be one to make health 
insurance companies more accountable, and it would be a plan to reverse 
the rapidly rising health care costs and draw down our deficit. But, 
no, the Republican plan we have waited weeks and months to see doesn't 
do any of those things. In fact, it is not even about health care at 
all, even though it is on the health care bill, this plan they have 
outlined. The first and only plan Senate Republicans bothered to draft 
is an instructional manual on how to bring the Senate to a screeching 
halt. We knew that was happening anyway, but they had the audacity to 
put it in writing.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter I will be referring to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. REID. Madam President, here are some of the highlights of the 
Republican plan laid out in the letter I referred to:
  Tips on how to force the full reading of all amendments--long 
amendments, short amendments.
  I have no objection to transparency. That is important. Every Senator 
should know what he or she is voting on, but let's be truly 
transparent. We all know that those who would ask for such readings 
have no intention of sitting in this Chamber, listening to the Senate 
clerks. Any suggestion otherwise is simply disingenuous.
  This document explains how to manipulate points of order. Yes, that 
is what I said, manipulate points of order--a complex but important 
part of the legislative process. Yet these Senators have no intention 
of examining the procedures of the Senate or any constitutional rules.
  The document says it in plain language. The whole purpose of the 
document, dated the day before yesterday--December 1--a ``Dear 
Republican colleague'' letter, is to set forth how to slow things down, 
as if they needed more help to slow things down. Ninety-one times this 
year they have already done that. But on this bill--this bill that 
affects every person in America--to put in writing that they are going 
to do everything they can to stop this, to delay this, is beyond 
something that I think the American people can comprehend.
  The document says in plain language that is their intention. It even 
condones using this tactic ``without cause.'' Do this without any 
reason. Just do it. The rules allow it, so go ahead and do it. It 
stalls things. This letter admits, in no uncertain terms, that the goal 
of this tactic is to delay. I didn't make up the word. It is in here. 
It is as clear as day.

  But there is more in this plan. It also advises Senators on how to 
``extend consideration of a measure,'' which motions ``may be 
filibustered,'' and when Senators might ``offer an unlimited number of 
motions.''
  Well, as we see in the press, today, anyway, this has caused outrage. 
It is a catalogue of obstructions--a catalogue of instructions to 
obstruct. But what disappoints me most about this is what isn't here. 
Nowhere in this Republican plan is a strategy to lower premiums; not a 
single word about how to make sure more of our citizens can afford to 
stay healthy; can't even find one idea for stopping insurance companies 
from denying health care to the sick. You see, my Republican friends 
have been so busy coming up with games and gambits, with ways to 
distort and delay, with scare tactics and stalling tactics, that they 
haven't left time to come up with solutions to one of the most profound 
crises in the history of our country. The Senate might be interested to 
learn that the architect behind this blueprint is none other than the 
former chair of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire. It is worth noting that this Senator--who, more than any 
other, often speaks publicly about how to properly use citizens' tax 
dollars--has now signed his name to a plan with the explicit goal of 
wasting the taxpayers' time and money.
  Less than 2 weeks ago, the author of this document, along with every 
single one of his fellow Republicans--every one--voted against even 
letting the Senate debate this bill. He didn't even want to give the 
American people the opportunity to watch this debate take place--to 
discuss and defend his position. Now he expects us to believe his only 
motive is making sure the minority party's voice can be heard.
  No one believes that because it couldn't be any further from what the 
Founders had in mind. They didn't write this esteemed body's rules so 
we could stare at the hands of the clock--which are right up here--as 
they rotate around each other without end. So let's not pretend the 
Republican strategy is anything different than what it is. After all, 
Republicans certainly aren't trying to hide it.
  When I see these kinds of political games, I think of many cases in 
Nevada and around the country, but, in particular, I think of a woman 
from Las Vegas named Alysia. She wrote me a letter when the health care 
debate was getting underway. She is in her early twenties. I don't know 
if she is a Democrat, an Independent, or a Republican. It doesn't 
matter. She was born with a kidney disease, a bad kidney disease. She 
has suffered with it every day of her life, and these days she 
desperately needs surgery. But she is not going to get surgery.
  Similar to so many in Nevada and across the Nation, Alysia recently 
lost her job. With her job lost, she lost her insurance and her health 
care. So Alysia went out and tried to buy a new plan to help her afford 
her care. No one will give her insurance. She can't find a job to get 
group insurance.
  What did the insurance companies tell her--plural? That her kidney 
disorder is a preexisting condition, and because of that policy of the 
insurance industry, which is reprehensible, they refuse to cover her. 
They refuse to cover this young woman at the exact moment she needs it 
the most. She then tried to go get some help from Medicaid. What did 
she hear in response? She doesn't qualify because she isn't pregnant, 
she doesn't have children, and they say she doesn't have a disability.
  So how can you take a woman such as Alysia out of your mind? I think 
she is probably following this debate. It means a lot more to her, this 
debate, than a legislative exercise or a political objective. She will 
pick up the newspaper this morning, turn on the news, or go online to 
read about what is happening in the Senate. Why? Because it affects her 
health--her pain and suffering. She probably remembers her grade school 
textbook teaching her that this is the world's greatest deliberative 
body and she is eager to find out about how those deliberations are 
going. She is eager to learn what we are going to do with a system that 
makes it impossible for her to get health care.
  Who knows, she might even be watching C-SPAN as we speak. Can you 
imagine being Alysia and going through all that she has gone through, 
counting on your leaders to right the wrongs that we know exist, and 
this is what she finds--a Senator writing a letter on how to guide 
avoiding the tough decisions that will affect her life and maybe even 
save her life.
  It is not hard to imagine. We all know you don't have to have a bad 
health history, such as Alysia's, to tell a similar story of your own. 
You may have had an accident in your early days. You may have diabetes. 
It doesn't matter. You don't need kidney disease for insurance 
companies to take away your health insurance. As it stands now, they 
can deny you coverage because of high cholesterol, because you have 
allergies or maybe you have had minor surgery or maybe because you are 
a woman. Maybe your mom had breast cancer. These are all reasons they 
use to deny coverage.
  We all know that, much like our Republican colleagues, insurance 
companies will use any excuse in the book to just say no.
  For many good people in Nevada and throughout the Nation, it is a 
painful, terrible reality. That is one of the many problems our good 
bill fixes.
  The American people see transparent tricks like this--it is a 
shameful scheme--for what they are. The American people could not be 
impressed. They are not impressed. I can't decide which should 
disappoint the American citizens more, that the Senate Republicans are 
happily wasting time or that they are so eager to admit it. But here is 
one thing I do know, this is no way to govern, no way to legislate, 
this is no way to lead, and especially no way to lead our country, our 
constituents,

[[Page S12263]]

back to health. The bill before the Senate saves lives, saves money, 
and saves Medicare.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
       Dear Republican Colleague: As we embark on Senate debate of 
     Majority Leader Reid's massive $2.5 trillion health care 
     reform legislation, it is critical that Republican senators 
     have a solid understanding of the minority's rights in the 
     Senate.
       I think that we can all agree that the Democrats' bill is 
     the wrong choice for our nation. It will impact one-sixth of 
     our economy, vastly grow the government, and pile tremendous 
     debt on future generations. We are at an important crossroads 
     both for the economy and for the health care system. 
     Therefore, it is imperative that our voices are heard during 
     this debate.
       We, the minority party, must use the tools we have under 
     Senate rules to insist on a full, complete and fully informed 
     debate on the health care legislation--as well as all 
     legislation--coming before the Senate. As laid out in the 
     attached document, we have certain rights before measures are 
     considered on the floor as well as certain rights during the 
     actual consideration of measures. Every Republican senator 
     should be familiar with the scope of these rights, which 
     serve to protect our ability to speak on behalf of the 
     millions of Americans who depend on us to be their voice 
     during this historic debate.
       I hope you find the attached information helpful. If you 
     have any questions, please contact my communications office.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Judd Gregg.

  Foundation for the Minority Party's Rights in the Senate (Fall 2009)

       The Senate rules are designed to give a minority of 
     Senators the right to insist on a full, complete, and fully 
     informed debate on all measures and issues coming before the 
     Senate. This cornerstone of protection can only be abrogated 
     if 60 or more Senators vote to take these rights away from 
     the minority.
     I. Rights Available to Minority Before Measures are 
         Considered on Floor (These rights are normally waived by 
         Unanimous Consent (UC) when time is short, but any 
         Senator can object to the waiver.)
       New Legislative Day--An adjournment of the Senate, as 
     opposed to a recess, is required to trigger a new legislative 
     day. A new legislative day starts with the morning hour, a 2-
     hour period with a number of required procedures. During part 
     of the ``morning hour'' any Senator may make non-debatable 
     motions to proceed to items on the Senate calendar.
       One Day and Two Day Rules--The 1-day rule requires that 
     measures must lie over one ``legislative day'' before they 
     can be considered. All bills have to lie over one day, 
     whether they were introduced by an individual Senator (rule 
     XIV) or reported by a committee (rule XVII). The 2-day rule 
     requires that IF a committee chooses to file a written 
     report, that committee report MUST contain a CBO cost 
     estimate, a regulatory impact statement, and detail what 
     changes the measure makes to current law (or provide a 
     statement why any of these cannot be done), and that report 
     must be available at least 2 calendar days before a bill can 
     be considered on the Senate floor. Senators may block a 
     measure's consideration by raising a point of order if it 
     does not meet one of these requirements.
       ``Hard'' Quorum Calls--Senate operates on a presumptive 
     quorum of 51 senators and quorum calls are routinely 
     dispensed with by unanimous consent. If UC is not granted to 
     dispose of a routine quorum call, then the roll must continue 
     to be called. If a quorum is not present, the only motions 
     the leadership may make are to adjourn, to recess under a 
     previous order, or time-consuming motions to establish a 
     quorum that include requesting, requiring, and then arresting 
     Senators to compel their presence in the Senate chamber.
     II. Rights Available to Minority During Consideration of 
         Measures in Senate (Many of these rights are regularly 
         waived by Unanimous Consent.)
       Motions to Proceed to Measures--with the exception of 
     Conference Reports and Budget Resolutions, most such motions 
     are fully debatable and 60 votes for cloture is needed to cut 
     off extended debate.
       Reading of Amendments and Conference Reports in Entirety--
     In most circumstances, the reading of the full text of 
     amendments may only be dispensed with by unanimous consent. 
     Any Senator may object to dispensing with the reading. If, as 
     is often the case when the Senate begins consideration of a 
     House-passed vehicle, the Majority Leader offers a full-text 
     substitute amendment, the reading of that full-text 
     substitute amendment can only be waived by unanimous consent. 
     A member may only request the reading of a conference report 
     if it is not available in printed form (100 copies available 
     in the Senate chamber).
       Senate Points of Order--A Senator may make a point of order 
     at any point he or she believes that a Senate procedure is 
     being violated, with or without cause. After the presiding 
     officer rules, any Senator who disagrees with such ruling may 
     appeal the ruling of the chair--that appeal is fully 
     debatable. Some points of order, such as those raised on 
     Constitutional grounds, are not ruled on by the presiding 
     officer and the question is put to the Senate, then the point 
     of order itself is fully debatable. The Senate may dispose of 
     a point of order or an appeal by tabling it; however, delay 
     is created by the two roll call votes in connection with each 
     tabling motion (motion to table and motion to reconsider that 
     vote).
       Budget Points of Order--Many legislative proposals (bills, 
     amendments, and conference reports) are subject to a point of 
     order under the Budget Act or budget resolution, most of 
     which can only be waived by 60 votes. If budget points of 
     order lie against a measure, any Senator may raise them, and 
     a measure cannot be passed or disposed of unless the points 
     of order that are raised are waived. (See http://
budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/PointsofOrder.pdf )


                           Amendment Process

       Amendment Tree Process and/or Filibuster by Amendment--
     until cloture is invoked, Senators may offer an unlimited 
     number of amendments--germane or non-germane--on any subject. 
     This is the fullest expression of a ``full, complete, and 
     informed'' debate on a measure. It has been necessary under 
     past Democrat majorities to use the rules governing the 
     amendment process aggressively to ensure that minority 
     Senators get votes on their amendment as originally written 
     (unchanged by the Majority Democrats.)
       Substitute Amendments--UC is routinely requested to treat 
     substitute amendments as original text for purposes of 
     further amendment, which makes it easier for the majority to 
     offer 2nd degree amendments to gut 1st degree amendments by 
     the minority. The minority could protect their amendments by 
     objecting to such UC's.
       Divisible Amendments--amendments are divisible upon demand 
     by any Senator if they contain two or more parts that can 
     stand independently of one another. This can be used to fight 
     efforts to block the minority from offering all of their 
     amendments, because a single amendment could be drafted, 
     offered at a point when such an amendment is in order, and 
     then divided into multiple component parts for separate 
     consideration and votes. Demanding division of amendments can 
     also be used to extend consideration of a measure. Amendments 
     to strike and insert text cannot be divided.
       Motions to Recommit Bills to Committee With or Without 
     Instructions--A Senator may make a motion to recommit a bill 
     to the committee with or without instructions to the 
     Committee to report it back to the Senate with certain 
     changes or additions. Such instructions are amendable.


   AFTER PASSAGE Going to Conference, Motions to Instruct Conferees, 
                   Matters Out of Scope of Conference

       Going to Conference--The Senate must pass 3 separate 
     motions to go to conference: (1) a motion to insist on its 
     amendments or disagree with the House amendments; (2) a 
     motion to request/agree to a conference; and (3) a motion to 
     authorize the Chair to appoint conferees. The Senate 
     routinely does this by UC, but if a Senator objects the 
     Senate must debate each step and all 3 motions may be 
     filibustered (requiring a cloture vote to end debate).
       Motion to Instruct Conferees--Once the Senate adopts the 
     first two motions, Senators may offer an unlimited number of 
     motions to instruct the Senate's conferees. The motions to 
     instruct are amendable--and divisible upon demand--by 
     Senators if they contain more than one separate and distinct 
     instruction.
       Conference Reports, Out of Scope Motions--In addition to 
     demanding a copy of the conference report to be on every 
     Senator's desk and raising Budget points of order against it, 
     Senators may also raise a point of order that it contains 
     matter not related to the matters originally submitted to the 
     conference by either chamber. If the Chair sustains the point 
     or order, the provision(s) is stricken from the conference 
     agreement, and the House would then have to approve the 
     measure absent the stricken provision (even if the House had 
     already acted on the conference report). The scope point of 
     order can be waived by 60 Senators.
       Availability of Conference Report Language. The conference 
     report must be publicly available on a website 48 hours in 
     advance prior to the vote on passage.

                          ____________________