[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H761-H769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4626, HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY
FAIR COMPETITION ACT
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1098 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1098
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4626) to restore the application of the Federal antitrust
laws to the business of health insurance to protect
competition and consumers. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Driehaus). The gentlewoman from New York
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am
pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of this rule
is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have spent a lot of time
talking with people in my district about health care and what is
happening to them. They were in no way prepared for the influx of
incredible rate increases that seemed to come out of nowhere and fall
like rain upon them, to the extent that most of them really are not
sure they can even stay insured.
Invariably, the conversation turns to health premium increases. I
hear about insurers that deny coverage. I heard from a father who had
just had a child who was born with a condition that would make him
uninsurable for the rest of his life. I listened to someone tell me
that her husband's new insurance policy won't cover her because she has
preexisting conditions or simply because it doesn't cover her.
But now this Congress is on the brink of some commonsense changes to
the health insurance industry that will help to level the playing field
a bit between ordinary Americans and the giant corporations that exert
such power over our day-to-day lives.
{time} 1045
And I say ``our'' because I personally am caught in the same trap as
most of my constituents. I don't have any kind of special coverage
because I'm a Member of Congress. I have always been on my husband's
policy at home from Eastman Kodak that has covered us since he retired,
but it no longer will cover spouses. We are halfway through dropping
spouses, and all the benefits that we got as spouses were taken away
about 4 years ago. So it's not the worst plan, but it's not the best
either.
[[Page H762]]
Under the health care bill endorsed by House Democrats, the insurance
companies will no longer be able to deny insurance coverage based on
preexisting conditions or just premiums based on gender, which they
do--you may not know that single women are charged 48 percent more for
health insurance--or for their occupation.
They wouldn't be able to drop coverage if you get sick. I was talking
to a man just this morning who talked about all the money he had paid
into health insurance, and when he made his first claim at the age of
30, they decided already he was going to be trouble and denied his
claim. They cannot anymore tell you that it costs too much to take care
of your child. Insurance companies would have to publicize their rates
and no longer can charge older Americans twice as much as the younger
ones.
For my money, though, there is one part of our reform package that is
simple to explain, easy to justify, and 60 years overdue, and that part
is to repeal the antitrust exemption given to the health insurance
industry in 1945 by Congress. That is why we are here today. There is
no reason any industry in the United States, including baseball, which
was exempt as well, should be exempt from the one consumer protection
the Federal Government gives everybody against chicanery, collusion,
and rate setting.
Even though the broader effort to pass the final health care bill is
underway, we have an opportunity today to make a simple,
straightforward statement about how we think health insurance should
operate in this country. By repealing this unjustifiable exemption, we
will enable--this is very important. People do not understand that
during the last 60 years the Justice Department has not been able to
enforce anything against them because they were exempt. This will
enable the Justice Department to begin aggressively enforcing the laws
that protect the consumers against the cartel of health insurance who
wield such outsized influence in the health care industry.
As it stands now, the insurance industry is allowed to fix prices and
engage in other anticompetitive behavior. Because these companies are
allowed to pool and share data and to jointly establish premiums and
types of coverage, there is very little prospect for an average family
to price shop. It is almost too tempting for big insurers not to cheat
a little bit. Moreover, regulating the insurance industry is left up to
individual States--most of them will tell you that they really are not
up to it--which often suffer from a lack of resources to effectively
crack down on abuses.
Each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia has its own
regulatory framework, traditions, and intentions, which leads to a
spotty patchwork of enforcement. In fact, according to a report from
the Center for American Progress, there has been only extremely limited
and sporadic State enforcement by State insurance commissioners
throughout the 60 years. In the void, insurance companies have been
free to engage in anticompetitive and anticonsumer behavior, resulting,
as we said just recently, in some insurance premiums costing as much as
70 percent.
As a result, this exemption thwarts free market pricing and is
impossible to defend today or at any other time. What we will be doing
by removing this exemption is to tell the health insurance companies
that they need to start behaving like every other industry. We tell
them that colluding and conspiring to set prices at a certain level to
harm consumers is not going to work in America anymore.
As I said, the history of this provision dates back to 1944, when
some insurance companies went to court to challenge the notion that the
Federal Government could enforce antitrust laws. Despite their best
efforts, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurance business was
subject to antitrust laws just like everybody else. Unhappy with that
decision, the insurers effectively got Congress to invalidate the
ruling of the top court. It was an amazing piece of legislation, Mr.
Speaker. Both Houses, Senate and the House, passed legislation giving
the insurance industry a 3-year transition period while they moved to
be covered by what everybody else is covered by, antitrust. Both bills
had passed, and when it came out of conference, the exemption was made
permanent.
Over the years, opponents of McCarran-Ferguson--and I have been one
of them for about 30--have been stymied. The last serious effort was
led by Representative Jack Brooks in 1991, who tried and failed to
change the law.
Last year, when we again started in a serious effort to change the
law, the industry geared up for a big fight. We heard from the American
Insurance Association and the American Academy of Actuaries, among
others, who argued that changing this law would somehow cost consumers
more money. Other interest groups claimed the provision was poorly
written, too broad, or a solution in search of a problem.
Interestingly, some lobbyists have quietly begun to whisper that this
provision will not have impact on their rates. They say it is too
narrow in scope. Frankly, I would much have preferred to lift this
exemption from the entire insurance industry instead of just health.
But they are firmly opposed, make no doubt about that, and are lobbying
to prevent it, which makes we wonder if they are sort of whistling past
the graveyard.
Now, let's look back for a minute at the last major investigation of
the health industry. Two years ago, the attorney general for the State
of New York, Andrew Cuomo, investigated the collusion of health
insurers. Those companies were using Ingenix, a billing data
clearinghouse, to set rates even though the company was owned by one of
them. The evidence showed the insurers were conspiring together to
artificially depress a level of reasonable and customary charges they
would reimburse to health care providers, which shifted additional
costs onto the policyholder. In the face of a threat from Cuomo, the
clearinghouse agreed to disband, and the insurance companies paid a
sizable sum to resolve the charges.
As recently as this week, there were fresh news reports out of
California about abuses by a major insurer there. It is important to
remember that many people assume that conspiring to set rates is
illegal in our country. I assume most people believe that. Every high
school student in America is taught about the Sherman Antitrust Act and
the how the creation of the Federal Trade Commission came about to
level the playing field. Part of the motivation was to make sure that
small businesses, who make up the backbone of our economy and fuel
small towns from coast to coast, would have a chance against the big
corporate interests. These creative new entrepreneurs needed to have
confidence they would not be frozen out of the market by the big boys.
Sadly, that is exactly what happened. In many States and regions across
the country, there are often just a couple of health insurance
companies operating. In New York, two companies control half the
market. Many States have it even worse, including our neighbor Vermont,
where two companies have 90 percent of the market share.
Of course, some people will continue to insist that government should
just stay out of this whole business. My colleagues on the other side
often say no government is the best government and free market works
best if there is no attempt to regulate it. But I would argue that any
of that is far outweighed by the benefit we gain by having more
competition, less concentration, and the assistance of a powerful
watchdog.
I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to join me today in
supporting the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new majority
came to power full of promises for a bipartisan working relationship
and a landmark pledge to create the ``most honest, most open, and most
ethical Congress in history''; however, this rule and this bill are the
antithesis of that statement.
The bill we consider today, H.R. 4626, the Health Insurance Industry
Fair Competition Act, is not the language that passed the House
Judiciary Committee in November of 2009 as H.R. 3596.
[[Page H763]]
In fact, the bill we have before us today was not considered by any
committee and was introduced only 2 days ago, on Monday, February 22,
2010.
It is hard to understand what is the sudden rush. Yesterday, the
gentlewoman from New York said we have waited 60 years to get this
bill; today, she says this is long overdue. But she doesn't point out
that in all that period of time, the Democrats have been in charge of
Congress except for 2 years in the fifties during the Eisenhower
administration and the years 1995 to 2006. So why didn't they get it
passed when they were in control before? Why have they been waiting 60
years to get it done?
The language in H.R. 4626 is substantially different from the bill
the Judiciary Committee passed. That bill dealt with both health
insurance and medical liability insurance, but medical liability
insurance has since been stricken from the language. In addition, my
colleague, Mr. Lungren from California, offered an amendment that was
accepted with bipartisan support by the House Judiciary Committee
during markup. That amendment was stricken from the language of the
current bill that we see in H.R. 4626. During the Rules Committee
debate yesterday, Mr. Lungren offered that same amendment; however, it
was not made in order. Instead, we have yet another closed rule where
Members are shut out from offering any amendments to a bill that did
not see the proper vetting process. It is high time that we open this
process up and that we hold the majority to their promise to make this
an open Congress and allow amendments to be offered on the floor and
fully debated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) control the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for
yielding the time. I also want to salute the chairwoman of the Rules
Committee, Ms. Slaughter, who has been a champion for American families
when it comes to standing up for their needs, especially in health
care.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4626, the Health
Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, and the underlying rule. It is
time for policymakers in Washington to determine whose side are they
on; are they on the side of the health insurance companies or are they
on the side of American families and small businesses?
I urge my colleagues to stand up for hardworking families across
America and pass this Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act
today because the state of the current law is unfair. Health insurance
companies currently enjoy an exemption from antitrust laws with no good
justification. Meanwhile, American families are held hostage to rising
health care costs and a nagging insecurity that even though they pay
their premiums and they pay their copays, they could be canceled at any
time, even when they get sick, or they're going to have to fight
through the red tape to get the benefits they're entitled to.
Last year, the five largest health insurance companies made a record
$12.2 billion profit, a 56 percent jump, while dropping coverage for
2.7 million Americans. Health insurers appear to be cherry-picking who
they will cover in order to make a huge profit.
In my home State of Florida, from 2000 to 2007, health care premiums
for families rose on average by 72 percent; meanwhile, their paychecks
only went up 20 percent during the same time. So our action in removing
the antitrust exemption will spur fair prices and real competition.
Again, it's time to choose; whose side are you on? Who will we
protect, American families or the health insurance companies? The
answer is clear: No more favors to private insurance companies.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to my
distinguished colleague from California, the former attorney general of
California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.
{time} 1100
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank my colleague from North
Carolina for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I might say this is an interesting point. I don't think
I've ever been on the floor in 16 years and have faced this kind of a
rule. It is a closed rule. I've been here before with closed rules, but
the effect of the closed rule is to prohibit me from providing or from
presenting my amendment. Now, that is not unusual. Usually, you come to
the floor, and you present an amendment to try and amend the bill to
change it from the way it was reported out of the committee that did
the work on it. But in this case, I am being prohibited from offering
an amendment to change the bill back to the way it was as reported out
of the committee on a bipartisan basis.
For whatever reason, the majority on the Rules Committee decided that
an amendment that was cited by the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Conyers, as an excellent clarifying amendment is not
going to be here.
When one of the chief cosponsors of the bill, or coauthors of the
bill, being presented on the floor today announced the bill last week,
she said publicly that this was similar to the bill that was passed out
of the Judiciary Committee with the bipartisan support of Congressman
Lungren from California. So, naturally, I was interested to look at the
bill that they were presenting to see how it was the same as the bill
we presented. I found out that they'd left out my amendment which
allowed for the sharing of historical data by insurers so that they
might look at the experience evidence and utilize that in making their
decisions with respect to how they conducted their business going
forward.
I had been assured that my amendment was not necessary because
committee staff on the Judiciary Committee had researched it. Nobody
believed that the Justice Department of any administration going
forward would find the compiling of historical data among the insurers
to be noncompetitive and violative of the antitrust laws. I was further
assured that they did not believe that that would be the case with any
of the attorneys general of the States.
Now, I had the privilege of serving as attorney general of my State
for 8 years, being a member of the National Association of Attorneys
General--an organization which does support legislation of this type--
and of course, attorneys general of the various States have independent
authority under their State laws to enforce antitrust laws, which I did
during my 8 years. Sometimes we went beyond what the Federal Government
did because we understood better the unique circumstances of our State.
I remember, one time, we were dealing with a merger between two large
banks. They were national banks, and they had branches in the State of
California. We were working in conjunction with the antitrust division
of the Justice Department, and we were moving in the same direction,
but I remember getting a phone call from one of the attorneys at the
Justice Department in Washington, DC, who asked this question: Well,
how close is San Jose to San Diego? About 400 miles, but they thought
they were next to one another.
Why was that relevant? That would be relevant as to whether you had
competition among the bank branches that were then going to be merged.
Would that then give increased and illegal concentration of power in
those areas?
The point I am making is that attorneys general of the States may
know a little bit more about their States than attorneys working as
hard as they can here in Washington, DC. So the idea that attorneys
general are somehow impotent, from a legal standpoint, such that they
cannot bring forward antitrust cases, is just not true.
At the same time, I voted for the bill coming out of committee
because I thought it had, in fact, reached an appropriate balance.
Interestingly enough, the gentlelady from New York, the chairperson of
the Rules Committee, stated in her support for this rule and in support
for the underlying bill that this is really a tribute to Jack
[[Page H764]]
Brooks, who attempted to do this for years.
I was privileged to serve with Jack Brooks, an interesting Texan
Member, someone who was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee for some
time. When the bill in the Judiciary Committee was originally
introduced this time around, the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Mr. Conyers, cited Jack Brooks, and said, This was the Jack
Brooks bill. So I went back, and I looked at it. I found out that my
amendment, or the language that I had then put in in amendment form,
was in the Jack Brooks bill but not in the bill before us. So I brought
it forward.
So you might say, if we are doing this in homage to Jack Brooks, you
would do him further homage by allowing the language of his bill to be
put into this bill, and that's all I ask for. It's all I ask for.
Now, the other part of the bill that came out of the Judiciary
Committee, which is not in this bill, is to remove the antitrust
exemption that currently exists for medical malpractice insurance
providers, but somehow that has been taken out of this bill with no
explanation whatsoever.
So we have cherry-picked from the bill that came out of the Judiciary
Committee with bipartisan support, and yet we acclaim the bill as
being, essentially, the bipartisan bill that came out of committee.
As I said before the Rules Committee yesterday, sometimes you just
have to learn to take ``yes'' for an answer. I support the underlying
bill. I support this effort. I am trying to make it better. It was
accepted on a bipartisan basis. Yet, in the Rules Committee, there
wasn't one, in my judgment, credible argument about why you wouldn't
have it.
On the one hand, I've heard from the staff of the Judiciary Committee
that it is not necessary because no single administration will have a
Justice Department that finds this to be anti-competitive. On the other
hand, I hear from the chairperson of the committee, Well, we don't want
to give this power to the insurance companies. We want the Justice
Department to investigate it. Well, if that's the case, you can't have
your cake and you can't eat it, too. It's either one or the other.
If it is, as I was told, unnecessary, redundant because nobody
looking at it will find this to be noncompetitive because it is
essential information--and by the way, the absence of this information
will not hurt the big guys as much as it will hurt the little guys.
Why? Because if you are a large carrier, you have a far greater
experience database than if you are a small carrier. You understand the
market better in terms of information that is at your fingertips. If
you are a smaller provider, you need the information to understand the
universe that you might be attempting to present your product to.
So we have, on the one side, being told that no reasonable antitrust
division of any Justice Department of any administration will find this
to be anti-competitive. Then you have the chairperson of the Rules
Committee saying, No, no, we have to keep this in here because we want
to make sure that the Justice Department will be able to determine
whether or not it is.
So what does that give the market? What does it give the smaller
insurers? It gives them uncertainty.
So the very thing that you are saying you want to do you are
prohibiting from being accomplished by not allowing this amendment to
be considered. This amendment, as I might say, was described by the
chairman of the committee as an excellent clarifying amendment. We are
therefore removing clarification, and we are replacing it with
uncertainty.
Look, I can go down on the floor and bash the insurance companies as
well as anybody here. Let's just knock them all around here. The point
is we are making an adjustment in law, which is what is good for the
people. So why not do it in an intelligent way, in a way that will
actually assist in the marketplace and allow for greater competition?
Outside studies have said, if, in fact, this information is not allowed
to be collected together and shared among those in the industry, it
might--they said ``might''--might have the impact of harming the
smaller insurance carriers.
So I don't know why you're doing this. I don't know if there is a
political reason for it. I don't know if it's because I happen to be a
Republican. I'll give it up. Any Democrat who wants to put his name on
it can add his name to Jack Brooks' and present it on the floor. But
this kind of silliness on this floor has got to stop. You ask for
bipartisanship, and you throw it away. We have complete bipartisanship
in the committee, and you ignore it.
As one member of the committee, a Republican member who voted with me
in support of this bill on a bipartisan basis, said afterwards when he
found out that that bill wasn't going to be presented on the floor, Why
do we need committees and subcommittees? What are we holding hearings
for? Why are we having the experts testify before us if, in fact,
somehow in the--I don't know where it is. There are closed doors
somewhere that decided that this bill was going to come out instead of
the bill we worked on in committee and then give no good answer.
It's such a shame you don't have TV cameras in the Rules Committee.
If people could have seen the argument yesterday, if the public could
have understood what we were talking about, I mean they would have
shaken their heads and said, Do the people's business. Please do the
people's business. Don't get involved in partisanship.
Again, I would say I give up my name on this amendment. I will gladly
dedicate it to Jack Brooks in his memory. I'm glad to give it to any
Member of the Democratic side. Let's do the people's business and get
rid of this silliness of unstated partisanship, without any rationale,
that undercuts the impact of the bill.
Once again, this is unique. I've spent 16 years in this place. This
is the first time I've ever come to the floor and have been denied an
amendment that would put back in something we voted on on a bipartisan
basis in committee that has been removed at the direction of somebody,
including the Rules Committee, so that we can't have the chance to work
on the product that came out of a bipartisan effort in the committee.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lungren). I will not give you all of the answers I am sure you are
looking for, and I feel confident that, when this bill is debated on
the floor, there will be many more questions raised from the members of
the committee who sat through this debate.
I can only say, as a member of the Rules Committee, I, too, sat there
while this conversation was going on. I am not an expert in this
particular area. I am very pleased, and I want to talk a little bit
about how pleased I am that we are taking on this exemption of the
insurance companies.
I did hear people say, and the reason that I voted the way I did
yesterday, is that I heard that the Lungren safe harbor amendment was a
loophole in the McCarran repeal. I heard that consumer groups had said
that this was anti-consumer. A safe harbor isn't needed because the
bill does not prohibit information sharing. On the other hand, putting
in a safe harbor statute would automatically immunize the insurance
companies, and it would not permit a case-by-case review of companies
that go too far.
Honestly, I am not in a position to argue this amendment, but I know
it will be discussed when the bill is discussed.
I want to go back to the original issue, because that is why I am
standing here today.
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4626, the Health
Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act.
I have seen firsthand how health insurance companies have used their
exemption from antitrust regulation to profit off the backs of
hardworking individuals and small business owners in my home State of
Maine. If you want to buy an individual insurance policy in my State,
it doesn't seem like you have much choice. Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Maine became so big and swallowed up so much of the market
that, at one point, nearly 8 out of 10 people buying an individual
policy ended up with them as their insurance provider.
How did Anthem reward them? With skyrocketing rate increases that are
impossible to keep up with.
In Maine, Anthem's rates have gone up 250 percent in the last
decade--10 times the rate of inflation. Last year,
[[Page H765]]
they asked for a 19 percent rate increase. People in Maine were
shocked. Anthem, apparently, was just getting started. This year,
Anthem is demanding a 23 percent increase in their rates.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing rising as fast as the premiums big
insurance companies charge is their profit margin. Last year, profits
for the five biggest insurance companies rose by 56 percent over the
year before. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone else in
this economy who got a 56 percent rate increase last year or a raise.
Anthem has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of Mainers who are
struggling to pay premiums. Last year, when they asked for a 19 percent
increase, our insurance superintendent, Mila Kofman, denied the
request, allowing them 11 percent instead, which seemed reasonable. So
what did Anthem do? They immediately turned around and sued the State
of Maine. As our attorney general, Janet Mill, said, ``In this economy,
it's hard to believe the greed of it.''
Also last year, I learned that Anthem had suddenly and quietly
changed a policy that allowed them to deny claims at our State's VA
hospital. The VA staff caught the switch, but very quickly, the
hospital was out $500,000. You might ask yourself, How can a company
get away with that? How can a company get away with denying claims for
veterans and with demanding outrageous rate increases while pocketing
record profits?
The answer is pretty simple. They don't have any real competition.
I say enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Anthem clearly demonstrated that
their monopoly on the individual insurance market in Maine leaves
consumers with little choice but to either pay escalating premiums or
to go without coverage. You will hear this more than once today, and we
already did from the Chair. Unbelievably, health insurance companies
and Major League Baseball are the only two entities exempt from
antitrust laws, and it is high time we gave the insurance companies a
little competition.
I know it's not what Anthem wants. It is why they have lobbied so
hard against health care reform that would lower health care costs
overall. It's what the American people want. The American people
believe in fair play, a level playing field, and in free and open
competition, not a system where one massive corporation can run
roughshod over consumers.
We need to put families before insurance companies and people before
profits. H.R. 4626 is an essential step in achieving meaningful health
reform and in giving Americans choice. I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting ``yes'' on this rule, this unamended rule, and ``yes'' on the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I want to
congratulate her on her superb management of this as well as of other
rules that she has brought to the floor.
{time} 1115
I just don't get it, Mr. Speaker. My very good friend, my Rules
Committee colleague, would not yield to the author of the Brooks-
Conyers-Johnson-Lungren amendment, the bipartisan, agreed-to amendment
out of the committee, because she said she wasn't an expert on this and
didn't want to engage in a discussion with Mr. Lungren on the issue.
All we're asking is, let's not force you to have this discussion.
Let's allow Members of this House to debate it. That's the only request
that we were making.
Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. I've been on the Rules
Committee for many years, and many of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle say, Don't talk about process, don't talk about the ins and
outs of the Rules Committee. People's eyes glaze over when you start
doing that.
But last June 24, that changed. It changed dramatically, when, at 3
o'clock in the morning, we were dealing with the cap-and-trade bill and
a special rule was being reported out at that moment, and a 300-page
amendment, still warm off the copying machine, was dropped in our laps
as we sat there.
And what happened after that, Mr. Speaker? What happened was the
mantra ``Read the Bill'' became a household term. People around the
country, for the first time, began to focus on process and what has
happened in this institution, and they were sick and tired of it.
The next day, our distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner,
proceeded to take his 1-minute that is granted to the Speaker, the
majority leader and the minority leader, and he utilized much more than
that 1 minute. Why? Because we had been presented this 300-page
amendment in the middle of the night; no one had seen it; and he,
fortunately, took time to go through that 300-page amendment.
Mr. Speaker, what we are having here today is a continuation of that.
Mr. Lungren said he had a discussion with one of his committee
colleagues. The bottom line that we're seeing here is, the committee
process be damned. The committee process be damned is what has really
come about. To me, it's a sad commentary, not for Republicans or
Democrats, but for the American people.
I am happy to yield to my friend if she'd like me to yield.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Well, thank you very much. I didn't even have
to ask and I appreciate your offering.
Mr. DREIER. When I saw you get to your feet, I suspected you might.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you.
I knew you wanted to hear my very brief answer on this, and I just
want to clarify. I appreciate your desire to discuss the process, and I
hope you take as much time as you choose to do so. But I just want to
clarify----
Mr. DREIER. Well, if I could reclaim my time, we would simply like a
chance to offer the amendment, and my friend could vote against it, the
bipartisan amendment that had, in fact, full unanimous consent from
Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that small insurance companies
will not have their future jeopardized. That's all we're asking for.
I am happy to further yield to my friend.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. And I will just be brief. I want to have plenty
of time for my colleagues who want to talk more about the substance of
this issue. But I would say, I felt there was plenty of time for the
process in the Rules Committee. There was a lively conversation with
some of my colleagues and your colleagues, bipartisan, back and forth.
But I disagreed. I did not think that we needed to change this
exemption about data in the rule, in this particular amendment. I am
happy to allow the Justice Department to have a decision about this
later.
Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That's the most interesting
thing. You did change it. You changed the bill from the bill that came
out of committee. So don't tell me you didn't want it changed. You did
change it. That's the whole point we're making.
The bill that we produced out of committee on a bipartisan basis that
was called a clarifying amendment was taken out. So you're the folks
that changed it. I didn't change it.
My God, is this 1984 doublespeak around this place?
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
I think the point is very clear. We have the author of a bipartisan
amendment who enjoyed the support of the committee chairman and others,
which was focused on small insurance companies. Small insurance
companies. The big guys aren't going to be affected by this, Mr.
Speaker. The idea here is to ensure that we don't see an increase in
premiums or, as Mr. Lungren said in testimony before the Rules
Committee yesterday, potentially these small insurance companies going
out of existence.
Now we heard Democrats and Republicans alike in the Rules Committee
argue on behalf of the free market process, and we believe that we
should do everything that we can to ensure that there is a wider range
of competition, greater competition. And so what
[[Page H766]]
is happening is that when this rule passes, it prevents an opportunity
to have any chance to discuss this bipartisan amendment. It's a very,
very sad day that we continue with a process that is so closed.
Last year, we set a record. For the first time in the 220-, almost
221-year history of the Republic, we went through a year without a
single rule that allowed for an open debate. In fact, since my
California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, has been Speaker of the House, we've
gone through now a 3-year period. In that 3-year period of time, save
the appropriations process, we have had a grand total of one bill
considered under an open rule.
Again, this is not a partisan issue. This is to do with the American
people having their voices heard in this institution. And so while we
are supportive of the underlying legislation, this change is absolutely
outrageous. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we
can bring back some kind of positive recognition of what the Framers of
our Constitution wanted, and that is, a viable committee structure.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the clarification
on the issue of a change.
I will just clarify my own remarks, that I agreed with the sentiment
that came out in this final rule that we did not need to make this
exemption for the data.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Health Insurance
Industry Fair Competition Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for allowing
me to speak today, along with Representative Pingree.
Each month we hear of record profits for insurance companies and
their CEOs, while we see health care costs rise for middle class
families. One reason for this unjust discrepancy is the antitrust
exemption status afforded to big insurance allowing them to create
their own market and set their own prices.
A middle class family that has to choose between paying doctor bills
and feeding their children is not a Democratic or Republican issue, and
neither is extending quality care to those who do not have it.
I have 27 years of experience in the health care industry, and I can
tell you there is no rational, legal, or moral reason to grant these
companies this status. In Congress, our top priority should be job
creation, and taking away insurance companies' legal trust status will
improve our system in the right way by lowering insurance costs for
small business owners, and encourage them to create quality jobs.
Health care reform is a matter of fiscal responsibility. Without it,
our nation is on track to spend 20 cents of every dollar we earn on
health care. This current path is unsustainable and unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representatives Perriello and
Markey for introducing the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition
Act. The bill is an important step toward creating jobs and
strengthening our economy, and I urge support for the rule and for the
underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The debate that we've been having on this rule has brought up issues
that we have been bringing up this entire session. Two major questions:
No. 1, where are the jobs?--we keep asking that question--and, No. 2,
what is the other side afraid of?
As Mr. Lungren pointed out, the bill that passed the committee passed
with a bipartisan vote. People were very happy with it. They were very
happy with his amendment.
And yet somewhere between that committee and here, the bill was
changed substantially. We assume it was changed in the Speaker's
office. But we don't understand what our colleagues are afraid of. Why
are they afraid of debating this amendment? They can't even allow
debate on something that they don't want in a bill.
And yet that's what the American people want from us. They are sick
and tired of things being done behind closed doors. They want to see us
debating things. They know we're going to have disagreements
occasionally on philosophy, and that's fine. That's what this country's
about. But people should be able to see the debate, instead of one or
two people in this House making all the decisions for the 435 Members
of the House.
Let me say a word also about, again, the underlying bill that this
rule is dealing with. The bill is not going to accomplish what our
colleagues across the aisle are saying. They're saying it's going to
bring down the cost of health insurance and add more competition to the
marketplace. In fact, the bill will probably do just the opposite.
Let me say what the Congressional Budget Office said when they
reviewed H.R. 3596. They said, the bill could ``affect the costs of and
premiums charged by private health insurance companies; whether
premiums would increase or decrease as a result is difficult to
determine, but in either case the magnitude of the effects is likely to
be quite small. That effect is likely to be small because State laws
already bar the activities that would be prohibited under Federal law
if this bill was enacted.''
However, with the new language in the underlying bill and no CBO
score, there's no telling what the effect will be.
And the reason we don't have a CBO score is because the bill was
introduced, as I said, 2 days ago and brought directly to the floor
under a closed rule. This is a pattern of the ruling party here. And
``ruling party'' is really the appropriate term, because that's how
they act; that's how the party acts, as a ruling party.
We see this same thing happening with the new health care proposal
from President Obama. Here we have from him what's basically a 10-page
proposal which melds elements of the House and Senate-passed health
care bills, along with a few new provisions. But both of those bills
were written behind closed doors, no committee involvement, or very
little committee involvement; none in the Senate, some in the House;
but basically the bills written in the Speaker's office and in the
Majority Leader's office.
However, the White House hasn't revealed any legislative text, and no
CBO score is available. We can't pass a proposal in here. We must have
exact legislative language.
Let me mention again the CBO and its reaction to the proposal put
forth by President Obama. An article in the Washington Times entitled
CBO: Obama Health Bill Too Sketchy published yesterday states:
``The administration did not post the bill's text on the White House
Web site, but outlined what the legislation would do. It said the
measure would cost $950 billion over 10 years.'' That's fine for the
White House to say that, but we don't know that's what it's going to
cost.
``The information wasn't enough for the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, the official keeper of budget costs, to even venture an
estimate of the bill's price tag.
`` `Although the proposal reflects many elements that were included
in the health care bills passed by the House and Senate last year, it
modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones,' CBO
Director Douglas Elmendorf said in a blog post.''
{time} 1130
The CBO goes on, ``Preparing a cost estimate requires very detailed
specifications of numerous provisions. The materials that were released
this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all of the
provisions.'' So we don't have the information that we need in the
Obama health care proposal either. This is the way this administration
and this Democrat-controlled Congress is doing things.
I now would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in enforcing our Nation's antitrust laws. And
this bill has been improved since Judiciary Committee consideration.
However, this legislation is still flawed, and in my opinion is meant
to distract attention away from the fact that the majority is not
working on the real issues
[[Page H767]]
the American people want us to address. Americans want policies that
will reduce premiums and increase the quality of health care services
in the U.S. Unfortunately, it is questionable whether this bill will
accomplish these goals.
I am also very disappointed in the rule for this bill, which was
closed from the beginning, and blocks well-intentioned amendments
offered by Republicans to make the bill better. Specifically, an
amendment was offered by Representative Dan Lungren, a fellow member of
the Judiciary Committee, to allow small health insurance companies to
continue to be able to share historic loss data so that they can
compete with big insurance companies. Under the text of the current
bill, this type of sharing would be illegal, which would hinder new and
smaller companies from entering the market, competing with the big
guys, and offering lower premiums.
The shocking thing is that this amendment was actually adopted in the
Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. The provision was then
stripped by the majority in this new bill. So stifling this amendment
today represents the second time the majority has blocked
Representative Lungren's amendment, which had bipartisan support, and
which would have likely reduced health care premiums for citizens.
Instead of bringing flawed legislation to the floor, we should be
working together to pass real reforms, like legislation to allow
citizens to take their health insurance across State lines if they
move, legislation to help those with preexisting conditions find
affordable coverage, and legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits against
doctors, which drive up health insurance premiums and provide increased
costs due to defensive medicine.
The American medical liability system is broken. According to one
study, 40 percent of claims are meritless: either no injury or no error
occurred. Attorneys' fees and administrative costs amount to 54 percent
of the compensation paid to plaintiffs. The study found that completely
meritless claims, which are nonetheless successful approximately one in
four times, account for nearly a quarter of total administrative costs.
Defensive medicine is widely practiced and costly. Skyrocketing
medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of
medicine. Costly but unnecessary tests have become routine, as doctors
try to protect themselves from lawsuits. According to a 2008 survey
conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society, 83 percent of
physicians reported that they practiced defensive medicine. Another
study in Pennsylvania put the figure at 93 percent. While estimates
vary, the Pacific Research Institute has put the cost of defensive
medicine at $124 billion. Others have arrived at even higher figures.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
We should be working to eliminate these hundreds of billions of
dollars of waste from our medical system in order to drive down
premiums to make health care more affordable. We should be working to
help those with preexisting conditions get affordable coverage.
Unfortunately, we are doing neither today. We can do better.
Mr. Speaker, while I may vote for this bill it could have been made
better by an open rule and the allowance of the Lungren amendment. But
this bill is hardly a cure all and there is so much more we could do if
the majority would open up the health insurance process to good
proposals that the American people support.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, during this health care debate over the last 6 months,
we have heard we should listen to our constituents. And you know, I
did. I did 14 town halls in August, and they were attended by over
8,000 people. And there was one item of agreement between the extremes
in the debate, between the folks representing the tea party and those
representing single payer, and that was consensus that this industry,
the health insurance industry, should not enjoy a special exemption
under the law. They should not be able to collude to drive up prices,
limit competition, price gouge consumers. They should play by the same
rules as every other industry in America. And this archaic exemption
from antitrust law passed in the 1940s should go to the dustbin of
history. There was consensus on that.
Now come the Republicans, oh, wait a minute, we are not protecting
the industry, we don't want to allow them to still have antitrust
exemption, it is about the little guys. It is always about the little
guys, isn't it? So let's give the little guys a loophole. And oops,
wait a minute, the big guys can use the same loophole.
Now, the other thing I have heard is let's be bipartisan. Well, there
is nothing much more bipartisan than the report of the Antitrust
Modernization Commission from April 2007. This was a commission created
by the Republican Congress when they controlled both the House and the
Senate and the White House, with the members named by President George
Bush and the Republican leadership of Congress. They came to the
conclusion that this loophole that they are advocating here today
should not exist.
I will quote briefly from the conclusions of the bipartisan
Republican-created commission. They said, ``A proposed exemption should
be recognized as a decision to sacrifice competition''--oops, I thought
they were for competition--``and consumer welfare''--I thought they
were for the consumers--``and should be allowed only if Congress
determines that a substantial and significant countervailing societal
value outweighs the presumption in favor of competition and the
widespread benefits it provides.''
They go on to address their arguments and they say there are those
who will argue the small companies that need aggregate data and all
this, they will need the safe harbor. They say, no, actually not. This
again is the Republican-created commission. ``Like all potentially
beneficial competitor collaboration generally, however, such data
sharing would be assessed by antitrust enforcers and the courts under a
rule of reason analysis that would fully consider the potential
procompetitive effects of such conduct and condemn it only if, on
balance, it was anticompetitive. Insurance companies would bear no
greater risk than companies in other industries engaged in data sharing
and other collaborative undertakings. To the extent that insurance
companies engage in anticompetitive collusion, however, they would then
be appropriately subject to antitrust liability.''
They want to give a safe harbor that is so big that the Justice
Department could never review it. They are objecting to the fact that
the Justice Department might look at, investigate, the activities
surrounding data sharing and potential collusion by the industry that
continues to price-gouge consumers and benefit unreasonably and profit
unreasonably. They want to create that loophole. That loophole is
unnecessary.
If you adopt that loophole, we might as well just not pretend that we
care about consumers, consumer welfare, and that we are going to
meaningfully address this industry playing by the same rules as every
other industry. This industry should play by the same rules as all
others, plain and simple. Americans get that. They are not happy with
seeing their health insurance double every 10 years, or now it is more
on a doubling rate of 3 to 5 years. They know that they are being taken
to the cleaners. They know the industry is trying to cherry-pick. They
know there is anticompetitive activity going on. It is time for that to
change. No loopholes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, for 65 years health insurance companies
have enjoyed a special interest exemption from laws prohibiting price
fixing, bid rigging, and carving up the insurance market. Consumers'
health insurance premiums go up, while coverage gets worse and worse.
In the past six years, health insurance premiums have increased at a
rate four times the increase in the average American worker's wages.
Twenty-seven years ago, as a young Texas State Senator, I authored
the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. But one industry, one
industry among all others, was exempted because of this Federal law. So
no action could be taken against the anticompetitive practices of one
industry,
[[Page H768]]
the insurance industry. And we see the results. In the last decade,
health insurance premiums in Texas have gone up over 100 percent.
Protecting consumers and fostering competition are American values.
Families and small businesses will benefit when the health care
industry has to compete like other industries. With this reform and a
newly reinvigorated Department of Justice, which forgot about antitrust
enforcement under the Bush administration, together we can now have the
oversight that was overlooked for eight years under that
administration.
Hopefully, President Obama will correct a major omission in the
health care legislation that he proposed by including this vital
reform--repeal of the antitrust loophole for the health insurance
industry. It is time for competition. It is time for open markets. And
it is time to block the closed-door collusion that Americans are paying
for in higher and higher premiums by letting competition work.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, members of the House, we have before us a
very simple but extremely important proposal by our Republican
colleagues to provide the insurance industry with the opportunity to
continue to collude, to set prices, and to harm the consumers. Call it
a safe harbor. It is indeed a very safe harbor to do what is illegal in
every other portion of the American economy except for baseball.
So why should we approve what the Republicans want here? No good
reason at all. Competition is necessary. A safe harbor is specifically
designed to allow the insurance companies to continue to gather
specific information that they then use to set prices and to collude
and to harm the consumers as well as the providers.
There are two cases out there over the last decade in which the
industry has clearly colluded and harmed providers, a case in New York
and another case that was put against the insurance companies by the
doctors. This proposed amendment by Congressman Lungren would harm both
the providers as well as the consumers, and provide a safe harbor to do
what is illegal in every other part of the American economy, that is to
set prices. We ought not to do it. We ought to put this aside.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Could I just ask my friend from
California, isn't it true that if there was collusion utilizing this
information, that would still be prosecutable under the amendment that
I suggest because it is prosecutable at the present time under State
action theory and has been pursued by various States?
Mr. GARAMENDI. The proposed amendment opens the door for collusion.
It gives the tools for collusion to the companies. We ought not do
that. And there is no other part of the American economy that such
collusion and such an open door and invitation to collusion is
provided.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, I know we have had people
on this floor who say they have no expertise but they say this
amendment does certain things. I did spend 8 years as the Attorney
General of California. We had the most active antitrust public law
office in the country other than the U.S. Justice Department.
I might just say, this is the first time I have ever heard that Jack
Brooks was presenting legislation on the floor of the House or in
Judiciary that was to protect insurance companies or allow collusion.
The language I used is taken from the Jack Brooks bill. The language I
use is specifically the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis
and said by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was an excellent
clarifying amendment.
{time} 1145
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. When my colleague from California was attorney
general, I was insurance commissioner, and we had a grand fight over
this very issue, the very issue of whether the State of California
would allow the insurance companies to continue to use rating bureaus
to get their price information and to continue to set prices in what
could be a collusion. We put that aside. The regulations that I put
into effect were adopted, and the end result was, when they could no
longer use a rating bureau, which this proposal would allow, the prices
began to drop in homeowners and auto insurance in California.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The fact of the matter is that
under the law under this bill, the State action still applies, State
action principles still apply. States can still do what they will,
including what the gentleman talked about before. So this is a red
herring.
This is so silly that you would take something that got bipartisan
support, unless you're suddenly suggesting that the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee has a secret plan to somehow allow the insurance
companies to gouge people and that Jack Brooks had that secret plan.
This is total nonsense, to bring a bill to the floor and take out an
essential element from committee and then suggest, when you want to put
it back in committee for revision, you're trying to protect somebody.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree). I appreciate her courtesy in allowing me to speak.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important, important issue. It is at the
crucible of this entire debate on health care. And the crucible is
this: We must bring down the cost of health care. And in a free
economy, the surest way of bringing down the cost of a product or a
service is through competition.
The antitrust laws were put on the books during Standard Oil with
John D. Rockefeller to break that up so we could bring competition.
Here we have now, almost a hundred years later, the only industry that
is exempted from antitrust is the insurance industry, the health
insurance industry. Surely we can agree on this.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say one other thing, too, to my friends on
the other side of the aisle. It was a great Republican who said a house
divided against itself shall surely fall. Well, this Nation is tired of
seeing us divided. They want to see us find something, one or two
things, that we can agree on. America is yearning for Republicans and
Democrats to come together on something that will help bring down the
cost of health care insurance, and nothing will more surely do that
than to remove this exemption from antitrust that is beholden to the
insurance companies. As long as they have it, they are free to do the
monopoly. They are free to price fix.
We can agree on both sides of the aisle here today to bring down the
cost of health care insurance by removing this exemption.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott just made Mr. Lungren's case for him
as far as I'm concerned. He just said we want to work together on
issues. Mr. Lungren said that's what we've done. A bipartisan amendment
passed. The Democrats took the bipartisan amendment out of the bill.
We want to work together. Many Republicans are going to vote for this
bill. I hope they won't vote for the rule, because it's a bad rule, but
they will vote for the bill.
The Democrats, time and again, tout their plan will increase
competition and lower premiums. We don't think that's true.
I want to urge the American people to read the summary the White
House has put out on their bill and see the increased Federal control
of health care in this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other
side of the aisle.
[[Page H769]]
We've heard a variety of reasons and excuses today about why this
bill shouldn't pass, whether it was about the committee process or a
loophole, debating it back and forth. But the fact is we cannot have
meaningful health care reform in this country until we finally decide
to put an end to insurance company greed and insurance company
monopolies. We must stop companies like Anthem who demand rate
increases that are many times the rate of inflation, which puts health
care insurance out of reach for many, many Americans.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed
rule for H.R. 4626, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act.
Last night, I offered an amendment to crack down on fraud in Medicare,
which costs taxpayers as much as $50 billion a year. My language, an
update of my bill, the Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of
2009, was actually endorsed by President Obama in the White House
blueprint that was released early Monday. It was most recently included
in the Medical Rights and Reform Act, introduced by my good friend Mr.
Kirk.
This amendment would have reduced waste, fraud and abuse by
strengthening the Medicare enrollment process, expanding certain
standards of participation, and reducing erroneous payments. The
amendment also provides additional tools to pursue fraudulent
healthcare providers, suppliers and billing agencies. These are
bipartisan goals, and my language has true bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, Democrats on the Rules Committee refused to even allow
an up-or-down vote on the House floor that would have added this
important, cost-cutting measure to a bill that is otherwise lacking in
substance.
I expect more political healthcare votes in the coming weeks, and I
am prepared to offer my piece of the Obama healthcare plan as an
amendment each time. If Democrats are serious about reducing costs and
passing stand-alone bipartisan solutions, then I ask them to accept my
language. The billions in waste that we save could go a long way toward
providing health insurance for the millions of Americans who cannot
afford it.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. The gentlewoman from Maine did not yield time to me so that
I could explain that I did not urge opposition to the underlying bill
but only the rule.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1098 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on:
House Resolution 1074; and
House Resolution 944, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 181, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
YEAS--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--181
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Barrett (SC)
Blunt
Buyer
Clay
Dingell
Higgins
Hoekstra
Moore (WI)
Pitts
Radanovich
Reichert
Spratt
Stark
{time} 1215
Messrs. KIRK and SIMPSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________