[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 40 (Thursday, March 18, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1600-H1605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1190 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1190
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the
calendar day of March 21, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain
motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate
only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1190.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1190 authorizes the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through
the calendar day of Sunday, March 21, 2010.
This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the
Speaker may entertain motions to suspend rules only on Monday, Tuesday,
or Wednesday of each week. The rule also provides that the Speaker
shall consult
[[Page H1601]]
with the minority leader on the designation of any matter considered
for suspension. In order for suspensions to be considered on other
days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these
motions.
And I want to remind my colleagues that any legislation passed under
suspension of the rules still must receive at least a two-thirds vote.
This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we
recess for the upcoming district work period.
A list of suspension bills will be provided by the majority leader at
the appropriate time. We expect a number of important bills to be
considered. Additionally, we expect the Rules Committee to meet again
to make several other rules in order.
Before I reserve my time, let me just state the obvious. We are
waiting for the health care bill to ripen and be ready for floor
consideration. While we wait, there is business that this House must
attend to, and this rule helps us do that.
But let me be clear. We will vote on the health care bill in the next
few days. We will do so with a publicly released CBO score that shows
the health care bill does not increase the deficit; in fact, it reduces
the deficit. And we will do so while allowing 72 hours for anyone who
wants to read and analyze the bill before we vote on it, and we will do
so knowing that we will insure 32 million people, 32 million people who
currently lack health insurance today.
Madam Speaker, this rule simply allows the House to conduct business
until that health care bill is ready to come to the floor for a final
vote, a vote which I am confident will prevail.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, we are on the cusp of voting on legislation to permit
a Federal Government takeover of one-sixth of the Nation's economy.
This is the most significant piece of legislation in our generation.
The American people get that, and they do not want this bill. They want
health reform that makes sense and that will make health care more
affordable and accessible.
When the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, floated
the proposed Slaughter solution last week, the outcry was immediate.
You would think that my colleagues would take their title of
``Representative'' seriously and want to listen to the American people
and have an open process. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question today, so that we can amend this rule
to allow the House to consider H. Res. 1188.
This resolution, sponsored by Mr. Griffith, will ensure an up-or-down
vote on the Senate's health care takeover by preventing the Speaker
from using the Slaughter solution to ram the Senate health care bill
through the House, bypassing regular order. The American people do not
want the Senate bill, and neither do most Members in this Chamber.
The American people deserve an open process and an up-or-down vote.
Voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will be on the record
opposing the Slaughter solution and voting to allow for consideration
of a remedy aimed at protecting against this attempt to ram through the
Democrat plan to socialize medicine.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just state for the record that
this has been an incredibly open process. And when I contrast it to the
way my friends on the other side of the aisle handled a similar bill
related to health care, and that was the prescription drug bill, I
don't know what they are complaining about.
When they brought up the prescription drug bill, this is what it
looked like, and it was given to the Rules Committee less than an hour
before we were asked to vote on it, and then it was rushed to the floor
a total of 27 hours between the time it was brought to the Rules
Committee and the time Members were asked to vote on this bill.
Contrast that to what we have done on this health insurance reform
effort.
President Obama began with a health care summit at the beginning of
2009. Republicans and Democrats were invited and participated. Over the
past year and a half, the House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and
83 hours of committee markups. We heard from 181 witnesses, both
Democrat and Republican. Two hundred thirty-nine amendments were
considered, 121 amendments were adopted. You know, this is the big lie
that we are hearing from the other side that somehow this has been a
closed process. The Rules Committee will convene on the health
insurance reform bill with C-SPAN cameras present.
So this has been an incredibly open process. And I want to commend
the Speaker of the House and the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for
this open process, in contrast to the way they did their prescription
drug bill, and just shoved it before the Rules Committee without anyone
being able to read it. So I think that this has been an open process,
and we stand by it.
But do you want to talk about process? Let's talk about the process
by some of the big insurance companies in this country that routinely
deny people coverage for the most silly reasons. They do it because
they can.
In some States, Madam Speaker, believe it or not, insurance companies
consider domestic violence as a preexisting condition. I mean, does
anybody here think that is acceptable? And the gentlelady's home State
of North Carolina, they are one of the States that still allow domestic
violence against women to be used as an excuse to deny somebody health
insurance. That is unconscionable, and the bill that we are talking
about will fix that.
They were in charge for a lot of years, too many years, if you ask
me. They drove this economy into a ditch. And during all that time,
they did nothing, nothing, to deal with the rising cost of health
insurance that families and small businesses face each and every day.
They did nothing about the insurance companies denying people insurance
because of preexisting conditions. They did nothing to deal with this
issue that domestic violence in some States, including the State of
North Carolina, can be used as a preexisting condition to deny somebody
health care.
So we need to do what is right for the American people, and enough of
the misinformation and enough of the lies and enough of the
distortions. We need to do what the people want, and that is, fix this
health insurance industry that we have in this country that, quite
frankly, has denied millions and millions of people in this country
insurance.
And even those who have insurance have found out as they have been
wheeled to the operating room that their insurance didn't cover what
they thought.
The time is now for reform, and we are going to do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague across the aisle talks about
what the State of North Carolina does and does not do.
This insurance should be a State issue; it should not be a Federal
issue. Maybe changes need to be made in the State of North Carolina,
but that is up to the State of North Carolina. This is a Federal
Government takeover, which is inappropriate.
Let me talk about the AARP and what they do about preexisting
conditions, because our colleagues have put a special carve-out in this
bill for the AARP. They deny access with preexisting conditions by
imposing waiting periods on Medigap plans. They have a tremendous turn-
down on preexisting conditions. Medicare turns down more people, twice
as many people as the insurance companies do, and they want to put us
all in Medicare-type plans. My colleague is a little disingenuous when
he brings up selective situations like this.
I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my
distinguished colleague from California, the ranking member of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H1602]]
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and of
course congratulate her on her fine management of this extraordinarily
important rule because of what we are going to be doing when we deal
with the previous question.
Now, before I get to that, I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I
might, with my good friend from Worcester, and say that we have had
this constant drumbeat of us versus them, class warfare. The Democrats
are for the people; the Republicans are only for the insurance
companies. I mean, we continue to hear that over and over and over
again. So what I would like to do, Madam Speaker, is to disabuse my
friend and others on the other side of the aisle and many people in the
media who continue to put forth this argument by saying or making the
charge that we have tried to do nothing to deal with this issue out
there, and that is crazy. And, Madam Speaker, I would like to go
through a few of the things that we have done that have been designed
to bring the cost of health insurance down to make sure, to make sure
that more Americans have access to quality health insurance.
Let's begin by something that I introduced, and I am happy to say we
have put into law. I introduced it 23 years ago in 1987, the first bill
to call for the establishment of medical savings accounts, which
incentivize Americans to put more dollars aside to save for direct
health care costs or health insurance costs.
The second thing that we have done, I am very proud of the work
product of Medicare part D by ensuring that more seniors have access to
affordable prescription drugs.
But, Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is talk about a couple of
things that we have worked on and when we were in the majority that we
passed through this House, but, unfortunately, were blocked by my
friends on the other side of the aisle in the other body. Those two
things are, number one, associated health plans.
Now, President Obama has said that he believes that the notion of
allowing small businesses to come together to pool so that they can
have the benefit of lower insurance rates is something that he finds
somewhat appealing; and yet, when we passed that in this House, sent it
to the other body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose,
unfortunately, to block that measure.
And what is it that has happened? Well, we have seen an increase in
the number of people who don't have health insurance in this country
because of the fact that Democrats in the other body chose to block our
establishment of associated health plans so that small businesses out
there can come together.
And the second issue, which, again, the President stood here in his
address to the joint session of Congress, Madam Speaker, and talked
about and he believed was important for us to utilize, and that is real
lawsuit abuse reform.
Now, unfortunately, one of the reasons that we see this dramatic
increase in health care costs is that--what has happened? Many
doctors--and listen to this: Many doctors have to engage in what is
described as defensive medicine. They have to constantly prescribe all
kinds of tests which are unnecessary, but they do it for one reason,
Madam Speaker, and that is they do it because they are afraid of being
sued.
Now, Madam Speaker, in the last Republican Congress, in our attempt
to bring the cost of health insurance down we passed out of this House
real lawsuit abuse reform legislation. It was blocked in the other body
by our Democratic colleagues.
So this notion that was put forward by my friend from Worcester that
we somehow have done absolutely nothing to deal with the plight of
those Americans who don't have access to quality health insurance is
preposterous.
Now, Madam Speaker, we have heard about this issue of transparency,
and disclosure, and accountability, and I listened to my friend from
Worcester argue that we have had this great deal of transparency. Then
I ask you, Madam Speaker, why is it that the American people are saying
that we should start over and we should in fact have a process that is
transparent and open?
{time} 1045
Never before, never before in the history of the Republic have we
seen the process that is being contemplated used on such a massive
issue and on the signature issue of an administration. We all know that
this is the signature issue that has been put forth, argued for more
than a year; and now what we've had is the Speaker and the majority
leader and the distinguished chairwoman of the House Committee on Rules
say that it is acceptable for us to completely deny accountability, to
avoid accountability, and to prevent Members from actually being
responsible for the votes that they cast.
Well, Madam Speaker, the American people get it. No matter how
diligently they work overtime in the back rooms in this Capitol to
block any opportunity for transparency, the American people are able to
see through what it is that they're doing. It's one of the great
benefits of the new technology that exists today and the fact that
there are Democrats as well as Republicans who are decrying this.
I joke with my friend from the Grandfather community that sometimes I
watch some of the programs on television that may be a little left of
center. And I'm proud to do that. I watch them with regularity. And I
have listened to a number of their commentators who would in no way be
considered supporters of the Republican vision that is out there
actually say that it is wrong. It is wrong for Democrats to go down
this road of self-executing this massive, massive bill. They're arguing
for transparency and disclosure and accountability, and I believe that
it makes a great deal of sense.
When we defeat the previous question--I hope, Madam Speaker, we will
be able to do that--we will take the initiative that has been launched
by our newest Republican colleague, Parker Griffith, who has come
forward and offered a proposal to say that if we're going to debate
this health care bill, we should have an up-or-down vote and we should
have extended debate, because the process that's being contemplated
right now, Madam Speaker, would not allow one single minute of debate
on the floor of the people's House to debate the health care bill. The
only thing that we would debate is 30 minutes on either side on the
special rule that would come to the House floor.
And so, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question. And when we do that, we will bring up and allow a
vote on the Griffith proposal that will ensure that we will have an up-
or-down vote on the health care issue and the kind of free-flowing
debate that the American people deserve.
Mr. McGOVERN. Give me a break. That somehow Republican ideas have
helped anybody in this country dealing with the high cost of insurance,
it's ridiculous. In California alone, 8 million people last year went
without health insurance. That's about 25 percent of all Californians
under the age of 65; 25 percent in California, where they have some of
the strongest malpractice laws in place.
I mean, this is crazy. The fact is that people are struggling to pay
for their health insurance. And people who pay for it ought to be able
to get the insurance that they think they're going to get. We have a
situation now where it's not just we have to worry about the uninsured;
we have to worry about people with insurance who all of a sudden find
themselves sick or a loved one sick and find for crazy reasons that
they are somehow going to be denied coverage. This is the United States
of America. We could do better. We can have the best for everybody. Why
not?
At this point I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for
yielding me some time. The beauty of sports--you know, we're entering
into March Madness; we just witnessed the Olympics. When you get to
sports, there's a scorecard. All the talk and all the bravado really
doesn't matter. You kind of look at what the score is. And we had a
Republican President, we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate
for 6 years. And on the question of providing insurance to tens of
millions of Americans who didn't have it, they did zero. On the
question of reining in
[[Page H1603]]
insurance companies in terms of excess costs, they did zero. In terms
of dealing with the practices of insurance companies taking away
coverage on a preexisting condition, because they say pregnancy is a
preexisting condition or acne or domestic violence, the Republican
President and the majority in the House and the Senate for 6 years did
zero.
Now we have a Democratic President and a Democratic House and a
Democratic Senate. In less than 16 months, we have provided health care
to over 10 million children, even against the tobacco lobby and all of
our Republican colleagues, many of whom voted against it. We prevailed.
We in this House voted to take away the antitrust exemptions from
insurance companies. Within just a few hours, some 72 hours from almost
this moment, we are going to provide over 32 million of our fellow
citizens with health insurance coverage through a health care reform
proposal. We're going to rein in the worst practices of insurance
companies. We're going to eliminate lifetime caps and yearly caps.
We're going to make sure that children with preexisting conditions
can't be denied coverage, and then down the road, adults.
So we are moving to look now at the scorecard. All of the talk is
wonderful. I heard my colleague say, Well, they've done this and they
tried to do this. Whatever the Republican President and majority did
over those 6 years is overwhelmed by what was left undone. And we have
begun this work. We're going to finish this work. And we're going to
make sure that in this country we join the rest of the industrialized
world in providing insurance for all of our citizens. We began this
fight, and we're prepared to vote about it in just some 72 hours, all
of this talk notwithstanding.
Ms. FOXX. I want to say that, again, our colleagues across the aisle
are in the business of picking winners and losers. They do love one
insurance company. They love the AARP, which in 2008, from their
financial statements, had royalty fees of $414 million. Pure profit on
their bottom line. I raised this issue with Mr. Rangel when he was at
the Rules Committee before, because I am very concerned about the way
AARP is being represented to the people. Their profits have skyrocketed
in recent years, jumping 31 percent just from 2007 to 2008. So we find,
again, that they want to pick the winners and losers instead of
allowing individuals in this country to make their decisions on what
they should be doing.
I'd like now to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank Ms. Foxx for yielding. I want to ask
three questions of my Democratic colleagues: Are you so arrogant that
you know what's best for the American people? Are you so ignorant to be
oblivious to the wishes of the American people? Three-fourths of
America does not want this bill. Are you so incompetent that you ignore
the Constitution; that you have to use tricks and deception to ram down
the throats of the American people something that they absolutely do
not want?
I hope and pray and I call upon the American people to speak louder,
and I hope and pray that our Democratic colleagues will listen to the
American people, listen to their constituents, and stop this government
takeover of health care. I hope you will listen to President Obama when
he says that the American people deserve an up-or-down vote.
I hope that I can encourage my Democratic colleagues to defeat this
previous question so that Democrats and Republicans can work together,
so that we can find some commonsense solutions to literally lower the
cost of health care, so government doesn't take over the health care
system that's going to drive a million people out of work, that's going
to run the cost of everybody's health insurance up, if they have
private insurance. It's going to destroy the private health insurance
system. As a medical doctor, I'm not a proponent of the health
insurance system. But please listen to the American people. Let's
defeat this PQ and let's work together to find some commonsense
solutions. This is in the best interest of America.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia and all Members
are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. I think the gentleman from Georgia nicely summed up the
tone of the opposition. They'd rather engage in name-calling than at
finding solutions. Grand Old Party, indeed.
Let me tell you what I think incompetence and ignorance is, Madam
Speaker. That's allowing 46 million Americans to go without health
insurance. It's putting profits over patients. It's allowing insurance
companies to discriminate for preexisting conditions. We can do better.
This is the United States of America. We can do better for our people.
At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague. You know, it's fascinating to have
been engaged in this discussion for the better part of a year now as we
talk about the things that we know the American people are demanding.
They want us to act. They want us to act now in a comprehensive way to
solve some of the problems facing the delivery of health care in this
country.
We know because we've seen polls, just as our colleagues on the other
side have seen, that when you ask the American people do they want
competition and choice in their health care insurance system, they say,
by margins approaching 75 or 80 percent, Yes, we do. Do they want an
end to the insurance practices of ending prejudice, discrimination
because of preexisting conditions; by overwhelming margins, they say,
Yes, we do. When we say, Do you want protection against having your
insurance canceled just because you happen to get sick, they say, by
overwhelming margins, Yes, we do. When you work through all of the
elements of the legislation we're considering and will approve this
weekend, the American people overwhelmingly say, Yes, we want that.
I know our colleagues like to throw out these national poll numbers
now and say, Well, these polls show that--now it's about 50-50--but the
American people really don't want this. Well, there's one poll recently
that asked those people who said they were against President Obama's
reform plan, the congressional plan, they said, How many of you who say
you're against it are against because it doesn't go far enough? And
nearly 40 percent of those said, That's why we're against it. And
that's kind of what I've been hearing in my district. Just like the
shop owner I spoke to over Christmas who said, You know, I'm against
what you're doing. I said, Really, why is that? She said, Because I
have diabetes and I can't wait until 2014 to get the help I need. Is
she against reform? Not on your life. Not on her life either. She wants
reform. She wants it faster and she wants more of it.
And that's what I'm hearing all over in my community. I don't know
what is going on in some of our Republicans' communities, but what I
hear by overwhelming margins, people say, Do it. Do it now. We are
desperate.
And you know what's interesting? As we've gone through this debate,
and my friend Mr. Dreier was down here just a few minutes ago talking
about how much they did when they were in control of Congress, well,
they say they were for having insurance companies being able to sell
insurance across State lines. Did they do anything when they had
control of the Congress for 12 years? Did they make that possible? No.
They say they're for ending preexisting conditions. Did they do
anything about that? No. How about the rescission issue? Did they do
anything about that? No. Yes, they passed the prescription drug plan.
For some people, that's working out very well. For those who are in the
doughnut hole, that middle portion where they pay 100 percent of the
cost, it's not working out very well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. YARMUTH. Did they do anything about that? Yes, they did. They
passed the bill, but they didn't pay for it. And now the CBO says
that's going to add $8 trillion to our debt.
{time} 1100
So while the Republicans say they've been concerned about solving
America's health care problems, they really
[[Page H1604]]
haven't done anything about it. And the one thing that sticks with me
throughout this entire debate, 1 year long, nobody on the Republican
side has ever said in any discussion that they had any interest in
insuring the uninsured. Those 47 million people, many of whom are going
bankrupt, some of whom are dying, 18,000 a year are dying, almost a
million a year are going bankrupt, did they say anything about insuring
the uninsured? Not a word.
So we're committed to providing the health care system America needs,
wants, and demands. We're going to do it this weekend. And as I said
before, this will be the proudest vote I ever cast on the floor of the
House of Representatives.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Kentucky,
even his own President has said that Americans will not have
competition and choice in terms of what they are able to keep. He said
that people will not be able to keep the insurance plans they like
under this plan. So I wanted to make a correction of that.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from South
Carolina and the next Governor of South Carolina, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question
so the rule can be amended and the House can consider H. Res. 1188. If
passed, this bill will ensure a straightforward up-or-down vote on the
Senate-passed health care bill.
From the moment this bill was introduced, Madam Speaker, this
government takeover of health care has been on life support, kept alive
only by closed-door processes and sweetheart deals. Over the past
several months, I have spent a tremendous amount of time in South
Carolina talking to folks about health care, and, quite frankly, the
American people are tired of the games, the gimmicks, and they've been
tired of us trying to muscle this bill through the legislative process.
It's time we pull the plug on all these secretive schemes, Madam
Speaker.
The cure is real and true transparency. The American people deserve
an honest debate and an open vote by Congress on this legislation.
Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. Madam Speaker, let's give the American people a true up-or-
down vote on this legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, can I inquire how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 15 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to make something clear, and that is the President has said
over and over and over again that if you like what you have in terms of
your insurance, you can keep it. No matter what my friends on the other
side say, no matter how much they don't like the fact that people can
keep their own insurance--and the President has assured that over and
over again--no matter what you say, the facts are the facts, and that
is a fact.
The other facts are: what will health insurance reform do starting
the first day it becomes law? On day one, on day one annual caps on
coverage would be eliminated. On day one, rescissions, the practice of
dumping people even if they have paid their premiums, would be
eliminated. On day one, preexisting conditions, exclusions for children
would be eliminated, and, over time, all preexisting condition
exclusions would be eliminated. On day one, parents would be allowed to
carry their children on their health insurance policy until their 26th
birthday. On day one, a down payment toward completely closing the
doughnut hole for seniors would be met with a $250 rebate for those in
Medicare part D.
This is all what will happen on day one when we pass it. These things
here are important to the American people. These are the things that
when they were in charge, they didn't have time to do. We had to do tax
cuts for people who were wealthy. We had to give corporations more tax
cuts and more subsidies. Well, the time has come for us to care about
the American people and do something for the American people, and this
is it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. McGOVERN. On your time, I will.
Ms. FOXX. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman obviously did
not pay attention to what the President said at the Republican retreat,
because he said he had made a mistake in saying that people could keep
their insurance plans if they liked them, that a few stray cats and
dogs had gotten into the Senate bill. And what I wanted to ask my
colleague is: Can he guarantee the American people that, in the Senate
bill that they are going to vote on under a trick being used by the
Rules Committee, that the American people will be able to keep their
insurance plan if they like it? Because the President has said that
isn't the case, and I think it's really important that we get that said
here.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my friend across the
aisle earlier saying that all lies and distortion must stop, and I am
glad that he has finally agreed with us on that proposition. It is
important, because, for one thing, people have been misled about what
this bill does and doesn't do. I heard one of my friends across the
aisle yesterday saying, Gee, great news. I've got 25 names of religious
leaders who are pro-life who have now taken a look, and they've said
this is okay.
As a pro-life person, I don't believe this changes existing law. They
look at page 119, and they see under subparagraph capital B, little I:
Abortions for which public funding is prohibited. The services
described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of
Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human
Services is not permitted, and based on the law as in effect as of the
date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
So they look at that and say, Oh, okay, that doesn't change existing
law. That's great. And they don't look over to page 124 that says,
Under this bill you have to provide insurance policies that will
actually cover--it says here--there is at least one plan that provides
coverage of services described in clause little I of subparagraph B.
That's the one that says you can't use Federal funds to pay for
abortion. And a few pages over it says you have to provide these
policies that will fund abortions from the paragraph we said we won't
fund. That's the kind of gamesmanship that's in here, and people will
suffer as a result. That's just a small example.
Now we hear over and over that you guys are killing people by not
letting them have this plan that we've got for them. Well, we heard the
President say in 2007, Gee, the first step will be--this bill is
actually what we're talking about passing here. That will be the first
step, and then there will be the transition basically into full
socialized medicine.
He said Canada had to start with this kind of bill and then go to the
full socialized medicine. Well, let's look at what they did. Here you
find out that if you want to die quicker from cancer than any other
country, don't come to the United States because you'll live longer
here. Folks, that's just not right.
I have a bill that does the things that we're talking about, and Newt
Gingrich told me back in June, Man, that will revolutionize the
discussion of health care. I've been trying since June to get that
scored, and I can't get it scored. I'm shut out. Oh, yeah, they're
objective. They'll snap their fingers. They'll get you a CBO score the
next day, but not for this Republican, even with the support of all the
people they said I needed to get it scored. Let's get fair for a
change.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, gamesmanship my foot. There is no
Federal money in this bill for abortion. The Hyde amendment applies to
this bill. That's the law of the land. To get up here and to try to----
No, I will not yield on that. There is enough misinformation being
said on this floor. I will not yield.
And, Madam Speaker, in terms of scores, let me read the CBO score
today from how it appeared in Roll Call. `` `An analysis of the
Democratic health care
[[Page H1605]]
overhaul by the Congressional Budget Office shows it would cost $940
billion over a decade and expand insurance to 32 million people. The
package also will slice the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade
and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the second,' a House Democratic
leadership aide said Thursday. `The CBO report, which will soon be
published, will show that the plan cuts the growth of Medicare costs by
1.4 percent per year while eliminating the doughnut hole. Those cuts
would extend the solvency of Medicare for at least an additional 9
years.' ''
If you want to talk about scores, that's one of the scores here. This
bill will not only insure 32 million people, it will cut our deficit,
which is something that everybody says they want to do. So let's stick
to what's real here.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I think the thing that my colleague across
the aisle fails to mention when he talks about the deficit is that, in
order to do that, they raise taxes, and that's something they always
leave out. They're never real about that.
I yield an additional 30 seconds to my colleague from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my colleague saying there is no money in
here for abortion because the Henry Hyde amendment doesn't allow it. He
is correct with regard to the appropriations through Labor and HHS.
That's all the Hyde amendment applies to. It doesn't apply to the
trillions of dollars that are appropriated in this bill around Labor-
HHS. That is money the Hyde amendment doesn't apply to. My colleague
asked us to get real. That's as real as you get. There's money that
goes around the Hyde amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Again, just to reiterate that there are no Federal funds in this bill
to cover abortion, there was an amendment in the Senate by Senator
Nelson which made that clear. It is crystal clear. There should be no
debate about it, and anybody here on the floor who is saying that
somehow it does is just plain wrong.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for
yielding.
You know, here we're talking, and this is about the only opportunity
we're going to have for real debate on this because Speaker Pelosi and
her liberal lieutenants have decided that they're going to try to ram
this down the throats of the American people without even having an
actual vote on the House floor, which, of course, violates Article I,
section 7 of the Constitution. There are a tremendous number of
constitutional questions about the bill, but they keep talking about
how good their bill is.
Let's just look at their credibility on this issue. Of course when
Speaker Pelosi got the gavel in 2006 and became Speaker, she said, The
Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical
Congress in history. Well, let's review the record. Of course, just a
few weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi says, But we have to pass the bill so
that you can find out what is in it. They don't even know what's in the
bill. They won't even release the CBO score. There are rumors flying
around. There are all these backdoor secret negotiations. They said all
of this would be on C-SPAN. The President said it eight times. They're
meeting behind closed doors this very minute cutting more sweetheart
deals, and no C-SPAN cameras. They threw the public out of those
hearings. They broke that pledge multiple times.
Now let's look at the latest on this Slaughter rule. Speaker Pelosi
just said this the other day, But I like it because people don't have
to vote on the Senate bill.
Now, do they really think the people of this country are stupid? Of
course the people know what's going on. The people are watching this
closely, and the people will not be fooled by this abomination of the
process. But if their bill really was so good, why are they doing all
of this behind closed doors?
They broke every promise they made along the way, but yet they want
you to believe, Don't worry. It's still going to work out the way we
want it. If you like what you have, you can keep it. We've seen
multiple times where the President has said that, and that turned out
not to be accurate. We know now--and it has been confirmed--that you
will lose health care you have that you like under their bill. We have
seen on abortion language, they keep saying even to this minute, Don't
worry; no taxpayer funding for abortion.
Now, are you going to believe folks that broke every promise or are
you going to believe the Catholic bishops and National Right to Life
who confirm there is taxpayer funding for abortion?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has
expired.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman.
I will finish it up with this. Are you going to believe the people
who have broken every other promise they have made about the bill or
are you going to believe the Catholic bishops and National Right to
Life who said this would be a career-defining pro-abortion vote? That
was National Right to Life. Do you believe them or do you believe the
folks who broke every other promise and are meeting behind closed doors
right now, cutting more sweetheart deals that they don't want anybody
to see?
If their bill was so good, why are they trying to pass it without an
actual vote? Because they know the American people are sick and tired
of this proposal to have a government takeover of health care, and they
don't want it. The public will be heard on this issue. We need to
defeat this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I don't know how to respond to that
tirade. Let me just say this. The reason why this bill is good is
because it insures 32 million people right now in this country who
don't have insurance. The reason why this bill is good is it's going to
ultimately contain the costs that average families and small businesses
have to deal with right now with the rising cost of health care. The
reason why this bill is good is it prohibits insurance companies from
discriminating against people with preexisting conditions.
We have heard story after story where people were denied insurance
because their preexisting condition was acne. I mean, we have heard
stories where insurance companies have cut people off from insurance
because their weight was wrong on the application. I mean, we have
heard stories where women have been denied insurance because their
preexisting condition was they were a victim of domestic violence. I
mean, give me a break. We are supposed to be the greatest deliberative
body in this country. We should be talking about how we solve these
problems, not all these rhetorical flourishes that are just
misinformation, blatant misinformation.
{time} 1115
Enough. Let's get down to what matters, and that is doing something
for the American people.
I know it may not be convenient for your elections in November. I
know, you know, you're all trying to figure out how do you deny
President Obama any victory. How do we obstruct the process? You here
in this House, your friends over in the Senate who used the filibuster
over and over and over again.
People are sick of that. People want us to help deal with this issue
that, quite frankly, is becoming an issue that they can not handle
because the costs are going up and up and up. Small businesses aren't
hiring people because their health insurance costs are going up.
Average families are going bankrupt when someone gets sick. So let's do
the right thing.
I reserve my time.
____________________