[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 40 (Thursday, March 18, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1605-H1609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that our colleagues
across the aisle talk about the problems with the filibuster in the
Senate. But that is exactly why bills could not
[[Page H1606]]
get passed that Republicans in the House passed but couldn't get them
passed in the Senate because Democrats filibustered.
And about misinformation, there probably has never been a bill that
has been more misrepresented to the American people than what is going
on here in terms of this bill. And I do think the American people
understand the truth, and they're going to act on the truth later on
this year. They're doing it now. They're telling them, don't vote on
it. But they feel obliged to do it.
I want to say that while my colleague across the aisle keeps ranting
and raving about corporate profits for insurance companies, he doesn't
say a word about the corporate profits for the Big Pharma companies.
And yet, these are, they are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Big
Pharma companies.
Of all the single industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA sent $26.2
million on lobbying last year. That's nearly three times as much as the
insurance lobby, which spent only $8.9 million.
And let's talk about profits. Drugmakers' combined profit margin last
year--this is from an article of The Examiner from March 17, 2010,
yesterday--profit margin was 22.2 percent, compared with the insurers'
4.4 percent. Drugmaker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, exceeds that
of the 10 largest insurers combined. And I can go on and on. Madam
Speaker, I'd like to put this article in the Record.
And the reason they don't talk about Big Pharma and the drug industry
is because Big Pharma helped write this bill, because it protects them.
They know that they are going to get a windfall out of this bill, and
they, again, our colleagues across the aisle, are wholly owned
subsidiaries of them.
Madam Speaker, our colleague, my colleague from Louisiana, brought up
a very, very important point that I think needs to be mentioned again
and again. What Chairwoman Slaughter has proposed, and what will be
done here, is to use a rule providing for consideration of both the
Senate and reconciliation bills to deem the Senate bill passed,
avoiding the political problem that stems from taking a true up-or-down
vote on the horribly unpopular legislation.
If this legislation is doing so much good for the American people,
then our colleagues should be proud to be voting for this in an up-or-
down vote. They keep saying it, but you know, saying it doesn't make it
so.
Even though, again, Speaker Pelosi said on page 23 of her ``New
Directions for America'' document issued in the 109th Congress that
``Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard.
No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' Then on page
24 she states that ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure
that allows open, full and fair debate, and Members should have at
least 24 hours''--later expanded to 72 hours--``to examine the bill
text prior to floor consideration.''
Yet, as Mr. Scalise has said, all we've seen are broken promises. And
now, Speaker Pelosi is advocating parliamentary trickery to avoid an
up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill. And he quoted her as
saying, ``This is a great way to do it because it avoids an up-or-down
vote.''
This is not what the American people sent us here for. They didn't
send us here to undermine the rule of law and to do things with tricks.
They know this is the wrong thing to do. That's why they have been
jamming the phones and telling our colleagues, vote ``no.''
[From the Examiner, Mar. 17, 2010]
Dems Tap Drug Maker Millions for PhRMA-Friendly Bill
(By Timothy P. Carney)
As they whip for the health care bill, Democratic leaders
pack a mean one-two punch of populist rhetoric and the hefty
financial backing of the drug industry.
In the heated yearlong health fight, President Obama has
often accused his opponents of willful misrepresentation,
even as he and his allies have endlessly repeated the biggest
whopper of all--that the bill would rein in the special
interests.
The Obama team regularly dismisses opponents as industry
lackeys. The Democratic National Committee blasted out e-
mails this week warning that ``for every member of Congress,
there are eight anti-reform lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill''
and ``Congress is under attack from insurance lobbyists.''
But drug industry lobbyists, according to Politico, spent
the weekend ``huddled with Democratic staffers'' who needed
the drug lobby to ``sign off'' on proposals before moving
ahead. Meanwhile, we learn that the drug lobby is buying
millions of dollars of ads in 43 districts where a Democratic
candidate stands to suffer for supporting the bill. The
doctors' lobby and the hospitals' lobby are also on board
with the Senate bill.
So the battle at this point is not reformers versus
industry, as Obama would have you believe. Rather, it is a
battle between most of the health care industry and the
insurance companies.
(And the insurers are not opposed to the whole package. On
the bill's central planks--limits on price discrimination,
outlawing exclusions for pre-existing conditions, a mandate
that employers insure their workers and a mandate that
everyone hold insurance--insurers are on board. They object
mostly that the penalty is too small for violating the
individual mandate.)
Pharmaceuticals are a far more entrenched special interest
than the insurers.
Of all the single-industry lobbies in Washington, the
largest is the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers
of America. PhRMA spent $26.2 million on lobbying last year--
that's nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby,
America's Health Insurance Plans, which spent $8.9 million.
If you include individual companies' lobbying
pharmaceuticals blow away the competition, beating all other
industries by 50 percent, according to data at the Center for
Responsive Politics.
Given this Big Pharma clout, it's unsurprising that the
bill Obama's whipping for--Senate bill--has nearly everything
the drug companies wanted; prohibiting reimportation of
drugs, preserving Medicare's overpayment for drugs, lengthy
exclusivity for biotech drugs, a mandate that states
subsidize drugs under Medicaid, hundreds of billions in
subsidies for drugs, and more.
PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin, who was vilified by Obama on the
campaign trail, worked out much of this sweetheart deal in a
West Wing meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel. Tauzin visited the White House at least 11 times. He
left his imprint so deeply on the current bill that it should
probably be called BillyCare rather than ObamaCare.
Recall that pharmaceutical executives and political action
committees dug deep trying to save the flailing candidacy of
Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts--a race that was
explicitly a referendum on health care. She took in more than
10 times as much drug company cash as Republican Scott Brown.
This week, PhRMA, through a front group called Americans
for Stable Quality Care, is rolling out millions of dollars
in advertisements for the Democrats' jury-rigged package
consisting of the BillyCare bill and some as-yet-undetermined
``budget reconciliation'' measure. The ads reportedly will
target wavering Democrats.
But supporters of BillyCare will continue to attack
opponents as shills for insurance companies, demonizing, as
Obama puts it, ``those who profit from the status quo.''
Let's look at those profits. Drug makers' combined profit
margin last year was 22.2 percent, compared with insurers'
4.4 percent. Drug maker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion,
exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined.
Pfizer, which netted $8.64 billion last year, gave its CEO,
Jeff Kindler, a 12.5 percent salary increase, bringing his
compensation to $14.9 million. Pfizer, in a federal filing,
attributed the raise partly to Kindler's work ``developing
and advancing U.S. and global public policies that serve the
overall interests of our Company,'' including his
``constructive participation in the U.S. legislative
process.'' Kindler contributed the maximum to Obama's
election, and Obama raised more money from the drug industry
than any candidate in history.
On this bill, Republicans side with insurers, and Democrats
mostly side with the richer and more powerful drug makers.
The difference: Republicans didn't cut a backroom deal with
the insurers. Obama will still play the populist card, even
as the drug lobby is his ace in the hole.
Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just yield myself 30 seconds to
remind my colleagues that there's a cost to doing nothing. There's a
cost to embracing the status quo, as my Republican colleagues have
suggested. For middle-income families alone, the number of uninsured
people in this income group would increase by 7.3 million people.
That's in the middle-income categories. Is that the direction we want
to go? To force millions and millions of more people into the ranks of
the uninsured, which will ultimately add to our deficit and to our
debt? I don't think so.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this rule, and for his unequivocal call for being
realistic about
[[Page H1607]]
some of the outrageous things that we've heard on the floor.
I just heard my friend from Texas talk about demonizing the Canadian
system and calling it socialized medicine. It's really kind of ironic.
First of all, Canada has basically Medicare for all. It is a
government-funded insurance program, but Canadians pick who they want
to be their doctor, just like Americans who are on Medicare pick their
doctor. And I would say, frankly, that most Americans would be happy
with the overall outcome of the Canadian health care system. They pay
less, they get sick less often. When they do get sick, they get well
faster, and they live longer than Americans.
The sad truth is that our nonsystem of health care, which is very
good for veterans, it's pretty good for senior citizens, but for other
Americans, particularly the uninsured now approaching 50 million, it's
a problem. And increasingly, if we don't do something, the increasing
premiums that we're seeing for private insurance, higher copays, higher
deductibles, and coverage that is getting skinnier and skinnier puts us
on a path that is disastrous for American families.
I hope that we'll be able to come forward, move past some of the
outrageous rhetoric and the falsehoods, to look at the facts. Americans
have, if they can afford it, some of the best health care in the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. For those who can afford it, they have some of the
best health care in the world. But Americans, overall, by any objective
measure of performance, like life expectancy, or how soon babies die,
we don't perform very well.
And increasingly, the pressure on small business to deal with the
failing system, what's happening on families who are having more and
more insurance bureaucrats trying to prevent them from getting
coverage, is a prescription for disaster. That's why this year there
will be more than 1,000 people that I represent who will go bankrupt
from medical costs, and most of them have insurance.
Madam Speaker, that doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. And if
we're able to move forward with this health care reform, it will no
longer happen in the United States.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I think it is so important for us to move
forward and not be derailed in our efforts to reform what is important
policy in this country. Health care, obviously, is something that needs
to be provided in terms of insurance to our working families out there.
We know the impact of delay and the impact of no reforms. Status quo
simply does not cut it. We cannot afford to allow our families to
continue with such gross injustice.
Obviously, the increase projected, $1,800 per year for family plans,
is a train wreck waiting to happen. Today the average of some $13,000
for family plans would grow in the next decade to some $31,000. Which
small business out there could afford to pay that or even a fraction of
that for its employees?
We know that what we're trying to maintain here is an employee-based
health care insurance system. Well, the employer-based system needs
some sort of relief. We need to know that there are assurances for
containing those costs, for making certain that into the future we'll
have a safety net for our working families and for our business
community. In the measure we're advancing there is assistance for small
businesses. It's providing them the opportunity to make this sharing
affordable.
We know that the benefits that come with reducing the deficit with
our bill, having been scored by CBO, is looking at $130 billion for the
first 10 years and some $1.2 trillion into the next 10 years. This is
progress. This is a step in the right direction.
We also know of the reforms where those who are denied, for whatever
bias--for gender, for preexisting conditions, for acne, almost a
laughable concept, but used to deny people. Toddlers who are denied
because of overweight, individuals who have perhaps been violated,
sexually violated, or domestic violence, have been denied. These
reforms are essential, and let's do them now.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my colleague
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, you know, it's often said around this place
that nobody cares about process. It's only the substance of the policy.
But the process lends itself to the substance. And bad process equals
bad policy, especially when it's done over and over again.
Now we've seen over the past couple of years a shrinking of the
ability of the minority party to actually come to the floor, offer the
amendments it would like to offer, actually have an impact on the
policy debate. Now, that's process. But it has an impact on the policy.
Over time, if a majority simply asserts its rights under the House
rules to minimize debate or to have a vote without having a vote, to
deem something through, if you do that kind of thing continually,
you're going to get a bad product. And I would suggest that the health
care reform bill that we will vote on, maybe, or we will deem later
this weekend, is a bad product, and it's partly because of a flawed
process.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. You want to
talk about process? Over the past year and a half the House held nearly
100 hours of hearings. In 83 hours of committee markups we heard from
181 witnesses, both Democrat and Republican. Two hundred thirty-nine
amendments were considered, and 121 were adopted. I think that's a
pretty good process.
I reserve my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm the final speaker, so I would yield
to the gentlelady to give her closing, and I'll reserve my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that what my colleague from
Massachusetts just said about all those hours of hearings, it was a
totally different bill. No hearings have been held on this bill; a
totally different bill. That isn't the way we work around here.
What they're asking people not to vote on is a bill that came from
the Senate. It isn't the House bill. So let's, again, get real here and
let's talk about what we should be talking about.
You know, my colleagues across the aisle were against the Senate bill
before they were for the bill, and I would like to quote my
distinguished colleague who is the Chair of the Rules Committee when
she said on December 23, 2009, ``Under the Senate bill, millions of
Americans will be forced into private insurance plans which will be
subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to
reform health care, but will be a windfall for insurance companies.''
She went on to then say ``The Senate has ended up with a bill that
isn't worthy of its support. Supporters of the weak Senate bill say,
just pass it. Any bill is better than no bill. I strongly disagree.''
{time} 1130
Now that very same person has done everything possible to get this
bill passed in this House so that it will become law. It is no wonder
that the majority is considering procedural tricks and sleight of hand,
because the bill that they are proposing to pass doesn't provide true
health care reform. And the process doesn't pass the sniff test.
Republicans will never accept the status quo for health care. We can
do better. We need to have a bill that will lower the cost of health
care in America. But you do not lower the cost of health care by
creating new government-run programs. We can lower the cost by putting
patients, average, everyday Americans in charge of their health care,
not insurance companies and not the government. Lower costs will result
from putting patients in charge of their health care through
innovations like expanded health savings accounts and by making sure
that trial lawyers are not driving up the cost of health care with a
blizzard of frivolous lawsuits.
We should be revitalizing America's economy and promoting economic
freedom. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
Republican plan will reduce the deficit by $68 billion.
[[Page H1608]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that
there won't be a vote on health care in the next few days. Nothing
could be further from the truth. My friends on the other side of the
aisle are very good at making things up.
Let me be clear: This House will vote to move the Senate bill
forward. The process will work. The President will have a bill to sign
and the Senate will have a set of corrections and improvements to the
bill, much of what we have done here in this Congress. We will have
corrections and improvements to the bill that President Obama will sign
into law. This idea that the House will not vote on the health care
bill is simply not true. It is I guess a good smoke screen, but it is
simply not true.
Madam Speaker, our friends are using this previous question to hide
the fact that they simply do not want to improve the health care
system, that they prefer to leave 32 million people uninsured. Because
that is what will happen if we do nothing. And that they are happy to
have skyrocketing insurance premiums and health care costs drive our
country into further economic distress.
No one in this Chamber, no Member of Congress has to worry about
their health insurance. Why can't the American people have the same
plan and the same choices and the same assurances as us? Why do my
Republican friends think that somehow we should have some sort of
special privilege? You know, if it is good enough for us, the American
people ought to have the same thing. And that is what this bill would
do.
For political purposes, Republicans have been against this important
reform from the start. Remember, it was Senator Jim DeMint, a
Republican, who said that Republicans must oppose this plan at all
costs, and that its defeat will be President Obama's, quote,
``Waterloo.'' The debate and votes that we are going to have are
simple. You are either on the side of the patients or on the side of
the big insurance companies. You are either on the side of people who
no longer want insurance companies to discriminate against them because
of preexisting conditions or you are on the side of the status quo and
the special interests.
Let me close with one example. Eight States, including North Carolina
and the District of Columbia, do not have laws that specifically bar
insurance companies from using domestic violence as a preexisting
condition to deny health coverage. Now, just think about that for a
minute. In 2010 in the United States of America a woman can be denied
health care because she has gotten beat up by a husband or a boyfriend.
That is wrong. That is unconscionable. That has to change. And we are
going to change it.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Stand with the American
people who are sick and tired of waiting for Congress to act on health
care. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, I will vote against the Previous Question
Motion today because I think the American people deserve a clear, up-
or-down vote on health reform. They deserve to know how their elected
representative voted, without any parliamentary confusion or
obfuscation. In addition to being a transparency and fairness issue,
this may also be a constitutional issue because of the consensus that
the House and Senate must pass identical bills before they can be sent
to the President for signature.
With all the publicity surrounding the so-called ``self-executing''
rule, this procedure will not fool anyone back home, nor should it. It
is, however, apparently designed to fool enough members of the House
into believing that they did not support the Senate bill, even though,
if they support the health reform package, they voted for it as the
major component of the health reform.
Unless we return to regular House procedure, we will never know how
members would have voted on the Senate bill, by itself, and/or the
reconciliation amendment, by itself. Since the President is apparently
planning on signing the Senate bill before the Senate can take up the
reconciliation amendment (as the Senate parliamentarian insists), no
one will know who in the House of Representatives, in fact, supported
the Senate bill. In simplistic terms, the White House will not know
whom to invite to the signing ceremony.
All this might be a parliamentary dispute if the possibility did not
exist that a constitutional challenge would be brought against health
care reform legislation. All it would take is one or two federal judges
to void this law because of a procedural failing. Supporters of reform
will then regret taking this procedural shortcut, while opponents will
welcome the opportunity to overturn the law and reopen the debate.
I realize that both political parties have used self-executing rules
dozens, even hundreds, of times. But, to my knowledge, these rules have
never been used on an issue larger than banning smoking on airplanes, a
$40 billion deficit-reduction measure, or raising the debt ceiling of
the United States. None of these issues compares with the scope of
health care reform. To my knowledge, no serious constitutional
challenge has been mounted against these rules, but one is certain to
be lodged against the passage of health reform.
Voting is the most important part of our job. We must vote honestly
and openly on the separate issues that come before us.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1190 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1188) ensuring
an up or down vote on certain health care legislation. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which
may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall
not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 1188.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information foci Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools
[[Page H1609]]
for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer
an alternative plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Madam 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________