[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 41 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1696-H1700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HONORING DONALD HARINGTON
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 1040) honoring the life and accomplishments of
Donald Harington for his contributions to literature in the United
States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1040
Whereas Donald Douglas Harington was born on December 22,
1935, in Little Rock, Arkansas;
Whereas at age 6, he attempted to write his first novel,
``The Adventures of Duke Doolittle'';
Whereas at age 12, Harington contracted meningococcal
meningitis and as a result lost most of his hearing;
Whereas Harington graduated from the University of Arkansas
with a bachelor's degree in art in 1956, a master's degree in
printmaking in 1959, and from Boston University with a
master's degree in art history in 1959;
Whereas Harington taught art history at Bennett College in
Millbrook, New York, from 1960 to 1962, and at Windham
College in Putney, Vermont, from 1964 to 1978;
Whereas Harington had short-term teaching appointments at
the University of Missouri Rolla, the University of
Pittsburg, and South Dakota State, and taught art history at
the University of Arkansas from 1986 until he retired in
2008;
Whereas Harington's first novel, ``The Cherry Pit'', was
published in 1965 and over the course of his literary career
he also published ``Lightning Bug'' (1970), ``Some Other
Place. The Right Place'' (1972), ``The Architecture of the
Arkansas Ozarks'' (1975), ``Let Us Build Us a City: Eleven
Lost Towns'' (1986), ``The Cockroaches of Stay More'' (1989),
``The Choiring of the Trees'' (1991), ``Ekaterina'' (1993),
``Butterfly Weed'' (1996), ``When Angels Rest'' (1998),
``Thirteen Albatrosses (or, Falling off the Mountain)''
(2002), ``With'' (2003), ``The Pitcher Shower'' (2005),
``Farther Along'' (2008), and ``Enduring'' (2009);
Whereas in 1999, Harington was inducted into the Arkansas
Writers' Hall of Fame;
Whereas in 2003, Harington won the Robert Penn Award for
Fiction, and in 2006 received the first lifetime achievement
award for Southern literature from Oxford American magazine;
Whereas writer Kevin Brockmeier expressed that ``the signal
feature of Donald Harington's novels is their tremendous
liveliness. His books are not blind to suffering, featuring
as they do murder, poverty, kidnapping, loss, and betrayal.
Yet the mood of his stories is overwhelmingly one of
celebration. He extends his sympathies so widely that even
the trees and the hills, the insects and the animals, the
criminals and the ghosts seem to sing with the joy of
existence. He brings a tenderness and a brio to the page that
prevents his characters from sinking beneath the weight of
their troubles, and one finishes his books above all else
with an impression of a robust, loving comic energy. You feel
as if you have been immersed in life, both your own life and
the particular lives of his characters, and that life, for
all its misfortunes, is a pretty good place to be'';
Whereas Entertainment Weekly called Harington ``America's
greatest unknown writer'';
Whereas Harington was described in the Washington Post as
``one of the most powerful, subtle, and inventive novelists
in America'';
Whereas Harington once said that his philosophy of writing
was that literature, that all art, is an escape from the
world that makes the world itself, when you return to it,
more magical, bearable, or understandable; and
Whereas, on November 7, 2009, at age 73, Harington died in
Springdale, Arkansas, from complications of pneumonia: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the life
and accomplishments of Donald Harington for his contributions
to literature in the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. SPEIER. I now yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1040, recognizing the
life and work of Donald Harington. This resolution was introduced by
our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, Representative Vic Snyder,
on January 26, 2010. The measure was reported to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, which reported it out favorably by
unanimous consent on March 18, 2010, and the measure enjoys support
from over 50 Members of the House.
Mr. Harington was born December 22, 1935, in Little Rock, Arkansas,
where he spent much of his childhood. It was there as well as in the
town of Drakes Creek that he drew inspiration for his novel, set in the
fictional town of Stay More. Though he lost most of his hearing at the
age of 12, he had a strong memory of the local voices, accents and
intonations he had heard as a boy and incorporated them to great effect
in his works.
Mr. Harington's daring experiments with literary styles made him hard
to pigeonhole in the world of literature.
[[Page H1697]]
But his stories attracted legions of fans and high praise from critics,
particularly his 1975 novel ``The Architecture of the Arkansas
Ozarks,'' and the 1972 autobiography ``Some Other Place. The Right
Place.''
Donald Harington's talents were not limited to the written word. He
also taught art history at Bennett College in Millbrook, New York, from
1960 to 1962; at Windham College in Putney, Vermont, from 1964 to 1978;
and at the University of Arkansas from 1986 until he retired in 2008.
In addition, he shared his talent and wisdom with students at the
University of Missouri Rolla, the University of Pittsburgh, and South
Dakota State University.
Mr. Harington passed away in Springdale, Arkansas, on November 7,
2009, at the age of 73. He is survived by his wife, Kim, along with
three daughters from his first marriage, a stepson, a sister, and four
grandchildren. Madam Speaker, let us take time to remember and honor
Donald Harington for his great contributions to American literature. I
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues
in recognizing the life and accomplishments of novelist Donald Douglas
Harington and stand in support of H. Res. 1040.
Described by Entertainment Weekly as ``America's greatest unknown
writer'' and by The Washington Post as ``one of the most powerful,
subtle and inventive novelists in America,'' Mr. Harington's
contributions to modern American literature deserve to be recognized
and applauded by all Americans.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman for the time. I want to just say that
our colleagues across the aisle have been lambasting insurance
companies about what terrible things they have done to the American
people. But I want to say that there is one insurance company they like
very much, and that's the AARP. And it's probably because the AARP has
come out so strongly in favor of this terrible so-called health care
bill.
Let me explain to the American people why the AARP is an insurance
company. Because their royalty fees in 2008, according to their own
financial statements, totaled $414 million, pure profit. And a higher
amount of net revenue than that generated by such large insurers as
CIGNA, which had $292 million profit, or Health Net, a $95 million
profit during the same time period.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
March 19, 2010 on H1697 the following appeared: profit. And a
higher amount of debt
The online version should be corrected to read: profit. And a
higher amount of net
========================= END NOTE =========================
Even as premiums continue to rise for seniors, AARP's profits have
skyrocketed in recent years, jumping 31 percent just from 2007 to 2008.
Now, our colleagues across the aisle don't ever mention that when they
talk about the horrible insurance companies and how their rates have
risen. We all know that a big part of the reason that other insurance
companies are raising rates is because we're not paying adequate
amounts from the Federal Government, and yet we're going to put
everybody into a Medicare-type plan.
Madam Speaker, I have a sheet about the AARP and the problems that we
see with AARP having endorsed this plan and it being a conflict of
interest for them, and I would submit that for the Record.
Democrats Find an Insurance Company They Like . . .
This morning, deep in the bowels of the Capitol,
Congressional Democrats are meeting with executives from one
of the nation's largest insurers: AARP. According to its own
Form 990 filings with the IRS, the AARP has a wholly owned
``AARP Insurance Plan'' that gives to AARP ``a portion of the
total premiums collected'' from the sale of Medigap, Medicare
Advantage, and Medicare Part D plans. In 2008, according to
AARP's financial statements, those ``royalty fees'' totaled
$414 million--pure profit to AARP's bottom line, and a higher
amount of net revenue than that generated by such large
insurers as Cigna ($292 million profit) or Health Net ($95
million profit) during the same time period. Even as premiums
continue to rise for seniors, AARP's profits have skyrocketed
in recent years, jumping 31 percent just from 2007 to 2008.
It's also worth highlighting how the AARP Insurance Plan
treats AARP members--and how, in drafting health care
legislation, Democrats have bent over backwards to help the
AARP Insurance Plan continue to rake in profits.
AARP currently denies access to individuals with pre-
existing conditions by imposing waiting periods on its
Medigap plans--and the Democrat legislation would allow them
to continue this practice, even as it prohibits insurance
companies who sell to the under-65 population from the same
type of behavior.
AARP-sold Medigap plans are not subject to the same
restrictions applied to all other forms of Insurance in the
Democrat bill, which require at least 80 cents of every
premium dollar to be spent on medical expenses.
AARP's then Chief Executive Bill Novelli received more than
$1,000,000 in total compensation from the organization in
2008--more than 78 times the average annual Social Security
benefit of $12,738--yet the amendment supported by 56
Democratic senators to place a $500,000 cap on Insurance
executive salaries somehow exempted AARP from its provisions.
A backroom deal cut in Sen. Harry Reid's office exempts
AARP's lucrative Medigap plans from the new tax on health
insurers (Section 10905(d), Page 2395 of H.R. 3590 as passed
the Senate)--and the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans
included in the Senate bill will doubtless encourage millions
more seniors to buy Medigap supplemental coverage, where AARP
plans consume the largest market share.
While insurance companies have responded positively, to
Secretary Sebelius' request for additional transparency in
their pricing policies, pricing AARP has publicly refused to
disclose the exact amount of revenue it receives from the
sale of its Medigap plans--even though the organization's
board Chair made a public pledge to Congress to do so.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Democrats have yet to comment on
AARP's ``stonewalling'' tactics, as the ostensibly ``non-
profit'' organization attempts to hide the exact amount by
which its Medigap business will financially benefit if health
``reform'' is enacted.
Given these actions, It's worth asking whose side Democrats
are on: The side of seniors, or the side of an advocacy
organization that makes money from them?
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I now yield for as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arkansas, and the author of this
resolution, Mr. Snyder.
Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here
this afternoon to consider this resolution and will not add much to the
good summary that the gentlelady from California gave.
I have to say that I believe Mr. Harington--and I had met Mr.
Harington before his death--I think he would be delighted that this
resolution is turning into a debate on the big issue facing this
country this day, this year, perhaps this decade. I think he would
probably be more delighted by the cast of characters that we all are,
and he would see us all as that way, with all of our intricate
motivations and complexities and life histories and would probably find
this to be quite a glorious day. And I hope he is enjoying it from
wherever his perspective is.
The gentlewoman from California mentioned the fact that Mr. Harington
lost his hearing when he was very young. He was 12 years old. As you
know, as we have seen America modernize, we all start talking more and
more like Walter Cronkite did on TV, those of us who were born in the
forties and fifties. And as we grew up, we started seeing this
homogenization. The fact that Mr. Harington had lost his hearing, he
always had in his mind that vivid recollection of what people spoke
like in north Arkansas, and that comes out so well in his novels.
I did have occasion to meet him. He was a delightful man. He had a
critical following in the country. But as was pointed out, some people
did not know him very well, and some people consider him just the
greatest novelist that America had that nobody knew anything about.
Today we are doing our small part to acknowledge him to bring his
legacy to a few more people, and perhaps a few more people will read
his great books.
Now we can let this debate continue in whatever form it may take,
knowing that Mr. Harington will enjoy the exchanges.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my
distinguished colleague from the State of Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I would like to associate my remarks with Dr.
Snyder, the gentlelady from California, and the gentleman from Ohio.
Madam Speaker, I, myself, have been in exactly the same position that
the gentlelady from California spoke of when I ran for Congress and I
left my medical practice with $1,800 a month for my health insurance. I
was fortunate I could pay that, as the ER physician was able to do
that.
[[Page H1698]]
You can do a couple of things to make those rates go down
immediately. One is letting an individual deduct their health insurance
premiums just like huge corporations do. That would make it 30 to 35
percent cheaper tomorrow for every person out there trying to buy
affordable health insurance. Number two, it speaks volumes for allowing
you to buy insurance across the State line because that one single ER
physician could group in an association health plan with numerous other
physicians--perhaps hundreds or thousands of other physicians--and
bring those costs down.
How do I know that? Because I started my medical practice with four
physicians. We now have 70 physicians with 350 employees, and our costs
came down. One of the ways we help keep our costs down was a health
savings account which was about 30 percent cheaper than the regular
insurance.
I am going to finish by reading a letter from Governor Bredesen, a
Democrat from Tennessee, who wrote Senator Corker and Bart Gordon:
``The problem that we're facing is simple: by 2013, we expect to have
returned to our 2008 levels of revenue and will have already cut
programs dramatically--over $1 billion. At that point, we have to start
digging out--we will have not given raises to State employees or
teachers for 5 years, our pension plans will need shoring up, our cash
reserves (`rainy day fund') will have been considerably depleted and in
need of restoration, and we will not have made any substantial new
investments in years. There will have been major cuts to areas such as
children's services that we really need to restore. On top of these,
there are all the unusual obligations to be met--Medicaid, for example,
will continue to grow at rates in excess of the economy and our tax
revenues. It's going to take at least a full decade to dig our way out
and back to where we were prior to the recession.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. ``In this environment, for the Congress to also
send also along a mandatory bill for $750 million for the health reform
they've designed is very difficult. These are hard dollars--we can't
borrow them--and make the management of our finances post-recession
even more daunting.'' This is our Democratic Governor who's asking us
not to pass this legislation.
{time} 1530
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have listened to this debate, and rarely do I
come to the floor if it doesn't affect Alaska, but this also affects
Alaska. I am one who believes in health reform, but if anyone can tell
me from that side of the aisle, with 2,700 pages, and they say the new
one is not quite that long, it is 2,000 pages, what is in the bill.
They forget to say there are 160 new grant programs that never existed
before. There are 110 new agencies, Mr. and Mrs. America, that can
issue regulations. There are 13 health czars; we are making them legal
under this bill. The big thing, there is about 1,200 pages of
gobbledygook. I read one on the floor the other day, but this is page
1,181:
``(A) In General. Subject to the succeeding provisions of this
subtitle, in the case of an affordable credit eligible individual
enrolled in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan--
``(1) the individual shall be eligible for, in accordance with this
subtitle, affordability credits consisting of--
``(A) an affordability premium credit under section 243 to be applied
against the premium for the Exchange-participating health benefits plan
in which the individual is enrolled; and
``(B) an affordability cost-sharing credit under section 244 to be
applied as a reduction of the cost-sharing otherwise applicable to such
plan; and
``(2) the Commissioner shall pay the QHBP offering entity that offers
such plan from the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund the aggregate
amount of affordability credits for all affordable credit eligible
individuals enrolled in such plan.''
Over a thousand pages of gobbledygook. I have an old saying: KISS;
keep it simple, stupid. Keep it simple. I can tell you, go through this
bill, Mr. and Mrs. America, and read it and tell me what you
understand. I happen to have read this bill. I don't understand it. I
suggest, respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. America, we should not pass this
atrocity.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Serrano).
Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, everybody on that side is throwing
numbers around. The numbers I would like to think about for a second
are more dates than numbers. It seems that everything that could be
going wrong in this country, according to that side, started on January
20 of last year when we had a new administration. The prior 8 years
were wonderful years. We were not in a war, we had surpluses,
everything was going great. At least that is their presentation. But
everything starting January 20 of last year, Oh, my God, that is
pushing the country down the road to socialism. We are going into a
big, deep hole, and it is the end of America as we know it.
Well, the fact of the matter is this bill is a good bill. It is a
very good bill for our country. I would like to share with you some
good numbers, numbers that affect my congressional district in New
York, in the Bronx, New York. But I must tell you that these numbers
are reflected throughout the country.
Listen to this: 86,500 uninsured residents of my congressional
district will now have coverage extended to them; Medicare will be
improved for 65,000 beneficiaries, including closing gaps that existed
in coverage before; 201,000 families will be given tax credits and
other assistance, as will 7,300 small businesses to help them afford
coverage.
We are talking about the United States of America, the greatest
country on the face of the Earth; still, we are close to 40 million
people without health insurance. What are we talking about here? Trying
to fill that gap and take care of these folks.
Now, what was the biggest accusation that we heard for the last year,
year and a half: You are moving too fast. Too fast? President
Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to bring this issue
up. That is over 100 years ago. Too fast? They have had all these years
to do something about it, but still they wasted time looking for
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I will tell you, I found a weapon of mass destruction, and it is
close to 40 million people uninsured. That's the real threat to our
country. The cost, the cost of health care in this country, that is a
weapon of mass destruction. That can destroy us.
Who is unhappy? Not seniors, with this bill. Not children. Not the
working class. Not AARP, which is not known to be a great liberal
organization. They endorsed it today. Not so many people we have
mentioned.
Who are unhappy? The insurance companies. Well, that's too bad.
As we say in the south Bronx, the gig is up and it is about time they
began to behave properly. We are catching them, and we are catching
them strongly. I support this bill, and I support the efforts of my
side to be able to bring it through.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, responding to the last speaker, I
will tell you who is unhappy, and that is the American people. They
don't want this bill, and they have spoken loud and clearly about that.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) and request that he may
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I am not from the Bronx, but I am familiar
with the phrase ``the gig is up.'' I'm from Chicago, and in Chicago
they call it a hustle, and I think that is exactly what this bill is. I
want to highlight something that was brought to the attention of the
Ways and Means Committee just a couple of days ago,
[[Page H1699]]
Madam Speaker, and that is this: With this bill that is being foisted
upon the American public at this time, the Internal Revenue Service is
going to grow. In other words, this bill, in the words of our friend
Kevin Brady from Texas, he pointed out this bill doesn't create
physicians or nurses or physical therapists or a whole host of health
care providers, oh, no.
What this bill does is it creates positions for Internal Revenue
Service agents; 16,500 IRS agents are estimated to be able to carry out
this bill to pursue the individual mandate tax, the individual mandate
tax which the IRS is going to begin tracking. Individuals are going to
be getting the functional equivalent of a 1099, and the IRS is going to
be tracking that, not annually, but they are going to be tracking that
monthly. Think about that. They are going to be watching month by month
by month. And whoa, if you are an American and you don't have what
Speaker Pelosi says and you don't have what they say in the other
Chamber that you need to have, then you know what; you are going to get
taxed. In order to enforce that tax, do you know what is going to
happen? They are going to have more IRS agents.
Madam Speaker, we can do better. We need to be creating more
opportunities for Americans to get health care and not have a heavy
hand of government with 16,000 more IRS employees. We know what we need
to do with this bill this weekend. Let's vote ``no.'' Let's start over
and let's do it the right way.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, wouldn't it be nice if we could continue
honoring Donald Harington, a great novelist in America, but we can't
because we have to counteract things that are not exactly accurate,
which some of our friends are talking about on the subject of health
care.
The fact is we are honoring a great American novelist, but we have to
divert that important conversation to focus on the truth about health
care. Now here is the truth about health care.
The truth is that the Republican caucus has been engaging in a
campaign of fear to scare the American people from doing what is best
for themselves. The fact is that this campaign, first they said there
were death panels. Then they said there were community-based sex
clinics. Now they are saying the IRS is going to come get you. America,
this is not what is going on.
The truth is that 45,000 people a year die from the lack of health
care, and that is what the Democratic caucus is going to address and
that is what the American people will benefit from: being able to not
go bankrupt because you have health care, being able to not have to
lose a loved one because you have health care, being able to survive
and thrive in America as a small business person, provide a good
benefit to your company because you can afford to offer a health care
benefit. That is what is going on on Sunday.
I wish we could talk about the great novelist Donald Harington right
now. He deserved it. He earned it and he is a great American and we
honor him, but the fact is the Republican caucus wants to go toe to toe
on health care. We can go toe to toe on health care because this is a
good bill. It is going to improve this country. It is going to help
small business. It is going to help people who are underinsured, and it
is going to make this country stronger.
Why aren't our colleagues outraged about people being dropped for
preexisting conditions? Why don't they join us in our outrage in trying
to fix it? Why don't our colleagues join us in saying, you know what;
preventative medicine ought to be free? People shouldn't have to pay to
be able to do preventative medicine. We are doing that right now.
People ought to be able to get a good, decent health care policy for a
good price, and they ought to be able to survive and do well in
America. I wish we could get some support for that from the other side
of the aisle; unfortunately, we won't.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, this body is nearing what will be a
defining vote for the future of our Nation. While the majority
leadership continues the arm-twisting to sway enough votes to push the
health care bill through the House, the American people are left
wondering: Who is listening? Who is listening to us in Washington?
The American people have said loud and clear they don't want this
bill; they want health care reform, but they don't want this bill. My
constituents, by a margin of 3:1, have been contacting me saying they
don't want this approach, and with good reason. The bill will cost
nearly $1 trillion in the next decade alone. That is more Washington
spending, that is more Federal borrowing, and it is more debt for our
children and grandchildren, and it is surely going to go higher as
entitlement spending soars as other provisions of the bill are phased
in.
The bill is loaded with job-killing tax increases. An Associated
Press analysis has even said that health care premiums will actually
increase, will actually go up under this plan. The bill will also allow
the IRS, for the first time, to charge up to 2 percent of income and
confiscate tax refunds if Americans do not seek what is actually
government approved, minimum insurance coverage. The bill will cut $500
billion from Medicare and, in turn, use that money for new entitlement
spending. History has certainly shown us that entitlement spending goes
up, not down.
Finally, this bill hits my district in Minnesota especially hard with
a $20 billion tax increase on medical devices and medical technology.
Shouldn't we be enhancing and giving opportunities for encouraging
innovation in these technologies rather than taxing them and pushing
these jobs offshore?
Given these provisions are out there, it is no wonder that we have
seen a process that is riddled with special favors to gain votes. And
it's no wonder that the ultimate passage of this bill may only come
through procedural tactics rather than having an up-or-down vote on the
bill.
Madam Speaker, simply put, if this bill was good policy, you wouldn't
have to resort to those types of moves and tactics to actually pass it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PAULSEN. If we want real health care reform in this country that
the American people and many of us in Congress believe in on a
bipartisan level, this bill should be set aside and replaced with
commonsense approaches that lower the cost for everyone in America.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Madam Speaker, I believe on a bipartisan basis Members of
the House of Representatives favor health care reform, and I certainly
want to be a voice of reason in that regard. Nobody in America is
satisfied with the current situation. I am part of a group of House
Republicans, the Tuesday Group, that has put forth an eminently
sensible proposal, Madam Speaker: purchase of policies across State
lines; making sure no one is denied coverage based upon preexisting
conditions; coverage of young people on their parents' policies until
age 26; and most important of all, medical malpractice insurance
reform, not contained in the proposal we will be voting on this weekend
or at the beginning of next week.
Number two, Madam Speaker, the proposal on which we will be voting,
over the next 10 years is a proposal where there is only 6 years of
benefits, but we begin paying for it in tax increases immediately.
Regarding the scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, Madam
Speaker, what is not in calculation is roughly a quarter of a trillion
dollars, the so-called doctors' fix, that will clearly be a cost
associated with this because we need to compensate physicians
appropriately.
{time} 1545
Let us review commonsense alternatives, and please let's not vote on
this bill based upon procedure instead of an up-or-down vote that is, I
believe, required constitutionally.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance)
just spoke rationally about the
[[Page H1700]]
bill. He spoke about wanting to make sure that insurance would be
available across State lines. I think he referenced, or someone else on
the other side referenced having high risk pools available, that we
should address preexisting conditions, and we should offer coverage to
children of families up to the age of 26. What is so interesting is
that all of those proposals, each and every one of those proposals, are
included in the health care reform measure that we will all have the
opportunity to vote on this weekend.
Mr. Lance, if he has the courage to vote with the Democrats, would be
improving coverage for over 500,000 residents in his district. He would
be giving tax credits to 74,000 families and 18,000 small businesses.
He would be improving Medicare for 96,000 people in his district. Those
are the kinds of figures that speak to the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I have spent the last 31 years before I came to
Congress in the real world practicing medicine. So I know from where I
speak. I have seen it, seen patients. I am probably one of the only
people in this Chamber right now that has actually gone to an emergency
room at 3 o'clock in the morning and seen someone without health
insurance coverage and treated them, and treated numerous patients over
the years without coverage. So I know that from a personal basis as a
physician and just as a citizen.
Obviously what we are dealing with now is we are dealing with a very
complex issue, health care. It is not easy. There is no question about
that. I think the difference that we have, the gentlelady from
California just pointed out some similarities, and that is where I
think the American people would like us to start instead of this
incredibly complex bill that the gentleman from Alaska read just a
minute ago, only a portion of, that is incomprehensible.
There are two things you can do that would cover 20 million people,
and we can do it on one sheet of paper and not have however many new
bureaucracies and czars and agencies and IRS agents and all of that.
And that is, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is allow young adults,
I have had three in my only family do this, who graduated from college
and didn't have insurance right after they got out, let those folks
stay on, pick your number, 26, 27 years of age, on their family's
health insurance policy. Simply sign up and adequately fund SCHIP, the
State Children's Health Insurance Plan, and Medicaid. By doing those
two things, you can cover 20 million people. This bill, as complex as
it is, covers presumably 31 million people.
My concern with the cost is that one of the things that this bill
does not do, it does not address costs. And let me just give you an
example. When Medicare was established in 1965, the government
estimates at that time was that in 25 years that bill would cost $15
billion. The actual cost of that bill, $90 billion. That was in 1990.
The actual cost today, Madam Speaker, is over $500 billion. And we know
that this bill is going to remove $500 billion, or approximately $500
billion from this plan.
Let me just tell you what begins to happen, and I have watched it in
my own practice, in 2011. The baby boomers hit. Seventy-eight million
baby boomers in the next 20 years, 35 million or more in the next 10
years, and you're going to provide the care they need with 500 billion
less dollars. I don't think you get that math. The way I read that is
that three things happen: Number one, you decrease access. Number two,
if you don't get the access, you get decreased quality. And number
three, you are going to increase costs because people are going to pay,
if they can afford to, for the care that they are receiving.
As my friend Mr. Lance brought out, malpractice reform is desperately
needed. I am an obstetrician. I know that all too well, about how many
of my colleagues have left the practice of delivering babies, one of
the most fulfilling things. I have delivered almost 5,000 babies. And
when I left my practice to come to Washington, I never felt like I had
a job. It was a privilege to take care of patients and bring those
young people in and watch them grow up and flourish in the community I
lived.
Young doctors are not able to do that now because of the cost. And it
is not in here at all. In our own State, where we have a mutual
company, an insurance company, State Volunteer Mutual Insurance
Company, which insures the doctors of Tennessee, since the inception of
that company, over half the malpractice premium dollars have gone to
attorneys, not to the injured party. Less than 40 cents on the dollar.
Many of my good attorney friends have said, we need to do something
about this. I agree.
So we don't disagree about what needs to be done; it's the method to
get there. We are going to have a large government bureaucracy that is
expanding a plan that is not working, which is Medicaid. And I have
some very good ideas about what we should do for that. We shouldn't
treat our Medicaid patients different than we treat other patients. I
absolutely agree with that. Therefore, I would argue also we have the
insurance industry--I am not going to sit up here and be a shill for
them. I have argued with them for 20 years, 30 years about care. But I
will point out one thing.
You can take all the profits, that is what I have heard for the last
3 weeks up here is the evil insurance companies, you can take every
nickel that they make and it will run our health plan in America, our
health, for 2 days. So what are you going to do the next 363 days? Only
2 days. Take them all and put them out, you only cover people for 2
days. So that is not the solution. It is just demonizing them. They
need to shape up, there is no question about that. And competition will
help that happen.
I know this is a great vote. I think it is one of the biggest votes
that we have had in the last 45 years in America. The people in my
district overwhelmingly oppose this bill by about 8-to-1. I am going to
vote against this bill for the reasons that I have stated, and
certainly would be willing to work with the other side, and asked to do
that.
One of my great frustrations in coming to Washington, D.C., was to
have spent over 30 years in the practice of medicine and not be
included in the decision. The physicians caucus on our side, 10
doctors, 14--we have other folks other than M.D.s in that caucus--and
the two Senators who are M.D.s, none were included in this discussion
about health care. I think that was wrong. I think it was a mistake on
the other side, and would have certainly liked to have brought over 300
years of experience to the table and discuss with them real solutions,
positive solutions for health care.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish that the gentleman from
Tennessee would have returned to the resolution that is before us in
concluding his comments. We are here, as you know, to recognize the
life and work of Donald Harington. And while we were trying to
recognize the great work of an American novelist, we find ourselves
drifting into a discussion of health care. But in any case, we are
going to conclude this particular discussion by urging our colleagues
to recognize the life and work of Donald Harington by supporting this
measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1040.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. SPEIER. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________