[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 41 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1700-H1706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE

  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4840) to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the 
``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office''.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page H1701]]

  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4840

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE.

       (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
     Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin 
     Post Office''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx) 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4840, a bill designating the 
United States Postal facility located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in 
Columbus, Ohio, as the Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office. H.R. 4840 was 
introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) on 
March 12, 2010. It was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, which reported it by unanimous consent on March 18, 
2010. It has bipartisan support from 17 Members of the Ohio delegation.
  Mr. Clarence Lumpkin was born in 1925 and spent years as a community 
activist in Columbus, Ohio. He is often affectionately referred to as 
the mayor of Linden, a neighborhood in the northeastern part of the 
city. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Lumpkin has helped the 
Community Development Block Grant task force, persuaded the city to 
separate storm and sanitation sewers to stop basement flooding, led 
anti-drug marches throughout Columbus, made Linden the first inner city 
community with lights on every residential street, and improved the 
Linden area by including the Point of Pride concept that was first 
shared with city leaders in a speech given in 1974. Before moving to 
Linden, Mr. Lumpkin served in the United States Army, and he is a 
veteran of World War II.
  Madam Speaker, Clarence Lumpkin has spent his life serving his 
community and his country, doing everything he could to improve the 
lives of his fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
honoring this great American by supporting this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4840, introduced by my 
colleague from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), designating the United States Postal 
Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the 
Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office.
  Growing up in the poor rural south in a family of sharecroppers, 
Clarence D. Lumpkin has had his fair share of challenges, but that has 
never deterred him from moving ahead. Mr. Lumpkin picked cotton as a 
youngster from sunup to sundown, served lunch to turpentine workers, 
and at the age of 10 lost his mother, who had been bedridden for most 
of his life.
  He entered the first grade at 12 years old. Hungry for knowledge, Mr. 
Lumpkin was a model student who studied constantly. After graduating 
from high school, Mr. Lumpkin joined the Army, where he served in New 
Guinea during World War II. After the war, he moved to Ohio, where over 
a period of 41 years he worked a number of jobs, finally retiring as 
chief of the enforcement division in the Department of Highway Safety's 
Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
  Mr. Lumpkin is a remarkable man who came from a very difficult 
childhood and turned his experience of hard work into service to his 
country in the Army and lifelong service to his community, where he has 
truly made a difference every day in people's lives. In gratitude for 
his service, I ask all Members to join me in supporting H.R. 4840.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as my colleagues have said today, and I have 
mentioned, also, we are here this week, we are here on a Friday 
afternoon, we are not normally here, because our colleagues across the 
aisle, along with the President, have decided that it is time for the 
government to take over one-sixth of our economy and to institute a 
government-run health care plan in this country. We have talked about 
this before, but this is the wrong way to go.
  The American people do not want this plan. And why are we being kept 
in town on a Friday afternoon and being told we will probably vote on 
Sunday? Because despite the fact that the Democrats control 253 seats 
and need only 216 votes, they cannot get their colleagues to agree with 
them to vote on this terrible bill.

                              {time}  1600

  They, again, try to blame Republicans for the situation that we're 
in, but they cannot do that. The American people are paying attention, 
they know about the Slaughter rule, they know the tricks and chicanery 
that are being used to get people to vote for this bill that Americans 
do not want. But we've raised the awareness of process as well as 
substance here.
  And I want today to talk about even a person in this great State of 
Massachusetts who has predicted that passing this bill will be a 
disaster. There was an article in The Boston Globe on March 17, 2010, 
that talks about State treasurer Timothy Cahill who was, until 
recently, a Democrat but who has become an Independent candidate for 
governor, who has said that the State's universal health care law is 
bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally if Congress 
passes a similar plan. ``If President Obama and the Democrats repeat 
the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a 
national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy 
within four years.'' That is a statement that he made at a press 
conference.
  He went on further to criticize the 2006 health care law and said--he 
started last summer when he began to think about running for Governor. 
His criticism has echoed that leveled by Senator Scott Brown during his 
run for the U.S. Senate.
  Another quote from Mr. Cahill. ``It is time for the President and the 
Democratic leadership to go back to the drawing board and come up with 
a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.''
  Many people are understanding exactly what Mr. Cahill is talking 
about. They know that this is not the direction to go.
  Another quote from Mr. Cahill in this article says, ``The real 
problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for 
this health care reform. And I would argue that we're being propped up 
so that the Federal government and the Obama administration can drive 
it through.'' He says in this article that the only reason they've been 
able to survive in Massachusetts is because the Obama administration is 
pumping money into Massachusetts, as he said, to keep it going in order 
that they can get their own health care plan through, which will be a 
disaster.
  I want to point out further that our own chairman of the Rules 
Committee said herself last year that the Senate has ended up with a 
bill that isn't worthy of its support. And she said then in an op-ed, 
Supporters of the weak Senate bill say just passing any bill is better 
than no bill. I strongly disagree. It's time that we draw the line on 
this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The 
American people deserve at least that.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with that statement of the esteemed chair of the 
Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. I believe that Americans know that they 
deserve a better life. They know that our freedom is at stake. They 
know they are not more secure than they were 3 years ago when the 
Democrats took control of this Congress. They

[[Page H1702]]

know that their taxes are higher and will go higher.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time that we stop the charade of saying that this 
health care bill is going to help the American people and admit to the 
fact that it is going to destroy jobs, bring down our economy, and take 
away the freedom that Americans have to choose their health care.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko) as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from California for the 
opportunity.
  You know, when I listen to the discussion on this floor, when I hear 
my friends from the other side of the aisle talk about the great plan 
that they have put forth, I think I need to share with the American 
public that their plan means 50 million Americans will go without 
health care coverage. I think that's an important distinction here.
  And also when we talk about their plan, to me it translates to higher 
costs, it translates to reduced consumer protections, and it also 
speaks to no regulations on an industry that has had record profit 
columns over the last couple of years.
  So I think our bill states very emphatically that we're about 
changing the course of direction. We're about putting individuals, 
families, doctors, in control of the health care outcome--not 
government, not insurance companies. So this effort to empower the 
insurance companies is not the solution America is looking for. It is 
not the solution.
  They are looking for a thoughtful, academic approach. The Democrats 
in this House have put forward a sound plan. The Speaker, to her 
credit, has taken the input from the Members of this majority and 
advanced them to the United States Senate and to the White House, and 
we have been able to achieve, on behalf of the people of this great 
country, situations that allow us to control those skyrocketing costs 
to make certain that, again, our families, our individuals, our 
doctors, are making those decisions and not the greed of insurance 
companies.
  We want to make certain that as we go through this effort that we 
provide assistance to those who are struggling in this economy. In 
fact, in my district, I can look at a family with an average annual 
income of $50,000 and state to them that with this measure, they will 
realize a $5,800 benefit, a tax credit, to help them afford their 
health care costs. That is monumentally important to that family.
  It also speaks to the ``whose side we're on.'' When a person comes to 
a situation, a catastrophic situation in their life, they need to know 
that they have access and affordability and quality care that is their 
option.
  So when someone with acne is asking to be insured, our House, our 
majority, says yes, you should be insured. The other side says ``no.'' 
When someone says that our health care costs are driving bankruptcy for 
American families, when we say there should be a cap on out-of-pocket 
expenditures, our side says ``yes,'' their side says ``no.'' When we 
speak to gender discrimination on the rating of premiums for women, 
especially in childbearing years, our side with a very sensitive 
concern says ``yes'' to giving them more fairness in the equation. The 
other side says ``no.''

  So it continues to go on and on, and the American public needs to 
know that what this debate is about is providing control to the 
American families, the working families of this country, enabling them 
not to be put into bankruptcy because of catastrophic illness, enabling 
them to have access to health care coverage, enabling them to be 
strengthened by Medicare improvements where their pharmaceutical needs 
will be met if they're Medicare eligible, where the Medicare trust fund 
is stabilized. That's what this measure does.
  And let me finally close with the impact on small business. We ask 
our small business to be that response team to drive us out of the 
economic woes.
  This President, this Congress inherited devastating deficits from the 
previous administration. And so it's important for us to rebuild the 
economy. Many, myself included, profess that small business is the 
backbone of our economy, is the springboard to economic recovery. Well, 
we're dulling the competitive edge simply with health care costs that 
are crippling to our small business community.
  So we need improvements with the exchanges that are developed with 
this proposal. They are then enabled, as individuals or small 
businesses, to enter into an exchange. Think of it. A small business of 
5 or 10 employees can be crippled by catastrophic situations. Their 
premiums could rise exponentially simply because of 1 of 5 or 1 of 10 
employees being impacted severely by a health situation. By entering 
into a pool, into an exchange, that is diluted a great deal. The ebbs 
and flows are neutralized. And so the impact is a favorable one for our 
small business community. They realize the benefits of a sounder, more 
modest premium because they're into an exchange. So there are many 
improvements.
  But it's about greed. We say ``no'' to greed. Others say ``yes.'' 
It's about fairness. We say ``yes'' to fairness. Others say ``no.'' 
It's about strengthening that Medicare. We say ``yes.'' Others say 
``no.''
  I am proud to stand here this afternoon on this House floor to say 
that by working with my colleagues, with the leadership, verbalizing 
the strength of our ideas and our passion to make a difference. We have 
a very sound bill before us.
  Let's deal with fact, not fiction. Let's insert ourselves with a 
sense of compassion for all people in this country. This is a historic 
moment waiting to happen here on this Hill in Washington, and I am 
proud to serve in this House and to have had the response that we have 
had.
  Thank you, Representative Speier, for the opportunity to join you 
this afternoon.
  Ms. FOXX. Republicans are not saying that we don't need to do 
something to reform health care. We all agree with that. We need to do 
something to reform it. We have commonsense solutions. And compassion 
begins with preserving freedom. Don't tell me you're compassionate when 
you want to take away the people's freedom. That isn't compassion.
  I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady.
  In my hand right here--and the chairman may know what I have here--is 
a document from your side of the aisle which basically is your talking 
points to your communication folks and the like saying that you want to 
talk about information. The memo actually says to your Members, We 
cannot emphasize enough, do not allow yourselves to get into a 
discussion of the details of CBO scores or any other such narratives. 
It continues to say, Do not give them--meaning Republicans or the media 
and such--grounds for debating the issue. Isn't that fascinating that, 
after all of this, the truth comes out?
  The fact of the matter is that you do not want to discuss the 
details. You do not want to get into the facts of the matter. You want 
to talk in hyperbole and rhetoric.
  Well, let me spend my next 2 minutes telling the American public what 
the actual details are and what the CBO says about your bill.
  Number one: Delayed benefits, immediate taxes. This bill raises taxes 
before any other major benefits would go into effect. Ninety-eight 
percent of the major benefits don't start until 2014, but we 
immediately start taking taxes out of the American public's pocket.
  Two: The CLASS Act has been described by Members of their House, 
Senator Conrad, as a Ponzi scheme. Why is that? Something in there 
called the CLASS Act appears to make the bill cost less than it does 
because, as the CBO states, the program would pay out far less in 
benefits than it would receive in premiums under the 10-year budget 
window.
  What does that simply mean? That means we will be collecting taxes 
for years and years and years before we actually pay out any benefits.
  Thirdly, no doc fix. I've heard other people talk about that. That 
10-year doc fix will cost $371 billion. If you really want to talk 
about the facts--as obviously you do not want to--you

[[Page H1703]]

would have included the doc fix in here to give us a better picture of 
what this bill costs.
  Raid on Social Security. A raid on Social Security in this bill, in 
the presentation that you're making. I also heard somebody talk about 
AARP. Where are they talking about the fact that in your presentation 
on the numbers, they rely on $53 billion in new Social Security revenue 
to achieve the appearance, only the appearance, of deficit reduction.

                              {time}  1615

  The fact of the matter is these revenues are meant to stay and pay 
for Social Security benefits, not to fund a new entitlement.
  Fourthly, double-counting of Medicare savings benefits, the other 
side of the aisle claims that $520 billion in Medicare cuts and $210 
billion in Medicare taxes in the bill will improve solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund. But that's not the case. You're double-counting. 
Look, either Medicare savings improves solvency on the one hand, or 
they pay for this brand-new entitlement. You can't have it both ways. 
But I guess that's why you don't want to get into, as your very own 
talking point memo says, do not get into discussing the details.
  One last one, if time permits, your legislation relies on unrealistic 
budget cuts. This is not my suggesting that. This is what your very own 
actuary at HAS says.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lujan). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Your very own actuary said this, that the 
level of cuts was ``unrealistic and finally jeopardized access to care 
for senior citizens.'' That's not me saying this; that's not this side 
of the aisle. That is your very own actuary saying what your bill will 
do is jeopardize care to senior citizens. When you begin to discuss the 
details, you will agree to vote ``no'' on this bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
colleague from California.
  The last time I looked, I thought we were talking about celebrating 
the distinguished career of an individual named Mr. Lumpkin and naming 
a post office. I understand the desperate need that our colleagues have 
to talk about what is about to take place in America that is 
particularly historic since they have had a negative drumbeat about it 
for the last 15 months.
  Please know this, I hear all the time on the floor of the House what 
the American people want. If we put some harsh reality into it and took 
out this poll or that poll, what we would learn is that a significant 
number of the American people want this health care measure that we are 
talking about and, indeed, more. When I hear someone say that the 
American people don't want this, and I heard one of our distinguished 
colleagues earlier on the minority side say that people in his district 
don't want it, well, people in my district do. And so I guess he and I 
cancel each other out. And if you went through the entire body, I think 
you would find that the same thing exists.
  Now, I also have ranted right here on this floor and I meant it to be 
such that people will understand. I don't want to hear anybody else say 
that what we are proposing is socialism. And when they talk about a 
tremendous government takeover, I particularly know that all of us know 
that Medicare is a government program, and every one of us experienced 
at some point in our town hall meetings people saying to us, I don't 
want the government in my life. And I say, are you on Medicare? And 
they say, yes. And I say, well, that's a government program. Medicaid 
is a government program. There are poor people in nursing homes. There 
are people that are sick that if they did not have Medicare, they 
wouldn't have anything.
  So I ask my colleagues, whose side are you on? Are you really on the 
side of people who would argue that 32 million people that are going to 
be covered under the Democratic plan would not be covered if we did not 
do something, as I believe we are historically going to do? And, 
therefore, it's troubling to me. I gather that the National Institutes 
of Health is not a government program, the Center for Disease Control 
must not be a government program, the Army, the Pentagon, they must not 
be government undertakings. And so all of this talk about government as 
a person is very disturbing to me as a person.
  The same thing that people raise here in their fear-mongering is the 
same thing that took place with reference to Social Security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. It is the same fear-mongering that took 
place about Social Security, oh, by the way, another government 
program. So it is not as if money is going to be evaporating. The same 
insurance companies that have made a ton of money are going to make two 
tons of money whether we pass this bill or not, and they have already 
in our faces shown us that they are willing to raise prices on the 
American people as desperate as we find them at this time.
  I also want to put to rest this business about Slaughter House rules. 
I serve with Ms. Slaughter, and I'm honored to do so. And what I think 
people must not have done is read ``Slaughterhouse-Five.'' In 
``Slaughterhouse-Five,'' there is a bird who says, poo-tee-weet, p-o-o-
t-e-e-w-e-e-t. The jabbering bird symbolizes the lack of anything 
intelligent to say. Thank you very much. Poo-tee-weet.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Florida has made 
our case by bringing up the fact that Medicare is a government program. 
It's going broke. Medicare costs were 20 times more than what was 
estimated for part of the program, seven times more for part of the 
program, 2\1/2\ times more for part of the program. The gentleman from 
Florida has made our case on this issue.
  I now would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, 
the former attorney general of California, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, hosanna and hallelujah. We have just heard the solution 
to all of our problems. It's spelled g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t, government. 
What I just heard from the gentleman from Florida is all of our 
problems will be solved by government. If you have a program, make it 
larger. If you have three, let's have six. If you have Medicare going 
broke, let's make it go broke faster. If you have Medicaid going broke, 
let's make it go broke faster. If you have Social Security, which just 
this last week now is having to cash in the IOUs because it's in a 
deficit position on an annual basis, then just make it larger.
  The American people are smarter than that. The gentleman talks about 
the fact that he doesn't know where these American people are that are 
against this bill. I guess he has amnesia. I guess he wants to join the 
Speaker in pretending that August didn't exist. Those town halls were 
made up of cut-out figures. They weren't real people. The folks that 
are calling our offices are not real people. The 1,000 emails I got in 
2 days this week in which 59 of them were in favor of the bill and 
everybody else against, I guess they don't count.
  This is funny since we happen to be representing the people in the 
people's House, supposedly, although it's hard to tell if we're going 
to do the Slaughter rule which suggests that we won't even have an 
opportunity to truly vote on it.
  And by the way, the Constitution says that we are supposed to 
initiate revenue-raising bills, not the Senate. So they took a bill in 
the House, kept the label on it, took everything out, every single word 
of content, and put a whole new bill in, and sent it back to us. That 
is called bait and switch if you're someone in the private sector.
  The American people are asking for more. So it is interesting to hear 
much of the histrionics on the floor. But the fact of the matter is 
every single national poll shows the American people don't want this 
bill.
  Now, the canard that we are hearing is therefore you don't want to 
cover 32

[[Page H1704]]

million people. Untrue. We have a better plan. We have a plan that 
doesn't go to Big Government. It goes to Big Competition. It goes to 
the individual rather than the government. I am not one who hates 
government; but I do believe this, when government gets inordinately 
larger, the individual gets smaller. That is not the essence of America 
established in our Constitution.
  Now, some people want to just throw that out and say, government is 
the answer, government is always better, so we can combine the worst 
parts of our health care system with the worst parts of the post 
office, with the worst parts of the Internal Revenue Service, and we 
will get what? The bill that we are going to not have a chance to vote 
on except sort of vote on it. But we all know what it means.
  I thank the gentlelady for the time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time both 
sides have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 8 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 4\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the gentlewoman from 
California for allowing me this opportunity to talk a little bit about 
the topic that has taken over our debate about a post office today. 
Normally, we would be discussing the naming of a post office; but 
because we are on the eve of this historic vote and very likely to 
proceed forward on the issue of reforming our health care system, we 
have been spending most of the day talking about that. And I just want 
to say in spite of the rhetoric and the anger that flares up across the 
different sides of the aisle, I personally, as a freshman Member of 
this legislature, can't imagine my good fortune to be here, to be here 
this weekend with the hopes that we may finally move forward on 
reforming our health care system.
  I feel like the first entire year and a half I have been in office, 
more than anything else in my district, people say to me, when are you 
going to do something about that health care bill? When are you really 
going to fix the system? And much of this comes from people who are 
struggling in this economy. They are out of work. They are worried 
about being out of work. They are small business owners trying to 
figure out how to cover the cost of health care.
  I have been working on this issue for a lot of years, and I can't 
believe how exciting it is that we might be here this weekend and 
finally move forward on reform.
  I think back to 1992 when I, like my colleague from California, was a 
former member of a State legislature. And in 1992, I was running for 
office for the first time as a State legislator, and it was the number 
one issue that year. President Clinton, the future President Clinton, 
was running for office talking about reforming the health care system. 
Every door I knocked on in the 19 towns in the legislative district 
where I ran, people said something to me about the cost of health care. 
And think of that, that was almost 20 years ago. If they thought costs 
were high then, if small business owners thought it was difficult to 
cover their employees, what does it look like today?
  I got elected to that State legislature. And for 8 years, my State, 
the State of Maine, struggled to reform the health care system. We 
created our own plan, the Dirigo health care system, to expand the 
number of people we covered. We passed a bill to regulate the price of 
prescription drugs, to negotiate for a better price for prescription 
drugs. And what did we get from Congress? We got a failed health care 
plan in the nineties, and then we got 8 years of a majority party that 
decided not to do anything.
  In fact, when they decided to do something about prescription drug 
pricing, they said you can't even negotiate with the drug companies. 
They didn't do anything to lower costs, and they decided in the dark of 
the night to do something about that.
  But here we are today. We have the chance to begin to close the 
doughnut hole in the prescription drug plan. That will take effect when 
we pass this bill. That will begin to take effect and completely close 
by 2020.
  We are going to be able to move forward on advances in Medicare, 
eliminate copays for preventative care under Medicare. We are going to 
see real savings for our senior citizens, and I can't be more excited 
than to go back and say to my State legislators, do you know what? 
We've finally done something at the Federal level. We are going to do 
something to help a struggling State like Maine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I can't tell you how happy I will be to go back 
and tell those State legislators who have tried to carry on in the face 
of this difficult era in a State where jobs are being lost, where 
businesses are struggling to cover people, they're saying to me, when I 
visit the State legislature, they are saying, when are you going help 
us at the Federal level? When are you going to realize that you are 
part of the responsibility as our State as struggled to cover those 
costs?
  Do you know what is really exciting? I hear every day people say, 
nobody in America wants this. Well, the fact is when I go back and talk 
to small business owners, individuals who have coverage, individuals 
who struggle with their insurance company dropping their coverage, I 
hear people who say, do something about it. In fact, in my State, 
people think we haven't gone far enough. When they polled the doctors 
in my State, these are physicians, and we have heard a lot of talk 
about doctors today and what they would do, the physicians in my State, 
over 50 percent of them say, why don't you do single-payer health care? 
They say this isn't going far enough.
  So the fact is, I couldn't be more excited to be here this weekend. 
In fact, I think it's my responsibility, not to complain about being 
here on a Friday afternoon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I'm not complaining about being here on a 
Friday afternoon. In fact, my constituents would say to me if I went 
back home, why don't you get down to Washington and finish the job? Why 
don't you get down there and handle this difficult issue, go through 
all the difficult procedural issues, do what you have to do to pass 
this bill? And by Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening, I want to see you 
casting a vote to reform the health care system to change the way our 
insurance companies do business, to help out struggling State budgets, 
and to make sure that people in this country once and for all have 
coverage for health care and we move forward in our system.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the gentlewoman 
from Maine that Republicans did a lot when they were in control, and 
what got stopped was because of Democrats in the Senate. We passed 
health savings accounts which give people individual control, Medicare 
part D which Democrats voted against because there was the private 
sector involvement.
  And I guess we are going to get the same kind of results from the 
promises of this that we are getting from the stimulus bill. Her State 
is in such bad trouble because the President's stimulus plan, which was 
not going to allow unemployment to go above 8 percent, has failed so 
badly.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. I now yield 2 minutes to Dr. Cassidy from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I think my perspective might be a little 
bit different. In fact, when my colleague was speaking about 
physicians, I was sitting here thinking I am a physician. And not only 
am I a physician, but I have actually been working to treat the 
uninsured for the last 20 years. My practice has been for the 
uninsured, so it is a little bit different. And one reason that I ran 
for office is I was frustrated with the way that politicians always 
dealt with health care.
  It is a truism: Politicians overpromise and underfund. We can see

[[Page H1705]]

that with Medicare going bankrupt in 7 years. We can see that with 
Medicaid bankrupting States. And I saw that in my practice, because 
everybody would be promised these benefits, and in my practice I could 
not get them for them. Inevitably, quality and access suffered.
  But we are told now it's different. We are told, No, believe us this 
time we are going to adequately fund. We are going to adequately fund 
by taking $500 billion from Medicare to create a new entitlement.
  Wow, we are really doing a lot for Medicare there, aren't we?
  We are going to expand Medicaid; Medicaid, which is bankrupting 
States. So now, instead of somebody having no insurance and being 
unable to see a physician, we are now going to give them Medicaid. But 
we are going to have to decrease payments so much that we are going to 
raise taxes, costing jobs, and they still won't be able to see a 
patient.
  I say that because The New York Times had a heartrending article 
about a woman on Medicaid in Michigan, and payments are so low she 
can't get cancer treatment. When I hear we are taking care of the 31 
million people without insurance, I think of that woman on Medicaid in 
Michigan with a government-funded--no, I am sorry--with a government-
underfunded policy with which she cannot gain access.
  If that is morality, we must have a different definition of morality. 
It is morality for show. It is not morality for reality.
  Now, there are alternatives. And another frustrating thing about this 
debate is that actually we know what works. We can look at 
Massachusetts, where they attempted to expand access.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. CASSIDY. In Massachusetts, they attempted to expand access and 
control costs. That is this plan. And what we just heard in 
Massachusetts is the Democratic treasurer saying this plan will 
bankrupt our Nation in 4 years.
  Alternatively, what we can also say is that we know what works. The 
Kaiser Family Foundation did a study in which they found that health 
savings accounts lowered costs by 30 percent and that 27 percent of 
people with health savings accounts--27 percent of people with health 
savings accounts were previously uninsured. By lowering costs, we 
expanded access.
  We know what works. The plan they proposed has already failed. The 
plan we proposed, there is data to show it works.
  Now, we can talk about the Congressional Budget Office report that 
supposedly saves money, 10 years of tax revenue for 6 years of big 
government programs. That is a savings. Or, in 2018 it saves money by 
pushing the cost of Medicaid out onto the States. That saves money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I will give the gentleman 30 more seconds. That leaves me 
30 seconds, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Mr. CASSIDY. In my State, the first 3 years we are responsible for 
these additional costs is going to cost my State $600 million. Well, 
that is a savings to the taxpayer. Now it is just the State taxes that 
are going up instead of the Federal taxes.
  Now, there are bipartisan solutions. I challenge my colleagues, let's 
take a break. Let's go home Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and come back 
Wednesday. Let's have a town hall meeting, each of us in our districts, 
hear from our people back home what solutions they want to see and come 
back and vote on Thursday. Somehow, I think that these people who are 
on the bubble will learn that they should be representatives and not 
dictators.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I rise to pay tribute to Clarence Lumpkin. This is a 
great day for the State of Ohio. The mayor of Linden deserves to have a 
post office named for him for all his service.
  I do hate to pollute this debate with facts. I am really almost 
hesitant to do so. The previous speaker pointed out an inequity that 
exists that, frankly, Medicaid doctors don't get reimbursed enough. We 
are fixing that in the reconciliation bill, so I trust my colleague 
will be voting for that, because it increases the reimbursement rates 
for people that we are expanding coverage to so that doctors get paid 
at the Medicare rate.
  Do you know what you won't hear today in this conversation about the 
post office? Is that Mr. Lumpkin, who we are honoring today, I think is 
about 70 years old.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Will the gentleman yield time?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly. We don't have a lot.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I understand, and I appreciate it.
  When you say that we are going to give a raise for primary care 
physicians, that is actually not included in this in terms of the 
Medicaid costs, so State Medicaid costs are now going to go up.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time to inform the gentleman that he is 
wrong.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. No. After yielding, it wasn't much of a payoff.
  Mr. CASSIDY. We will get back to the facts later.
  Mr. WEINER. It wasn't much of a payoff.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Believe me, if you yield again, it will be.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Lumpkin, who we are honoring today, if it were up to 
the members of the minority party, Mr. Lumpkin would not have Medicare, 
would he? He would have had Social Security privatized.
  Now, I couldn't help noticing that not long ago the ranking minority 
member of the House Budget Committee, a Republican, floated a plan that 
for once, at least, was honest about the intentions of the Republicans. 
It said, Cut off Medicare. End it as a program we know. And I know that 
the previous speaker doesn't like it. A lot of my constituents believe 
it is a very worthy program. Ninety-six percent of all beneficiaries 
who were surveyed last year said they like it. But the Republicans say, 
No, we want to eliminate it.
  And let's not forget how many of them signed on the dotted line to 
privatize Social Security. Boy, that seems smart, huh? Investing Social 
Security in the stock market. Now, that is a far-reaching idea.
  Now, Mr. Lumpkin, who, God willing, will live another 20, 25 more 
years, he is going to be able to see Medicare for the rest of his life, 
thanks to the bill we are going to pass in short order, and no thanks 
to the votes of the people on the other side of the aisle who would 
deny him that.
  Now, you may not like Medicare, but come out and say it. Don't say we 
are going to propose privatizing it. Let's see what you do. Can you get 
a majority over there to stand up, to come out from behind the artifice 
and to say--forgive me. Will the Speaker ask----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield the gentleman 25 additional seconds.
  Mr. WEINER. Look, the fact of the matter is there are differences of 
opinion here and they are philosophical and deep felt. We believe in 
Medicare; we created it. You opposed it at the time; you oppose it now. 
We support Social Security.
  I would direct my remarks to the Speaker. Can you inform them that 
they opposed Social Security then; they oppose it now.
  This is a philosophical divide. And every single member of the 
minority party has said that they are going to do anything they can to 
stand up in defense of the health insurance industry. That is a 
consistent position. We disagree with it, and Mr. Lumpkin is going to 
have Medicare for the rest of his life, which should be long.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth 
for a reason.
  If our colleagues would listen, they would hear us say we don't want 
to do away with these programs. We want to save them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4840.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for the remaining 1 minute.

[[Page H1706]]

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I find that we are incapable of doing what 
we were here to do, which was to pass a number of suspension measures, 
this one for Clarence Lumpkin. God bless him for having to listen to 
this debate, but we are, in fact, very supportive of this resolution.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that government-run programs are 
not bad, because Medicare is a government-run program, Medicaid is a 
government-run program. The veterans in this country embrace a health 
care program that is among the best in this country; again, a 
government-run program. Being government-run is a good thing.
  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 pass the bill, H.R. 4840.
  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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________