[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 43 (Sunday, March 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1824-H1852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3590, SERVICE
MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 4872, HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1203 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1203
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to debate the topics addressed by the
Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time
homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces
and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes,
and the topics addressed by the bill (H.R. 4872) to provide
for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, for two hours
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and
Minority Leader or their respective designees.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the
case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal
employees, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
rule XXI, a single motion offered by the Majority Leader or
his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments.
The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question.
[[Page H1825]]
Sec. 3. If the motion specified in section 2 is adopted,
it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2010 if called up by the Majority Leader or his designee. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, modified by the amendment printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 4. Until completion of proceedings enabled by the
first three sections of this resolution--
(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
motion (except as expressly provided herein), resolution,
question, or notice;
(b) the Chair may decline to entertain the question of
consideration;
(c) the Chair may postpone such proceedings to such time as
may be designated by the Speaker;
(d) the second sentence of clause 1(a) of rule XIX shall
not apply; and
(e) any proposition admissible under the first three
sections of this resolution shall be considered as read.
Sec. 5. In the engrossment of H.R. 4872, the Clerk shall
amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res.
13).''.
{time} 1415
Point of Order
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against
H. Res. 1203 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all
points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI which includes a waiver of section 425 of
the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes a point
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The gentleman has met the threshold
burden under the rule, and the gentleman from Wisconsin and a Member
opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of
consideration. After the debate, the Chair will put the question of
consideration.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from a letter
to the Speaker of the House by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office dated yesterday: ``The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint
Committee on Taxation estimated that the total cost of those mandates
to State, local and tribal governments and the private sector would
greatly exceed the annual thresholds established under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.''
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There
are mandates on States. The new Medicaid mandate is expected to cost,
according to the CBO, an additional $20 billion on States. Let's start
with the State mandate, $20 billion on States in Medicaid. Democratic
Governors have been speaking out against this. Let me quote Governor
Rendell from Pennsylvania: ``I think it's an unfunded mandate. We just
don't have the wherewithal to absorb this health care bill without some
new revenue source.''
There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase
government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by
the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS
agents to police and enforce this mandate.
There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide
government-approved health insurance or face penalties. If you don't
offer health insurance coverage, you have to pay $2,000 per employee.
If you do offer health insurance coverage, but one of your employees
decides to take the Federal subsidy, you have to pay up to $3,000 per
employee anyway.
There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to
comply with new Federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet
these new requirements. There are new medical loss ratios of 80 and 85
percent. This hardly jives with the notion, If you like what you have,
you can keep it, because millions of Americans will exactly lose just
that.
There's a provider mandate. This mandates that many health care
providers must actually provide exactly what Washington says. They're
forced to take unilateral reimbursement cuts from the new independent
payment advisory board.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to elaborate quite a bit more, but I
will reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider
this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's
about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who
oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care
itself. They just want to make reform go away.
I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider
this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a
procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary loopholes
because those who oppose the legislation can vote against it on final
passage. We must consider the rule. We must pass this important
legislation today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire how much time is remaining
between the two sides, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes,
and the gentlewoman from New York has 9\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the fiscal
consequences of this bill. I think we're going to hear a lot today how
this bill reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget
Office. Well, I would simply say, the oldest trick in the book in
Washington is that you can manipulate a piece of legislation to
manipulate the final score that comes out.
But let's take a look at the subsequent analysis by the Congressional
Budget Office. Let's take a look at the claims being made and the
reality that we're facing. This bill double-counts billions of dollars.
It takes $70 billion of premiums from the CLASS Act to spend on this
new government program, instead of going to the CLASS Act. It takes $53
billion in Social Security taxes which are reserved for Social Security
and, instead, spends it on this new program. The Congressional Budget
Office is telling us that in order to fulfill all the discretionary
requirements, $71 billion will be required to manage this new
government-run health care system. They're saying at the Congressional
Budget Office that Medicare part A trust fund, the trust fund itself
will be raided to the tune of $398 billion.
So if we actually count a dollar once, which is how law in math
works, this bill has a $454 billion deficit. I find it very interesting
and noteworthy that just 2 days ago, the Speaker of the House said, We
will be passing legislation in April, doing the so-called doc fix.
Well, that's $208 billion. And according to the Congressional Budget
Office, when that will pass, combined with the double-counting and the
gimmicks and the smoke and mirrors, we will have a $662 billion deficit
under this bill alone.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let's think about the economic consequences because
the economic consequences that will be borne by this bill are truly
horrific. People are losing jobs in this country. Our unemployment rate
is near 10 percent. For us to get our unemployment rate back to where
it was before the economic crisis, back to 5 percent, we will literally
have to create 250,000 jobs every month for 5 years in this Nation. So
what does this bill do? It imposes a new tax increase of $569.2
billion, over half a trillion in new taxes on labor, on capital, on
families, on small businesses, on work, on jobs.
And look at what we're looking at. Before even passing this bill, Mr.
Speaker, we are going into a tidal wave of red ink of debt. The
interest alone on the national debt that's about to befall us will be
crushing to our economy. I asked the Congressional Budget Office, what
would my three children face
[[Page H1826]]
when they were my age? What we heard from the CBO was just alarming. By
the time my three kids are my age--I am 40 and they're 5, 6 and 8 years
old--the CBO said that the glide path that we are on before passing
this bill, the tax rate on that generation by the time they're 40 years
old will be that the 10 percent bracket goes up to 25 percent, middle-
income taxpayers will pay an income tax rate of 63 percent, and the top
rate that the small businesses pay will be 88 percent. This is the
legacy we are leaving the next generation.
Last year the General Accountability Office said that the unfunded
liability of the Federal Government--meaning the debt we owe to all the
promises being made--was $62 trillion. You know what they say today,
$76 trillion. And what are we doing here? A $2.4 trillion new unfunded
entitlement on top all of that. We can't even afford the government
we've got right now, and we're going to be putting this new unfunded
entitlement on top of it?
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, though, what's most insidious,
what's most concerning, what's most troubling about this bill is what
the future holds. This bill subscribes to the arrogant idea that
Washington knows best, that Washington can organize and micromanage the
entire health care sector of this country, 17 percent of our economy,
one-sixth of our economy.
Well, let me give you a glimpse into that future, Mr. Speaker. This
is the Treasury's 2009 financial report. It tells us that we are
walking into an ocean of red ink, of debt, of deficit, of spending. And
the only way to get this under control, the only way to stop a debt
crisis from befalling this country--much like Europe is about to walk
into--if you have government-run health care, if you have the
government take the rest of the health care sector over is to deeply
and systematically ration health care.
Think about what's in this legislation. We have a new comparative
effectiveness research board placed in the stimulus legislation that
decides what treatments are worth paying for. We have a new Medicare
commission called the Independent Payment Advisory Board that makes
across-the-board cuts into Medicare whether it's good for patients or
not based upon cost considerations, bypassing the authority of
Congress. And we have the new U.S. Preventive Task Force. That's an
agency that recently said women in their forties don't need to do
mammograms, that has been given unprecedented power in this legislation
to make decisions that are normally made by patients and doctors.
What this bill does is it says this: we are no longer going to trust
the will, the interest, and the decisions of patients and their
doctors. They don't know enough. We're going to take the power and the
money from the citizens and bring it to Washington, and Washington
knows best. Washington will set up elaborate boards and bureaucracies
of technocrats who can better micromanage those decisions. And the only
way to get this debt crisis only control, the only way to get this
under control is to ration care.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a 1-page document
explaining why the requirements in the bill are not unconstitutional.
Attack: The individual responsibility requirement is
unconstitutional.
Response: The arguments that have been raised against the
constitutionality of an individual responsibility requirement
are meritless. For over 70 years, the Supreme Court has
recognized that Congress has the authority under the Commerce
Clause to regulate activities that have a substantial effect
on interstate commerce, which includes buying and selling
health insurance. The requirement for individuals to
contribute to their own health insurance coverage is clearly
constitutional.
Over 70 years of Supreme Court precedent has recognized
that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate
activities that have a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. A requirement that individuals purchase health
insurance is both commercial and economic in nature--indeed,
few things are more critical to our nation's economic health.
The failure of individuals to obtain health insurance has a
substantial effect on our national economy. The U.S. spends
over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year--more than
$7,000 per person and more than 16 percent of our GDP. The
economy loses billions of dollars every year because of the
costs of treatment for uninsured Americans. And currently,
individuals can forego buying insurance, leaving hospitals--
and ultimately Americans who do buy insurance--on the hook
for expensive emergency procedures. That drives up insurance
premiums for all Americans.
Mandating health insurance affects interstate commerce in
several ways. Covering more people will reduce the price of
insurance by addressing free-riders who rely on emergency
care and other services without paying for all the costs,
which drives up costs for people with insurance. It will also
ensure an insurance pool with a full cross section of healthy
and sick subscribers, which will help keep down costs for
everyone.
Even the conservative Supreme Court has recognized that the
federal government has broad authority to regulate under the
Commerce Clause. In 2005, the Court held that the federal
government can prohibit medical marijuana grown at home and
consumed personally under the Commerce Clause (Gonzalez v.
Raich). Justice Scalia, no fan of expansive claims of
Congressional power, even voted to affirm Congress' authority
to regulate in that case. Certainly health insurance coverage
has a greater effect on the national economy than people
growing medical marijuana in their backyard.
Congress also has authority to impose an individual
responsibility requirement under its Power to Tax and Spend
for the General Welfare (Article 1, sec. 8, cl. 1) and the
Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 18.).
Now I am so happy to introduce and yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kennedy,
the gentleman from Rhode Island, who is not only a valued Member of
this House but whose father, as we know, devoted his congressional life
to health care for all Americans.
Mr. KENNEDY. Notwithstanding this point of order, I urge passage of
the underlying rule and for us to go forward with the health insurance
on behalf of the 21 percent of my State's constituents under the age of
65 who are uninsured because they're either too young to qualify for
Medicare or they're too middle class to qualify for Medicaid.
``No memorial, oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor his
memory than the earliest possible passage of this bill for which he
fought so long. His heart and his soul are in this bill.'' While the
above quote could easily refer to my father, and the context could
easily describe this health care debate, these words were, in fact,
spoken by my father as he rose on the Senate floor to honor his brother
President Kennedy during the debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The parallels between the struggle for civil rights and the fight to
make quality, affordable health care accessible to all Americans are
significant. It was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, Of all forms
of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and
inhumane. Health care is not only a civil right, it's a moral issue.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your political and moral leadership in
helping those to secure more advanced protections and benefits,
especially in the area of mental health and addiction. Thank you,
President Obama for delivering on your promise of providing the
politics of hope rather than the politics of fear.
{time} 1430
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this debate has been long, but it is now
complete. The arguments have been very contentious, but it is now time
to decide. The bill before us is long, but the question that we face is
really very simple.
Will Congress today choose on behalf of the American people who
elected us to build a health care system where every American has
access to health care and where every American shares in the
responsibility of paying for it.
Will we today reinvigorate the American dream so that no parent with
a sick child will wake up wondering if they are going to have access to
a doctor, so no father who loses health care because he loses his job
is going to wonder how his family is going to be provided for, so no
mother who becomes sick will lose the health care she has because she
is sick.
Will we today free ourselves from the shackles of a broken status
quo, one that enriches health care companies but is punishing American
families, punishing American employers, and punishing American
taxpayers.
That's the question, Mr. Speaker, that we face today in this
Congress.
[[Page H1827]]
And this Congress has a choice to act like the confident Nation we are
that faces head-on the challenges that we face. We will do so today by
voting ``yes'' to move us so that we have a health care system in this
country where every American is covered and we all help pay.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter a letter from my next-
door neighbor born with spina bifida. His parents were told to leave
him in the hospital because he would be mentally retarded and he would
never be able to get out of institutional care. His parents loved him
and got him into school. He went through public high school, went to
the University of California, graduated and got into Special Olympics.
He tried to get a job. His coaches told him you will never be able to
afford a job, you have a preexisting condition, you can't afford the
insurance. You will have to stay on Medicaid the rest of your life.
He writes in his letter to me, Dear Congressman, and goes on to say
in closing, I ask that you please pass this comprehensive health care
package so that today's kids aren't told the same thing I was told.
Never again should boys and girls with disabilities hear from their
mentors, You cannot afford to work.
Emancipate people into the workforce; allow them to have insurance
without preexisting conditions.
I am proud that Ben Spangenberg is here today sitting in that corner.
I am proud that he is a constituent of this great country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me remind us of a man who
does not live today, Senator Edward Kennedy told us that he had a
vision and a resolve that the health care of Americans would no longer
count on whether or not they were wealthy Americans. And we are
reminded as well of the words of President John F. Kennedy that said:
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country.
This is not an unfunded mandate because we know full well that the
CBO has said that this bill will pay for itself, that the deficit will
be reduced by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and that the deficit
will be cut by $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. It eliminates the
Medicare doughnut hole, and it insures some 32 million more people. But
I am standing here today because 45,000 Americans die every year like
Eric, a 32-year-old lawyer who went to the emergency room not once but
three times. They sent him away with antibiotics and aspirin, but he
died. I cannot tolerate that. Today we will heal this land, and we will
vote for this health care bill. It is not an unfunded mandate. This
health care reform is fair and must succeed.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I was here last November and I talked about my
father and my mother. My dad was ill, we lost our house and everything
we ever had. And when I came home from my sister's wedding, there was a
deputy sheriff with a notice to evict. My dad thought somehow he had
let us down. Two days before his death, a death that came way too early
for somebody at 67, I sat by his bed and he said Phil, just do two
things for me, two promises: take care of your mother and the girls.
But the pain that the loss of this house has caused, and the pain this
family has had to go through, whatever you do, please, do not let
another family have to go through this.
Last November I cast my vote in favor of our bill on behalf of my
dad, my family, and for those people; and tonight, I will cast my vote
in favor of this bill not just for my dad, but for the people who every
8 seconds in this Nation file bankruptcy and receive foreclosure
notices because of health care. It is time to stand up and be counted.
Tonight I will stand up, and I will be counted among the ``yeses.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, today in the House of Representatives, we are
going to answer the essential question: What kind of Nation are we?
What kind of Nation would deny 30 million citizens access to health
care? What kind of Nation would allow a child's illness to cause their
family to go broke and lose their home? What kind of Nation would turn
its back on neighbors who are in need, our seniors, our children, and
millions of unemployed workers who through no fault of their own have
lost their jobs, and soon, their hope. What kind of Nation are we? And
what kind of Nation will we become if we do not pass this rule and pass
essential health care legislation that we need?
This bill will save lives, and it will save jobs by putting patients
first, and guaranteeing that Medicare will be there when we need it.
No longer will a child's illness cause their family to go broke and
lose their home. Senior citizens will benefit by gaining access to
prevention services with no copayments, no deductibles.
This is going to be our time, and I would encourage all of us to stop
pointing fingers and start joining hands. Pass this essential
legislation and save our Nation.
Today, in the House of Representatives, we will answer two essential
questions: What kind of Nation are we? and Whose side are you on?
What kind of nation--would deny 32 million citizens access to health
care? What kind of nation--would allow a child's illness or accident to
cause families to go broke and lose their home?
What kind of nation--would turn its back on neighbors who are in
need? Our senior citizens, our children and millions of unemployed
workers who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs and need
our help right here and right now?
And what kind of nation will we become if we do not take this
positive step forward today? This bill saves lives and jobs by putting
patients first, strengthening Medicare, and finally guaranteeing access
to affordable care for all of us.
No longer will a child's illness cause their family to go bankrupt
and lose their home.
Senior citizens will see a stronger and better Medicare as we begin
to close the prescription drug program's donut hole.
Small business owners will soon be able to buy health insurance for
their employees at the same discounts big corporations do.
We are beginning to fix what is broken in our heath care system and
improve on what we already have, at a price we can all afford to pay,
for this bill is paid for and it reduces our national deficit by 1.2
trillion dollars over time.
Today, in the house of Representatives, we must take a positive step
forward and finally bring an end to all discrimination against any
citizen because of the way they were born or the illness they may have.
Today, people across America want to know whose side are you on? Are
you sitting in the boardroom of a Wall Street run health insurance
corporation? Or standing with your feet on the factory floor, prepared
today to stand up for the best interests of your neighbors, by putting
patients first?
Well, I am standing up for my patients and will vote yes on this
bill, because it saves lives and jobs and begins to push insurance
companies out of my patient's examination room.
There is much work yet to do to clean up the economic mess we have
inherited. So, let's stop pointing fingers and start joining hands and
work together to build a better nation. Join me. Let's take this
positive step forward today. Join me in this effort and we will finally
begin to guarantee access to affordable care for all of us--for my
patients cannot hold their breath any longer.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield 45 seconds to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the chairwoman and in
support of the rule. This Easter season, we are reminded again that if
we can just hold on past Friday, Sunday will come. Americans have been
holding on for over 100 years. We have seen bankruptcies, we have seen
needless deaths. We have seen families denied insurance and children
denied needed health care, but Sunday has come. This majority and this
House is going to rise to the occasion. We will beat back this point of
order, but much more importantly, we are going to beat these insurance
companies and give the American public a health insurance reform bill
that we all can be proud of.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. It doesn't have
to be
[[Page H1828]]
this way. This is not democracy. This is not good government. One of
the cornerstone principles of this Nation that the Founders created is
the principle that we govern by consent of the governed. That principle
is being turned on its head here today.
More to the point, the shame of all of this is we have been offering
constructive solutions from the very beginning. We have asked you to
work with us on a bipartisan basis, step by step, piece by piece, work
on the uninsured, work on preexisting conditions, work on costs, work
on prices, work on the deficit. All along the other side said ``no,''
we are doing it our way, one-party rule.
This bill clearly violates the House rules. We shouldn't be waiving
our own rules and imposing these costly mandates. We are going to hear
many emotional appeals today. Let me tell you a little bit about my
own. I have the best mother-in-law a man could ever ask for. She is 5
years facing stage 3 ovarian cancer, and she is still fighting it
because of a drug called Avastin that is keeping her alive. Well, if
she was a British citizen, she wouldn't have it because they deny this
drug to their cancer patients. We are setting up the identical same
bureaucracies they have there here.
This bill explodes the deficit, it explodes the debt, and the only
way to fix it is to put that kind of rationing in place. That is not
what our government should be doing. This bill is a fiscal
Frankenstein. It is a government takeover. It is not democratic.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is not too late to get it right. Let's
start over, let's defeat this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass the
important legislation today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider
the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 195, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 159]
YEAS--228
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Gutierrez
Klein (FL)
Marchant
Rogers (AL)
Schakowsky
{time} 1503
Ms. HARMAN, Messrs. ISRAEL, CHANDLER, and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Point of Order
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration
of the resolution. The resolution violates clause 9 of rule XXI by
waiving that rule against consideration of H.R. 4872.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California makes a point
of order that the resolution violates clause 9(c) of rule XXI.
Under clause 9(c) of rule XXI, the gentleman from California and a
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question
of consideration.
Following that debate, the Chair will put the question of
consideration.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is quite simple. In the last
2 weeks, both the House Republicans and the House Democrats have passed
sweeping anti-earmark resolutions. Moreover, the leadership of the
House has said that they will ensure that earmarks are in the past.
But, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is filled with earmarks, not the
least of which is the Louisiana purchase, not the least of which is the
Bismark provision. Mr. Speaker, the amount of earmarks violating both
Republican and Democratic House rules against earmarks is beyond the
counting of any of us. My
[[Page H1829]]
point of order is intended to stop the bill until earmarks can be
removed from the bill.
I might note, Mr. Speaker, last night until late at night, for more
than 13 hours, Republicans offered 80 amendments, many of which could
have fixed portions of this bill. None--I repeat, Mr. Speaker, none--
were ruled in order.
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that an earmark is tantamount to
a bribe. An earmark to receive a vote is clearly a way to get a vote in
return for something of value.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a vast tax increase and a vast
increase in the reach of government. It deserves to be considered on
its merits, not based on promises and bribes for financial gain to
various Members' districts. Therefore, it is clear we must remove all
earmarks before this legislation can move forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The gentlewoman
from New York is recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to use a
purely technical violation of the earmark identification rule to try
and block the House from even considering the rule and the underlying
legislation. In fact, the Budget Committee did include an earmark
statement in their committee report.
However, a minor technical error in that statement made the
legislation subject to a point of order. The Budget Committee has since
filed two clarifying earmark statements in the Congressional Record.
Clearly these statements, as well as the initial statement in the
committee report, should show that it does not violate the spirit of
the earmark rule. I have copies of these statements for any Members who
need clarification.
The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the
merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so
important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted. Perhaps the gentlelady
from New York could tell me, does that mean that under the rule that
the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, the Gator aid, and the
Bismark bank job will be somehow removed from the legislation after its
passage?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am happy to tell you that. The final bill will not
have State-specific provisions. The provisions that are in apply to
multiple States, and a provision in the education portion of the
reconciliation bill regarding State-owned banks is being struck by the
manager's amendment.
Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, I'm going to simply state for the
record that our reading is that all of these will go to the President
in the bill. And, of course, if by some miracle a bribe for one becomes
a bribe for many States, somehow I don't think the American people will
find that particularly a happy day for anyone, except perhaps the few
States who receive for a short time a special consideration.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We're all aware of the special provisions or earmarks in the bill:
the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the Gator aid. These
earmarks, though, apart from the role they played in greasing the skids
for this bill, are probably the least offensive part of the
legislation.
We desperately need health care reform, reform that lowers costs and
improves quality through competition and market discipline. But such
measures, such as allowing the purchase of health care across State
lines and allowing individuals to purchase insurance with pre-tax
dollars, are absent from the bill. Instead, the bill contains increases
in taxes, mandates and bureaucracy that will only serve to further
shield the health care industry from true competition--competition that
is so desperately needed.
Mr. Speaker, without this bill, the fiscal challenges that we face
are incredibly steep. With this bill, they are almost insurmountable.
There will come a day that the piper will have to be paid. We have
shown ourselves unwilling to fess up to the challenges today. We can
only hope that those elected this November and in the years to come
will show more courage than we've shown today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee,
Ms. Slaughter, for yielding the time.
We're going to fight through these dilatory tactics today and side
with the American people and side with families all across this great
country. For families that have health insurance, the insurance
companies will no longer be able to cancel your coverage if you get
sick. And if you switch jobs, the insurance companies will not be able
to bar you from coverage just because you have a preexisting condition,
like asthma or diabetes or some other disease happens to run in your
family.
As for our parents and our grandparents and our neighbors who rely on
Medicare, Medicare will get stronger. Not one benefit will be cut. Not
one. Despite the scare tactics from the other side of the aisle,
Medicare will be stronger; the prescription drug coverage will improve.
We're going to focus on prevention because prevention works, it saves
lives, and it saves money. We're going to pay doctors that serve
Medicare patients more money so that Medicare patients can keep their
doctor and we can keep those smart doctors that serve Medicare patients
working for all of us.
And for small business owners and families that do not have
affordable health coverage today, we're going to create a new shopping
exchange where they can compare plans in a transparent way and also
provide new tax credits for small business owners and families all
across America.
Yes, we're going to side with American families today because we're
not just Members of Congress, we're daughters and sons and parents.
We're grandchildren. And once and for all, we're going to ensure that
all families all across America have what Members of Congress have.
We're going to side with families against the insurance companies,
fight through these dilatory tactics, and pass this historic landmark
legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. This bill has special deals for special folks. The
Louisiana purchase, a special deal for Florida, a special deal for two
States in New England, and a special deal for Connecticut. And as much
as my friends like to rail on the insurance companies, they give a
special deal to Michigan Blue Cross so that they don't have to get the
new tax increases. Why is that? Because it's special deals for special
folks.
This bill is unconstitutional. The Texas State Attorney General plus
30 other Attorneys General will sue the Federal Government if this bill
passes because of special deals for special folks.
Also, this bill is unconstitutional because it forces the American
people to buy a product. Nowhere in the Constitution does the Federal
Government have the authority to force you to buy anything, whether
it's insurance, a car, or a box of doughnuts.
{time} 1515
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the ranking member needs 15 seconds to enter
into a colloquy. I would yield the gentleman from California 15 seconds
for a question.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I
might, with my distinguished committee Chair if that's possible, if she
would do that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If we can use your time.
Mr. DREIER. If we can use my 15 seconds, Madam Chair?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes.
Mr. DREIER. Well, let me just say that the one thing that we are
guaranteed, and please tell me if I am wrong, the one thing that we are
guaranteed is that the Senate bill, under the rule that has been
crafted by the Rules
[[Page H1830]]
Committee, is the only thing that if it passes today we know will
become public law; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. I would yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. DREIER. Is that correct, Madam Chair?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am sorry, I couldn't hear.
Mr. DREIER. Under the rule that was crafted and reported out by the
Rules Committee just before midnight last night, is it not true that
the only thing that we are guaranteed to have become public law at the
end of this day, if the votes are there, is, in fact, the Senate bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I spent 6 years in the Catholic seminary
studying to be a priest and have always been pro-life. I will be 81
years old this September. Certainly at this stage of my life I am not
going to change my mind and support abortion. I am not going to
jeopardize my eternal salvation.
I sought counsel from my priest, advice from my family, friends and
constituents and I have read the Senate abortion prohibition more than
a dozen times. I am convinced that the original prohibition of the Hyde
amendment is in the Senate bill. No Federal funds can be used for
abortion except in the case of rape, incest and to save the life of the
mother.
I am a pro-life Member, both for the born and the unborn.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the chairwoman
of the Rules Committee just said that if the language in the Senate
bill that was referred to by the gentleman from California is going to
be changed, would that not mean that the Senate bill would have to go
back to the Senate for further action in that body?
Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the American public informed, let me
restate this so that you can understand.
Is it true that if the actions to overcome the Cornhusker compromise,
the Louisiana purchase and those special provisions that have been
designated in the Senate bill are changed, as was assured by the
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then would not that bill have to go
back to the Senate for further action?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the meaning of
the pending resolution.
Mr. TIAHRT. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question that if a bill is
changed, does it not have to go back to the other body for further
action, because the gentlewoman from New York has assured the gentleman
from California that his concerns about specific sections that were
used to get specific votes is going to be changed by the manager's
amendment. Would that not then change the underlying Senate bill, which
would then have to go back to the other body for further action? Is
that not true?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the meaning of
the pending resolution. That is a matter for debate by Members.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, then. Perhaps you
could, in a parliamentary inquiry, explain to me that if a bill is
changed once it comes from the other body, does it not have to return
to that body for further action?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to another
Member's characterization in debate of what the bill's effect is.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state his
inquiry.
Mr. ISSA. Under the rules of the House, if the House is not in order,
as it was not when the gentlelady from New York said she could not hear
the question, wouldn't the time not tally until the House is in order,
thus allowing for her to get the question and be able to answer,
something that we were denied, even though we gave 25 seconds for that
process?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognized the gentleman from
California for 10 seconds. The gentleman's time expired before the
gentleman completed his question. The gentlewoman does not have the
right to request time that she does not control.
Mr. ISSA. Further parliamentary inquiry.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, I yielded 15 seconds and then an
additional 10 seconds, and the gentlelady from New York repeated that
she could not hear the question.
In fairness to the tally of the time, how can that time run when she
could not hear? And wouldn't we be entitled to at least the time lost
in debate because the House was not in order and she could not hear?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair may stop the clock while obtaining
order. However, the Chair recognizes and acknowledges that in the 15
seconds that was first allotted to the gentleman from California, he
had not completed his question.
In the 10 seconds that was subsequently lent to the gentleman from
California, he still did not finish his question, and at no point in
time did any Member suggest that they needed order from those who
controlled the time, which was the gentleman from California.
Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Was not the gentleman from California yielded another 10 seconds, and
he did not get to use it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is monitoring all time that is
being used.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
and for her wonderful bold leadership. Today we will pass the historic
vote to improve the health and wellness of millions of Americans who
suffer because they are uninsured or underinsured and because of
massive gaps in the Nation's health care system.
I just want to say on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, we
have to thank Congresswoman Donna Christensen and our health task
force, Congressman Danny Davis, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Chairman
Rangel, Congressman Conyers, our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, for their
very stellar leadership.
We all cast our vote for all of the people who deserve health care
but simply cannot afford it. We cast our vote for senior citizens who
will see their prescription drug costs go down. We cast our vote for
all of those who have no health care and end up in emergency rooms, and
we cast our vote for our children and our grandchildren so that they
will live longer and healthier lives. And we cast our vote in memory of
those people who didn't have preventive health care and died
prematurely.
Health care will finally become a right for all.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who recognize
abortion as violence against children and the exploitation of women,
nothing less than a comprehensive prohibition of public funding of
elective abortion satisfies the demands of social justice.
Regrettably, the language that emerged from the Senate is weak,
duplicitous and ineffective, not by accident but by design. It will
open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of
programs resulting in more dead babies and more wounded mothers.
For the first time ever, the Senate-passed bill permits health care
insurance plans and policies, funded with tax credits, to pay for
abortion, so long as the issuer of the federally subsidized plan
collects a new congressionally mandated fee--an abortion surtax--from
every enrollee in the plan to pay for other people's abortions.
The Senate-passed bill creates a new community health center fund.
Hyde amendment protection do not apply. Therefore, either the Obama
administration or a court is likely to compel
[[Page H1831]]
funding there as well. Also, the bill creates a huge, new program
administered by OPM that would manage two or more new multistate or
regional health plans.
The legislation says that only one of those multistate plans not pay
for abortion, which begs the question, what about the other multistate
plans administered by OPM? Why are those federally administrated plans
with federally mandated fees permitted to include abortion--this
represents a radical departure from current policy.
Abortion isn't health care, Mr. Speaker. It is not preventive health
care.
We live in an age of ultrasound imaging, the ultimate window to the
womb and its occupant. We are in the midst of a fetal healthcare
revolution, an explosion of benign, innovative interventions designed
to diagnose, treat and cure illnesses or diseases any unborn child may
be suffering.
Let's protect the unborn child and their mother. Obamacare,
unfortunately, is the biggest increase in abortion funding ever.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we cast a vote to address one of
our Nation's greatest unsolved challenges, and that is solving our
Nation's health care crisis.
This Congress is being given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix
a broken health care system that has left millions of families without
the coverage and care that they deserve or are struggling to keep the
health care coverage that they do have. If we seize this opportunity
tonight, we can ensure that tomorrow a working mom in West Warwick,
Rhode Island, will wake up knowing that she can afford her family's
health care coverage. A dad in Providence will wake up knowing he can
take his daughter to the doctor when she gets sick. A small business
owner in Westerly will be able to wake up knowing he can finally give
his employees the coverage that he has always intended, and a cancer
survivor in Narragansett will wake up knowing she won't be denied
coverage because of a preexisting condition or lose her insurance
because of a lifetime cap.
Mr. Speaker, after an injury left me paralyzed almost 30 years ago,
members of my community rallied behind me and my family at a time that
I needed it the most. It's that time in my life that inspired me to go
into public service so that I could give back to a community that gave
me so much at a time when I needed it the most.
Tonight I know that with all of my being I am fulfilling that
promise, and I urge my colleagues to do the same by supporting this
important piece of legislation and finally give America the kind of
health care coverage that it deserves.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu).
Ms. CHU. Health care reform will make life better for your son, your
daughter, your mother, your father and the people you see every day. It
certainly would have made life better for Eric, a young man on my
staff.
Eric was only 22 years old when he was diagnosed with cancer of the
lymph node. He went through 2 years of chemotherapy on his father's
health insurance. They paid thousands of dollars in copays and traveled
hundreds of miles to find lower cost care, but at least they had
insurance.
The crisis came when he reached the age of 24 and was going to be
kicked off his parents' insurance. He tried to buy insurance but was
denied because of a preexisting condition.
Thank goodness he got a job with us. But with health care reform he
wouldn't have had to fear for his young life, because children will be
covered up until their 27th birthday.
With health care reform, we have a chance to save lives. For the sake
of young people like Eric, we must pass health care reform.
{time} 1530
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time each side
has remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\
minutes. The gentlewoman from New York has 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) is right on. This bill expands abortion funding to the greatest
extent in history.
I have heard that the President is contemplating issuing an Executive
order to try to limit this. Members should not be fooled. Executive
orders cannot override the clear intent of a statute.
Secondly, yesterday everybody in this House voted in favor of the
TRICARE bill, which preserved the DOD's right to administer this
program. If an Executive order moves the abortion funding in this bill
away from where it is now, it will be struck down as unconstitutional
because Executive orders cannot constitutionally do that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is very significant that we are
having this debate on Sunday, the Lord's day, because this is the day
of faith, and we are going to have to step forward on faith and
courage.
There are many people out here who have been warning and threatening
us as to, if we vote on this bill, what will happen to us in the
November elections. Well, that is not the question. The question is not
what will happen to us in November. The question is, what will happen
to the American people if we do not vote on this bill? That is why we
have got to step out on faith, we have got to step out on courage. The
American people are expecting it.
Each and every one of us was elected here for some great purpose at
some great time. Well, that great purpose is for health care for all
the American people, and the time is now. Vote ``yes'' for this bill
and make America proud.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry.
Did I just hear an allegation of a threat? Would that be a threat
against an action on Members of Congress? Is that in fact an allegation
that we should consider at this time, since that's what I think I
heard, that Members were being threatened?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not the role of the Chair to
characterize remarks used in debate.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules and ask the question
as follows:
Is it not true that the only thing that we know with absolute
certainty, if in fact it passes, is that the Senate bill will become
public law?
We have heard all about this reconciliation package, and the
gentlewoman seems to be certain of its passage. But is it not true that
this rule guarantees that the only thing that will be law for sure is
the Senate bill, which has the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana
purchase, and those other items?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Dreier, it is absolutely true that the Senate bill
does contain those things. It has already been passed and requires no
further action in the Senate.
What we will do today is pass the bill, which will then be sent to
the President and become law. We will this afternoon pass the
reconciliation----
Mr. DREIER. I would like to reclaim my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Please let me answer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California controls the
time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we now know with absolute certainty that the
only thing----
Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, you don't.
Mr. DREIER. That we are guaranteed----
Ms. SLAUGHTER. You don't know that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York will suspend.
The gentleman from California controls the time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to read the rule.
Because
[[Page H1832]]
the only thing that we are guaranteed upon its passage is that the
Senate bill, with the Cornhusker kickback, Gator aid, Louisiana
purchase, and all in fact becomes public law.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Yes, the Senate bill will become law today, followed by the
reconciliation bill which contains the amendments to the law, which
contains what everybody here wants us to take out. The best way that
they can achieve their ends of removing the things that are
objectionable from the Senate bill is to support reconciliation. And
let's see if you can do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
Is it not against the rules of the House to urge an action in the
Senate, such as voting for or assisting in reconciliation?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. References to the Senate are in order as
long as they avoid personalities.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
It is now acceptable to lobby the Senate from the House floor in any
and all conduct and questions?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Remarks must be addressed to the Chair, but
remarks regarding the Senate are not necessarily out of order.
Mr. ISSA. I thank the Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I did not address the Senate. I want that
to be clearly on the record.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Dr.
Christensen.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, as a physician and chair of Health for
the Congressional Black Caucus, someone who has worked long to bring
quality health care to the underserved in country and inclusion for the
Virgin Islands and other territories, I thank our President and House
leadership for the commitment and determination that has brought us to
the brink of this great victory, not just for some, but for all of the
people of this great country.
Today we will make insurance accessible and affordable to 32 million
Americans, begin to eliminate health disparities, provide our children
what they need to reach their full potential, and ensure that our
seniors and disabled have the care they need.
So let's get on with the rule and to voting ``yes'' on this bill, not
just for a healthy America, but for a better America.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time each side
has remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 45 seconds
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the right to close, and I will reserve the
balance of my time unless it is given up on the other side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has the right
to close.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to inquire as to whether the
gentlelady had any additional speakers, other than the right to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 30 seconds
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to give his view of the
Louisiana kickback and purchase.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have to ask my friends who have spoken before me: If the bill is as
good as you say it is, why are any of these bribes in the bill to begin
with?
The President said, January 25, ``It is an ugly process, and it looks
like there are a bunch of backroom deals.''
And here is something that does not come out in the reconciliation
process: $7.5 million to Hawaii, page 2,132. Libby, Montana 2,222,
something about biohazard. Frontier States, $2 billion, page 2,238. And
it goes on. The Louisiana purchase. None of this comes out in
reconciliation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have but 15 more seconds to
give to my colleague.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. And I know my friends on this
side of the aisle feel just the same way. Not one of those things comes
out in the reconciliation process.
My question is, if the bill is so good, where has the transparency
been? Why all the backroom deals? Why this week alone has the President
had 64 calls and visits to the White House to twist arms? Why the
sweeteners?
You know the bill is not as good as advertised. Vote ``no.'' Let's
work for a bipartisan bill.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it was the assumption of the body here that
all the earmarks that were contained in the Senate bill would be taken
care of in the reconciliation bill. If it is true that they are not all
taken into consideration for, do the earmark rules then apply to the
rest of the bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman restate his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to.
It was the impression given the Members and the people of the United
States that the reconciliation bill would take care of all the earmarks
in the Senate bill. However, we now know that there are earmarks in the
Senate bill that are not being taken care of. So do not the House rules
on earmarks apply to the remainder of the Senate bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will make a brief statement about
the process of entertaining parliamentary inquiries.
Recognition for parliamentary inquiries is a matter committed to the
discretion of the Chair. In exercising that discretion, the Chair
endeavors to apply ordinary jurisprudential principles. A parliamentary
inquiry should relate in some practical sense to the pending
proceedings. It should not seek an advisory opinion. The Chair declines
to respond to hypothetical questions, to questions not yet presented,
and to requests to place pending proceedings in historical context.
Members should not expect to engage the Chair in argument. A Member
seeking to make a point on the merits of an issue--whether it is one of
policy or one of process--may do so by engaging in debate. But a Member
should not expect to have the presiding officer affirm or validate such
a point.
The Chair appreciates the understanding of Members.
With that said, the time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for an inquiry on the House
rules. Do the House rules apply or not?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has been
recognized.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, is it not the purpose of your role to make
sure that the rules of the House are incorporated into our discussions?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has been
recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we may debate and pass
this important legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I heard you say that the gentleman's
time has expired. Is that not correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired as
well.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
In response to the earlier inquiry from the gentleman from Kansas,
the Chair will state that the rules are being applied. The point of
order under clause 9(c) of rule XXI was made and was being debated.
All time has expired.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, clarification of the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Is it my understanding that you said that the rules will
apply to the Senate bill on earmarks that
[[Page H1833]]
were not covered by the reconciliation bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order was raised against the
pending resolution. The point of order was debated. And now . . .
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 200, not voting 0, as follows:
[Roll No. 160]
YEAS--230
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--200
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
{time} 1606
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, these have been solemn days and not just
because of the important legislation before us. Yesterday just steps
away from where we are now standing, a group of protesters engaged in
dangerous and derogatory behavior toward four of our Members. I believe
the attacks yesterday were a step back for this country, a stark
reminder of where we used to be and a reminder of how much further we
must travel to fulfill the promise of equality.
It was only 2 weeks ago that my colleague from Georgia, John Lewis,
marked the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, and yet
this civil rights icon was accosted yesterday while walking here to
cast a vote. The use of racist, homophobic and inflammatory rhetoric
and reports that the protesters who were gathered on our east terrace
plaza attempted to spit on a Member of Congress is heartbreaking. This
type of display should alarm every American and encourage us to work
harder to put aside the hateful divisions and to come together to
bridge the volatile spirit that is tearing apart our country.
The anger isn't just contained outside the Capitol. Last week someone
hurled a brick through the window of my district office in the dark of
night. We must step back to remind ourselves of why we are here.
I would like to show an incredible document given to me this week by
the National Archives from the collection of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's original records. As the father of Social Security,
Roosevelt has an honored place in this battle to create a national
insurance plan for our country. This message, dated January 23, 1939,
over 70 years ago, entitled, ``To the United States Congress of the
United States,'' talks plainly about the need of this government to
provide health care for its citizens. It was recognized at the time
that a comprehensive health care program was required as an essential
link to our national defenses against individual and social insecurity.
Roosevelt wrote: ``The health of the people is a public concern; ill
health is a major cause of major suffering, economic loss and
dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of
the Nation.''
I would like to read directly because I think the familiarity is
overwhelming: ``I have been concerned by the evidence of inequalities
that exist among the States as to personnel and facilities for health
services. There are
[[Page H1834]]
equally serious inequalities of resources, medical facilities and
services in different sections and among different economic groups.
These inequalities create handicaps for parts of the country and the
groups of our people which most sorely need the benefits of modern
medical science.
``The objective of a national health program is to make available in
all parts of our country and for all groups of our people the
scientific knowledge and skill at our command to prevent and care for
sickness and disability; to safeguard mothers, infants and children;
and to offset through social insurance the loss of earnings among
workers who are temporarily or permanently disabled.''
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that reading from that piece of paper
with his hand notes scribbled on it absolutely takes my breath away,
but it is a reminder that eyes of history are watching us. Future
generations will look at what we do today, and it will be a guidepost
to who we were as a people.
The effort to reform the health care system goes back to at least
Theodore Roosevelt, that great President who campaigned in 1912 by
promising: ``We pledge ourselves to work increasingly in State and
Nation for protection of home life against the hazards of sickness.''
Still later, Harry Truman tackled reforms, as did President Clinton,
during the nineties, a battle that I was here for. Before that, the
last broad legislative rewrite was led by President Richard Nixon. It's
remarkable to me that even after all these years, our final bill may
end up being less progressive than the plan that Nixon would have
supported, yet still the forces of the other side whip up opposition.
I want to share a story I heard from a constituent in Buffalo. I will
be very brief because these heartbreaking stories are nationwide. But
it is about a young man who moved from New York to California. In
California, his insurance only allowed him to visit the emergency room
for seizures. When he got to New York, his insurance did not cover that
at all except in New York City, so his father has to drive him back and
forth from Buffalo to New York City. And he said, We are slowly going
poor.
Our bill covers an estimated 32 million Americans in a fiscally
responsible way that improves Medicare benefits, holds insurance
companies accountable, and helps small business owners with coverage.
We are finally gaining ground against insurance special interests.
Small businesses, the backbone of our economy will get tax credits if
they make health care coverage available for their workers. We offer
free preventive care for people on Medicare. We help people who have
retired at 55, 10 years before they are eligible for Medicare. And we
ban the lifetime and yearly limit on coverage.
All of these provisions have the potential to transform the way that
we deliver health care in the country. The fight has been long and
contentious, and the public has been grievously and purposefully lied
to. This week the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan and
objective and unbiased, estimates that we will cut the deficit by $143
billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion over the following 10.
What do our opponents say? That we can't afford this legislation. The
fact of the matter is we can't not afford to do this legislation. For
the 100 years we've worked toward this goal and all the obstacles, we
are here today to do our job. And Harry Truman said, ``If you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.''
Well, I consider the Rules Committee as the kitchen of the of House
of Representatives, and I am proud to be the cook. And I am proud to
stand up and say that this bill is the right thing to do, and the time
to act is now. I am delighted to vote ``yes'' today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished
Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the debate on how to reform our health
care system has proceeded, a great deal of attention has been focused
on how partisan and divided this House is. And I totally concur with
the gentlewoman about the horror that took place here yesterday with
the awful treatment of our colleagues. It is totally unacceptable.
I will say I am certainly one of those who has lamented the loss of
bipartisan cooperation and substantive debate on the most important
issues confronting our country. But I think there is at least one thing
that we all will agree on, and that is the fact that the measure before
us will have enormous repercussions for the American people for years
to come.
For many of us, the votes that we are to cast today will be among the
most significant that we have ever cast. Health care represents one-
sixth of our Nation's economy. That fact alone makes any health care
overhaul a tremendously important issue. But it is a lot more personal
than that. The care that families receive, the choices that are
available and the quality of those choices, these issues couldn't be
more important. For many at some point in their lives, access to
quality health care will become literally a matter of life or death.
Now we just heard a story from the distinguished chairwoman of the
Committee on Rules, and we will hear story after story of tragedies,
and we all have them that our constituents face. We must all recognize
what a sobering and weighty matter lies before us today, which is why
this utterly ill-conceived bill is so dangerous and is such an
unfortunate, missed opportunity for a good bipartisan conclusion.
In addition to the divisiveness surrounding this measure, a great
deal of attention has also been focused on the process by which this
has been brought to the floor. Speaker Pelosi has argued that the
American people care far more about the final product than the process
by which it is considered. Now in a warped and bizarre way, Mr.
Speaker, she is absolutely right. As egregious as this process has
been, the American people will suffer the consequences of the substance
of the bill in an even more significant and lasting way. As much as the
public was outraged by procedural tactics to avoid a transparent vote
on the Senate health care bill, the greatest outrage has always been
reserved for the bill itself.
This is not a bill that will increase access to care or improve its
quality. It will not rein in costs.
What it will do is add an enormous amount of new government
bureaucracy to our existing system. It will spend $1 trillion at a time
when our deficit is already $1.4 trillion, and our total national debt
exceeds $12 trillion. It will cripple the small businesses that are
already struggling in this economy and will further drive up
unemployment. It will exponentially increase the waste and the
potential for fraud and abuse that drive up costs while reducing access
and quality. It will undoubtedly gut Medicare and potentially threaten
the benefits and health care choices for nearly 11 million seniors
enrolled in Medicare Advantage. It gives no guarantee to the more than
8 million Americans enrolled in health savings accounts that they will
be able to keep their current coverage if they so choose. And it will
implement all of the backroom deals that have so outraged the American
people, and which we have discussed here today--Gator aid, the
Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, and the Bismarck bank job.
As I said in my exchange with the distinguished chairwoman earlier,
this is the only bill that has the potential of being the law of the
land by the end of this day.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that grows even more unpopular every
single day. But while Speaker Pelosi may be right that the substance of
the bill will be remembered longer than the process, the process has
been so tainted that we cannot simply gloss over it.
The Democratic leadership charged forward recklessly all of the past
week or two with plans to try to avoid a transparent up-or-down vote on
the Senate's health care bill despite enormous public outrage and harsh
bipartisan criticism that came from their colleagues of the Democratic
leadership. For days they ignored the demands of the American people to
dispense with the Senate health care bill in an accountable way.
[[Page H1835]]
But when Democratic Members began demonstrating their outrage, the
Democratic leadership had no choice; since the American people got it
and understood what was taking place here, they had no choice but to
abandon their plans.
The rule before us will allow for votes on two questions, Mr.
Speaker: Will the Senate health care bill become law and will a second
reconciliation bill be advanced to the Senate for further
consideration. So again only one measure will become law. While the
decision to actually hold a vote I have to admit is a welcome one, I
hope very much that my colleagues will forgive my lack of exuberance
over this development. I can't quite bring myself to congratulate the
Democratic leadership for agreeing to uphold the democratic process and
actually have a vote on their legislation.
It is a sad commentary on the state of our institution when simply
holding a vote to make a hopelessly flawed bill the law of the land
feels like progress. But that's the reality, unfortunately, of where we
stand today. While the Democratic leadership, as we all know, had no
choice but to agree to hold a vote on the Senate bill, they have still
completely closed down the debate.
Yesterday we had a very rigorous debate in the Rules Committee, where
countless concerns were raised. Mr. Speaker, none of those concerns
will be voted on today. We went 13\1/2\ hours yesterday, yet none of
those concerns will be addressed today.
While the debate over health care has gone on for over a year, today
we will be voting on a reconciliation package that was only fully made
available last night, violating the 72-hour requirement. Yes, we will
be having an actual vote today. But without open debate, the
opportunity for amendments, or the chance to fully analyze the
legislation, we still do not have full transparency or accountability.
What we do have the opportunity to do today is to answer two different
questions: One, will the Senate health care bill become the law of the
land? And will a separate reconciliation package be advanced to the
Senate for further consideration?
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical to emphasize this two-track
process because the Democratic leadership would very much like, as we
have seen from the exchanges earlier, muddle this crucial fact. If they
prevail today, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill and only the Senate bill
will become public law. The Senate bill, with all of its backroom deals
and serious problems that are widely recognized by all, that is the
only thing that will become law.
The Democratic leadership has tried to claim that the reconciliation
package will fix all of the problems in the Senate bill. That claim is
far from accurate. The fundamental approach to health care reform put
forth by the Senate bill, which is fatally flawed, will remain intact.
Putting aside that hard truth for just a moment, the more immediate
issue is that the reconciliation package will not become law today. It
will merely be sent to our friends, our colleagues in the other body,
where it will be slowly picked apart like everything else that is sent
to the other body. Maybe the Senate will amend it and send it back here
for further action, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it will fail to act at all. No
matter what anyone says in this institution, Mr. Speaker, no one knows.
No one has any idea what takes place those many, many miles away, it
seems, down that hallway. The only thing that can be sent to the
President for signature today is the Senate bill that virtually no one
supports.
Let's cut through all of the misrepresentations and distortions.
Passage of the underlying measures will ensure one thing and one thing
only: enactment of the Senate bill. And I challenge anyone to take me
on on that one. A vote for these measures today is a vote for all of
those things that I mentioned: the Louisiana purchase; the Cornhusker
kickback, which even Senator Nelson wants taken out; this Bismarck bank
job; and the Gator aid. All of these things. It is a vote for new taxes
and government bureaucracy. It is a vote for a trillion-dollar bill
that does nothing to improve access or quality in our health care
system.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. The Democratic
leadership has demonstrated that when they are left with no other
option, they can be forced into doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker,
let's start fresh and find the real solutions for the American people
that are so critically needed.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for all of us in
the House. We have the opportunity to enact real, meaningful health
insurance reform that will improve the lives of millions of our fellow
citizens. We can end the most abusive practices of the insurance
companies. We can provide coverage to millions of hardworking families.
We can bring down the cost of health care for families and small
businesses. We can close the doughnut hole in Medicare and extend the
solvency of that vital program, and we can pass the biggest deficit-
reduction package in 25 years. All we need is the courage to do what is
right.
Today is especially meaningful for those of us from Massachusetts. As
we all know, 7 months ago our friend and mentor, Ted Kennedy, lost his
battle with brain cancer. When he passed away, I said that while no one
could ever fill his shoes, we can and we must follow in his footsteps,
and that is exactly what we are doing today.
We have already taken important steps in Massachusetts to deal with
the health care issue. And I am proud to say that my congressional
district has the highest rate of coverage, over 97 percent, of any
district in the country. And people back home often ask me, Why do we
need to pass a Federal bill when we already have insurance here in our
State? So I would like to talk for a moment about what reform means for
Massachusetts: 75,000 additional middle class people will receive help
to pay for their premiums; nearly 180,000 of our seniors will receive a
50 percent discount on their prescription drugs; 70,000 small
businesses, the innovators and job creators, will receive credit to
cover the cost of insuring their workers; our community health centers,
our hospitals, our medical research centers, all will receive support
to continue their great work; and we will no longer be forced to
subsidize through higher premiums and higher Medicare and Medicaid
costs the uncompensated care of people in other States who do not have
health insurance.
If we want to create jobs, then passing this bill is absolutely
essential. A few weeks ago, I talked to a small business owner in my
district. Business has picked up lately, and he wanted to hire another
employee, but then he got his health insurance bill and realized he
couldn't afford it. He will just have to work harder and spend less
time with his family. That is who this debate is all about. That is why
today is so important.
I regret the fact that my Republican friends are not standing with
us. I regret the fact that they deliberately try to obstruct this
process. But you know what? The Republicans opposed Social Security.
They opposed Medicare. They were on the wrong side of history then, and
they are on the wrong side of history today. Senator Kennedy said that
providing access to health care is ``a fundamental principle of justice
and the character of our country.'' As usual, he was right; and today,
in this House, the work goes on and the cause endures. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to my very hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from
Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I truly hope this
massive bill is not passed by the House today. If it does become law,
it will constitute a decisive step in the weakening of the United
States. At precisely the time when we should be implementing necessary
reforms to strengthen and save Medicare, for example, this legislation
raids Medicare by more than $500 billion in order to pay for a new,
massive entitlement.
{time} 1630
At a time when it would still be possible to enact entitlement
reforms to prevent a Greece-style fiscal catastrophe in the future,
when genuinely
[[Page H1836]]
painful economic medicine will be needed, we are creating a massive new
entitlement.
We could have avoided the social convulsion and profound pain that
prolonged fiscal irresponsibility inevitably brings to nations, but
this President and this Congressional majority went with dogma instead.
And when the time comes for the United States to have to face
economic reality, and painful traumatic reforms are implemented by a
future President and a future Congress, the U.S. military posture, our
standard of living, the American middle class as we know it, those
interconnected realities which have been so wonderful in characterizing
modern America and which this President and this Congressional majority
apparently seem to take for granted, those realities will be but
historical memories.
This legislation is dishonest. It is irresponsible. It should be
defeated.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, my hero. You have done
a magnificent job getting us to this point. I thank you for the time.
I also thank all the wonderful staffers on both sides that have done
incredible work for us, the police officers that protect us here, the
clerks, the reporters, and our pages, who are here to see the enormous
history that we are going to make today.
I believe all of us want our great Nation to prosper. So today, we
celebrate the greatest Nation on Earth, and we do so by a visionary
step in our Nation's future. We are an intense people and we celebrate
today the immensity of our intensity.
We all know, based on this harsh winter that just passed, and here on
a spring-like day with summer soon a coming, that winter will come
again, and it will ask, What were you doing last summer? I want it to
be said that I was doing something to try to save the lives of 45,000
Americans that die every year because they are uninsured.
I don't want to be with that crowd that could best be described as
cynics. I picked up today's paper, and a friend of mine, the former
Speaker of this House, says that what we're about to do is a grand
social experiment, radical, he said, social experiment.
Well, in my congressional district, if it is that I am to help
improve the coverage of 290,000 residents, give tax credits and other
assistance to 177,000 families and 22,500 small businesses, put me in
the radical column.
If it's to improve Medicare beneficiaries, extend coverage to 161,000
uninsured people in the district I'm privileged to serve, then I'm
radical.
If it's going to protect 1,100 families from bankruptcy, radicalize
me.
If it's going to allow 60,000 young adults to obtain coverage, in the
congressional district that I represent, on their parents' insurance
plans, then Newt, please know that I'm radical.
As we go forward here today, I guess perhaps it would be good to look
back on some from yesterday. Ronald Reagan said, There are no easy
answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do
what is morally right. That was Ronald Reagan, an icon by all
standards.
Another one said, Each time someone stands up for an ideal or acts to
improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends
forth a tiny ripple of hope.
Now, I saw around this Capitol yesterday and around this Nation a lot
of lack of hope.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield such time as
he may consume to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules,
the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in Texas we have a law that's called the
deceptive trade practice. And if this were being done in Texas, it
would be against the law, because this is deceptive, what we are
talking about here today. What is being sold is deceptive.
We're hearing about the 35 million Americans that will be covered,
but the other 23 million that will not be covered, they are not talking
about.
And secondly, they are not talking about the $500 trillion worth of
physician reimbursement that is not included in this bill. And if
people think you've got insurance or you can change insurance just to
give everybody coverage, if you don't have a doctor to go to who can be
paid for, then you won't get time to see the doctor.
Mr. Speaker, this is deceptive what is being put on the table here
today.
The gentleman said call him a radical. I will. He is a radical.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 3 minutes to a
member of the Rules Committee and a gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me time and for her courageous leadership of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation. I wasn't here 10, 20, or 30 years ago while the debates
about health care ebbed and flowed, but I am here today. And as an old
friend said to me today, there are not too many times in politics that
you get to do something monumental, and this is the day.
We have the opportunity today to vote for a health insurance reform
bill to improve the quality of life for millions of American families.
It will also control costs, improve Medicare, and reduce the deficit.
If we do nothing, the health care system will continue to work better
for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. Our
plan gives people in my hometown of Sacramento more consumer protection
and puts medical decisions back in the hands of patients and their
doctors. Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage
based on preexisting conditions or from rescinding policies from people
once they're sick.
I've heard so many personal stories from my constituents who are
struggling to make ends meet and who are burdened by the current
insurance market. Tim Sullivan called my office 2 days ago. Tim is a
small business person who lives day to day in fear of losing his
insurance because, as someone who has glaucoma, his rates are going up
and up every single year. Tim called me to ask why the current system
discouraged entrepreneurs, average Americans with a brilliant idea who
can't go out on their own because they can't afford their own
insurance.
For millions of Americans like Tim, we have created insurance
exchanges that will help him get the same buying power as big business
or a Member of Congress.
Elizabeth Bell recently graduated from college and does not yet have
a full-time job with benefits. She reached the age where she was
dropped from her parents' plan and now has to pay expensive monthly
premiums. Elizabeth wrote to ask, What would I do if I didn't have
insurance?
For Elizabeth and millions of Americans like her, our health care
bill allows young adults to stay on their parents' plans through their
26th birthday.
The current system is not working for Tim or Elizabeth or millions
more Americans in districts throughout our country. And if it is not
working for them, Mr. Speaker, it is not working for me. And that is
why I'll be proud to cast my vote for the bill before us today.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to another dedicated member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman
from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we're about to vote on
represents one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering
legislation in the history of the United States, and the American
people recognize this simple truth.
Even the ruling Democrats recognize how unpopular this proposal is
but have chosen to ignore the overwhelming outcry and convince their
wavering colleagues that the government and politicians in Washington,
D.C., know better than their constituents. What arrogance.
Although this may be shocking to many Americans, this arrogance
reflects the approach the ruling Democrats have taken since they
regained the majority in 2007. We will be voting on legislation that
even the liberal Democrat chairwoman of the Rules Committee said ``Will
do almost nothing to reform health care,'' and that ``It's time that we
draw the line on this
[[Page H1837]]
weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The
American people deserve at least that.'' On that, we agree.
This legislation contains taxpayer funding for elective abortion, an
unprecedented proposal that offends the conscience of American
taxpayers.
The legislation we're about to vote on increases the cost of
insurance, strangles private competition, and ultimately leads to a
complete Federal takeover of the health care industry.
Voting ``no'' on this rule and this legislation will give Congress a
renewed opportunity to do what should have been done from the
beginning, vote for effective bipartisan legislation that rises to the
challenge facing so many people seeking reasonable health care reform.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, my wife has been a family doctor for 20
years and comes home every single night telling me stories about her
patients who have paid their premiums, but when they get sick and need
coverage, they're denied the care by the same companies who are trying
to kill this legislation here today. I have heard her on the phone
fighting those very insurance company executives to let her practice
medicine the way she was trained at the University of California at
Davis Medical School.
What a concept, to have your doctor write your prescription, not
someone on the other end of an insurance company authorization line.
This is not socialized medicine. Far from it. We are making sure that
the doctor is making the decision, not the insurance company.
Mr. Speaker, my brother runs a company, a business, a small business
that has been in my family for 50 years. Two weeks ago he was told his
premiums are going up by 75 percent. To add insult to injury, on that
very day, my sister-in-law had had knee replacement surgery and the
doctor thought she needed a few extra days in the hospital because they
were afraid that she might get blood clots. She was told by her
insurance company they couldn't have that time initially because it was
too expensive.
There was a little girl in my hometown who had leukemia. The
insurance company told her she couldn't go to the hospital with the
best success rate to fix her disease. She had to go to the hospital
with a much lesser success rate because it was cheaper there. Her
parents called me and I tried desperately to help get her to the other
hospital. I failed. She died.
That is what is happening in America right now. That is what we have
to deal with today. That is what the American people want fixed, and
that is precisely what this reform is all about.
Mr. Speaker, when I was 22 years old, I was an intern here in this
very Capitol. Mr. Kennedy was holding hearings on health care reform
for all Americans. I listened to the very same arguments by the people
trying to kill this bill here today back then. They're the same people
that were fighting health care. They don't care about patients. All
they care about is the bottom-line profits for the insurance companies.
We have waited for this day far too long already. If we don't take a
stand and do the right thing here today, the very same debate will be
taking place in another 30 years.
So I'm going to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am going to vote
for it proudly because the reform is so desperately needed, and it's
also desperately long overdue.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 1 minute to
a former member of the Rules Committee, but always hard working, the
gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma, Mr. Cole.
(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and the
underlying legislation. Frankly, this rule sets a deplorable precedent,
deplorable in terms of limiting Member participation and silencing
millions of voters whom they represent.
This bill cuts $523 billion out of Medicare and diverts it to an
entirely new entitlement. Sixty-five Members filed amendments offering
new ideas and better approaches. None of those amendments were made in
order.
My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would have prohibited cuts in Medicare,
would have kept the money saved in Medicare in that program. Democrats
are turning a blind eye to the future unfunded obligations of that
program just as the baby boomers are retiring by the millions upon
millions.
This rule is flawed. This bill is fiscally irresponsible. We should
vote ``no.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.
{time} 1645
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This marks a historic time for our country to take necessary steps to
make quality, reasonably priced health care possible and accessible to
many more people. The current system is broken, and there is still a
lot of work to be done. And I am committed to continuing this work. But
``no'' is not an option. Just say ``no''; just vote ``no'' thats what
you hear from the other side. The status quo is not an option.
Today we can improve our health care system by extending coverage to
people with preexisting conditions like my daughter and 16,800 of my
constituents in the Seventh Congressional District in Colorado. I've
talked with my constituents in Seventh Congressional District meetings,
in the government-at-the-grocery meetings that I have, telephone town
halls, town halls all across the board, and they know the system is
broken and something has to be done.
But for me, this is personal. I have a daughter with epilepsy. She
didn't ask to get it. It's just part of her chemistry. I dare say
everybody in this room has somebody in their family, a close friend, a
neighbor with a preexisting condition, and our system, our health care
system, discriminates against those people.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that every American
has the right to equal protection of the laws. The system that we have
right now is probably unconstitutional and, I believe, downright
immoral and must be changed. More and more families and businesses can
no longer bear the burden of this broken health care system. This issue
touches every person in their own unique way.
Because there are millions and millions of people affected by our
health care system, we have to change this. The status quo will not
work for us any longer. I'm proud to support this bill. I ask for a
``yes'' vote on the rule and a vote to change our health care system.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to continue the Rules
Committee and former Rules Committee lineup by yielding 2 minutes to
another former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta,
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding.
I left behind my medical practice of almost 30 years to run for
Congress. And it's hard to put into words the joy I felt each time I
helped bring a new life--actually 5,200 new lives--into this world. Yet
in my heart, I felt strongly in the need to improve health care in this
country. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not the health care reform that
I had in mind.
Raiding $500 billion from Medicare is not reform. The Cornhusker
kickback is not reform. The Louisiana purchase is not reform. Turning
IRS agents--in fact, 17,000 new ones--into health care czars is not
reform. And an unconstitutional mandate that will penalize poor
families is certainly not reform.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my moderate and conservative Democratic
friends who have been told by Speaker Pelosi and by the President,
``Just vote for this bill. Don't worry about your constituents. We'll
take care of you,'' there is a Dear Colleague being passed around as I
speak of pictures of Democratic Members, former Democratic Members, who
were told the same thing back in 1993 on the issue of the Clinton tax
increases. None of them who voted ``yes'' are in Congress today.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote President Obama from his speech yesterday:
``If
[[Page H1838]]
you don't think your constituents would be helped by this, then vote
`no.' ''
I know Americans would not be helped by this bill. I cannot support
it. I will not support it. I will be voting ``no.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maine, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank the hardworking chair of the Rules
Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the time.
As we get ready to cast a vote to finally reform our health care
system and rein in the insurance companies, I want to tell you what I
hear from my home State of Maine where people are frustrated and
struggling.
A woman named Margaret told me about her small business. She said,
``I own a small business that employs 10 Maine residents. Anthem has
announced a 23 percent increase in my rates. In 4 years, rates with
Anthem have almost doubled. I cannot afford to provide health insurance
for my employees.''
A man named Mark told me about his latest letter from the insurance
company. ``My wife has been paying more than one-third of our entire
income for her health insurance and that doesn't cover the high copays
and prescription drug costs. She just received notice from her
insurance company that they are raising her rates another 30 percent.
It's impossible. We can't do it.''
And Ron told me about living on the edge. He said, ``I was out of
work and lost my insurance, for 18 months. I am a cardiac patient and
have other chronic illnesses that require constant care and constant
prescription drugs. After 18 months with no insurance, I lost
everything.''
These people wrote to me from Maine, but the stories are told every
day in every State. Americans are denied insurance, have their coverage
canceled, or find themselves bankrupt just because they got sick.
Today we will change that with our vote. Today we will start to end
the worst practices of the insurance companies, like denying coverage
for preexisting conditions or canceling your policy when you get sick.
Today we will improve health care for our seniors, strengthening
Medicare, closing the doughnut hole, reducing prescription drug prices,
and making sure they don't have to pay to get a checkup or get screened
for diseases like cancer or diabetes. Today we will make sure that
Americans don't go bankrupt because of medical bills. And today we will
make it easier for small businesses and individuals to afford coverage,
bringing the largest health insurance tax break in history for small
businesses and individuals.
We have a chance to truly reform our system. I will be voting
``yes.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well
while another Member is under recognition.
The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
a hardworking new member from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).
Mr. LEE of New York. Since discussions on health care reform began in
Washington, I've heard from thousands of western New Yorkers opposed to
this trillion-dollar government-run takeover. One such comment comes
from a western New Yorker who writes, ``I'm retired Air Force and have
government health care now. If anyone thinks government run health care
is a picnic, I invite them to try it.''
Another western New Yorker wrote she ``strongly believes that we need
health care reform.'' However, she is ``particularly worried about the
level of debt that our children and grandchildren will inherit. Like a
household, the government has to learn to live within its means.''
These two constituents summarize well the majority of comments I
received.
There are two certainties if this bill were to pass. One, it will
raise taxes by over $500 billion, and two, it will cut hundreds of
billions of dollars from existing Medicare programs for seniors all in
support of another government entitlement program.
The proposal before us is not what western New Yorkers have asked
for, not what they can afford, and surely not what they deserve.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Polis.
Mr. POLIS. This has been a long process writing this bill. I've been
honored as a new member of Congress to be at the table along the way
scoring some wins and some losses with regard to the final product and
where I would like to see it overall.
I think it's a very strong product. I'm excited that we have the real
ability to bend the cost curve with a strengthened IMAC over the House
version. I'm also thrilled that this new version will reduce the
deficit by over $150 billion. We really can't afford not to do it.
With regard to taxes and the impact on business, there have also been
some very positive developments since the House version. The initial
House version would have raised the tax rate that S Corps and LLCs,
many small businesses, pay. I'm happy to say that that did not survive
this process, we were able to get that out of the bill and that this
bill is extremely beneficial for small businesses to help them save
money.
I think there is great potential going forward to reduce the need for
tax increases and in fact allow tax cuts if we can pass comprehensive
immigration reform. One of the baseline assumptions in this bill is
that there will be 50 percent more undocumented immigrants after 10
years. This Nation can't afford to have 20 million undocumented
immigrants. This Nation can't afford to have 10 undocumented
immigrants. This Nation needs to have zero undocumented immigrants. And
that will have substantial savings within health care and make sure
that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize the care of an undocumented
population that should not be here. That's why I'm a proud sponsor of a
comprehensive immigration reform bill here in the House, and there are
also efforts underway in the Senate between Senator Graham and Senator
Schumer that can reap substantial savings for health care, and we can
return that money right to the American people.
That's why I'm proud to support this rule and this bill to build the
momentum with hundreds of thousands of people in town this very week
advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our very,
very thoughtful colleague from Athens, Georgia (Mr. Broun).
(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is this health
care bill is a killer. It kills over 5 million jobs in future job
creation with $52 billion in mandates and taxes. It kills economic
freedom and the American entrepreneurial spirit. It kills the family
budget with over $17 billion in more mandates and taxes primarily aimed
at the poor and its seniors. It kills our future by allowing taxpayer-
funded abortions.
Make no mistake about it. If you vote for this bill, you can never
call yourself pro-life again. No executive order can change this.
As a family doctor, I know we can have commonsense health care reform
that provides lower costs without a government takeover and without
killing our economy. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American
people and kill this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good
friend from Fort Myers, Florida (Mr. Mack).
Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats believe that they can rewrite
the Constitution. They believe in the power of government, not the
power of the people. They believe that a better America goes through
more and more
[[Page H1839]]
and more government. And it's clear they do not believe in the American
people.
Americans have spoken loud and clear. We are saying ``no'' to more
government control of our lives. We are saying ``no'' to higher taxes
and deficits. We are saying ``no'' to this takeover of health care. The
American people want Washington to get its irresponsible hands out of
their pockets and stop their unconstitutional power grab.
The American people deserve to be respected. They deserve to be
listened to. They deserve freedom, they deserve security, and they
deserve prosperity. The Democrats need to stop and listen to the
American people.
And hear me now. You may win this vote today through arm-twisting
tricks and backroom deals, but let's see who's still here after the
American people speak loud and clear in November.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker at this time I'm happy to yield for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request to another former Rules
Committee member, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Natural Resources, Mr. Hastings.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed piece of legislation.
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the Republican
Conference for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
(Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition and
give note that I am against this flawed health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
the gentlewoman from Miami, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I rise in opposition to this flawed health care
bill.
Everyone deserves health care treatment. Everyone deserves access to
health care insurance. Everyone deserves both at an affordable cost.
However, this health care bill is not the answer. It is the wrong
approach--one which ignores the concerns and needs of the American
people, while increasing the financial burden through excessive taxes,
especially on small businesses.
It places control in the hands of government bureaucrats rather than
letting Americans decide for themselves what is best for their
families.
We need to promote common-sense solutions that make health care
easily accessible and affordable to all Americans--solutions like
preventing denial of coverage due to a pre-existing condition or
ensuring that your coverage stays with you even when you change jobs.
We should eliminate health care insurance discrimination based on age
or gender and encourage real competition in the health care insurance
market.
We must enact reforms to prevent frivolous lawsuits so that doctors
will not be forced to order unnecessary and expensive tests and
procedures. This will help eliminate costly waste and inefficiency in
the system. These changes, along with effective prevention, wellness,
and disease management programs, will help reduce the cost of health
care.
This Senate bill makes little sense for seniors. It is a fiscal time
bomb for future generations, and I do not want to leave this legacy of
debt to my granddaughter.
The majority was aware of the cost and impact of this bill. They
should have worked in an open, bipartisan fashion. Instead, we are left
with a bill killing tax increases in the middle of a terrible economic
recession.
This is a bill with billions of dollars in tax increases. There is a
tax on anyone who does not purchase bureaucrat-approved health
insurance. There is a tax on businesses that cannot afford to provide
their workers with health coverage and another tax for hiring low-wage
workers.
In South Florida, the construction industry has a 27 percent industry
unemployment rate yet this bill taxes those workers especially hard.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that all of these taxes
will be passed on to Americans in higher costs and rising insurance
premiums.
This bill makes no effort to control the skyrocketing costs of health
care. I am disappointed that we have missed an opportunity to tackle a
huge problem in South Florida and in the Nation: eliminating Medicare
fraud. It tries to fool the consumer by finding creative ways to hide
health care costs in new taxes, mandates, and cuts.
The bill also contains over $523 billion in Medicare cuts, including
over $202 billion from Medicare Advantage plans that serve tens of
thousands of my constituents directly.
Medicare helps so many seniors in our community--seniors like my
mother, who is 83 and suffers from Alzheimer's--live longer and
healthier lives. When I see this bill taking benefits away from seniors
like her, I worry tremendously.
This bill also includes cuts of millions of dollars to elderly home
care; millions of dollars cut for Alzheimer's programs; and millions of
dollars cut to the food-for-seniors program.
The only way to coerce passage of this bill was through special deals
for special interests. The Majority has weighed the bill down with
political handouts such as millions of dollars in Medicaid funding to
Louisiana, known as the ``Louisiana Purchase.'' Americans are
rightfully weary of the Majority playing political games with important
policy initiatives.
I know that the high cost of health care is an important issue facing
our nation and I am committed to making high quality, equitable and
accessible health care affordable to all Americans. This bill is not
the right answer to the serious issues facing our Nation and our
families.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks
against this flawed health care bill. My district is a military
district. We are a district of men and women who served this Nation in
all branches of our Armed Forces. We are a district that builds the
weapons that our war fighters depend on in the battlefield.
Unfortunately, when rushing this legislation through Congress, the
Democrats failed to exempt 9.2 million military families from being
forced to pay a penalty under this health care bill the President wants
on his desk so quickly. Congress was forced to fix this in the eleventh
hour. But it remains unchanged in the Senate bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this flawed health bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support the principles of Thomas Jefferson who stated
``I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them.''
I rise today to express my disappointment not only with the
provisions in the irresponsible health care takeover, but with the
process that was used to secure votes. Speaker Pelosi promised the most
ethical and honest Congress in history and the President said eight
times on the campaign trail that health care negotiations would be
televised and transparent. Unfortunately we haven't seen anything that
even remotely resembles this rhetoric.
It is outrageous that in 2010, with all the new media tools of
Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, blogging, and Skype that Congress,
lawmakers and the Administration have at their disposal that the
American people are
[[Page H1840]]
still shut out of this debate. This is a bill that impacts the health
and safety of every American and makes up one sixth of our economy--the
American people certainly deserve a seat at the table.
But the American people are being ignored. You would think after
record-breaking town hall meetings, an unprecedented House Call on
Washington, and the election outcomes in Massachusetts, Virginia, and
New Jersey, that congressional leaders and the administration would
wake up and tune in.
I was grateful to host in South Carolina the largest Congressional
town halls in history of 1700 in Columbia, 1500 in Lexington, 1500 in
Beaufort and 1200 at Hilton Head Island along with the first
Congressional town halls ever for Barnwell, North in Orangeburg, and
Varnville in Hampton County. 98 percent of attendees opposed government
takeover.
The majority of Americans have made it perfectly clear that they do
not want a health care bill that: Mandates private citizens purchase
health care, whether they need it or want it; causes millions of
employers to cancel the health insurance they currently offer; and
creates a health care czar to impose price controls on private health
insurance.
What is even more disconcerting about this bill is that Congress and
the Administration has decided to plow ahead with this before
addressing the tragic employment rate that continues to cripple many
communities across the Nation. Where are the jobs? That is what we
should be talking about each and every day. Instead of standing down
here debating a bill full of job-killing taxes and mandates, we should
be debating ideas that will give employers job creation incentives and
offer tax relief to hardworking families. The National Federation of
Independent Business, the voice of America's small business, has
revealed the takeover will kill 1.6 million jobs.
As I conclude, I'd like to take this opportunity to speak directly to
the concerned citizens who fought so hard over the last year to protect
the doctor-patient relationship and prevent a Federal Government
takeover of health care. The provisions in the bill and the process
used to secure passage were both designed to enhanced the power of
politicians; you should be proud of your efforts to limit such power by
town halls and tea parties.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
our soft-spoken colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
4,700-page health care bill.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As recorded in section 957 of the House
Rules and Manual, although a unanimous consent request to insert
remarks in debate may comprise a simple, declarative statement of the
Member's attitude towards the pending measure, it is improper for a
Member to embellish such a request with oratory, and it can become an
imposition on the time of the Member who was yielded for that purpose.
The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as many as may be
necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair must also ask Members
to cooperate by confining such requests to the proper form. Further
embellishments will be charged to the time of the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We will certainly
comply with your directive and appreciate it.
I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the former
mayor of Dayton, Ohio (Mr. Turner).
(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Olson.
(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Vienna, Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
I do not question the need for Congress to find a way for the
millions of Americans without health insurance to be assured of
quality, affordable health care. The majority of my constituents in the
10th District of Virginia have made clear that they want an open and
transparent process in which Republicans and Democrats work together to
pass responsible health care reform that lowers costs and offers
greater access to affordable health care.
They told me that they don't want more government spending.
They don't want government-run health care.
They don't want a plan that hurts America's seniors, families or
small businesses.
What they do want is a plan that fixes what's broken and keeps what's
working without adding billions of dollars to an already ballooning
deficit.
I cannot support today's bill because it will raise over $500 billion
in new taxes during a recession and times of high unemployment. This
will especially hit small business employers at a time when the Federal
Government should be assisting in job creation, not raising taxes.
This legislation cuts billions of dollars from Medicare, a program
that our seniors rely on.
It requires individuals to purchase health insurance. If you don't
purchase health insurance, the government will fine you a minimum fine
of $750, up to the maximum penalty of 2 percent of your income. This
provision has drawn the attention of the citizens of Virginia, with the
Virginia General Assembly, in a bipartisan vote, becoming the first
legislature in the Nation to pass legislation opposing this mandate.
This bill mandates billions of dollars in additional Medicaid
spending in unfunded mandates for cash-strapped states.
It breaks a promise to members of our Nation's armed services, their
families, veterans, and employees, with its failure to protect the
military's TRICARE system--health care programs provided by the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This means that, under this
legislation, unless an individual has TRICARE for Life, additional
health insurance would have to be purchased.
Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with my colleagues to pass
real health care reform in a cost effective manner. This legislation
fails that test.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of not only the people of the
great State of Kansas but also on behalf of the millions of Americans
whose wishes are not being represented by their own Representatives.
Kansans, over two-thirds of Americans, and I are strongly opposed to
the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill, both of which represent a
massive government takeover of health care. I cannot and will not
support this government takeover of our health care system that will
restrict choice, ration care, increase the cost of health care, greatly
increase government spending, cut Medicare spending, bankrupt States,
lead to the destruction of the world's best medical care, and kill jobs
during one of the worst economic periods in our Nation's history.
In order to get to the Capitol today, everyone in this body had to
pass the tens of thousands of Americans from all walks of life who came
by plane, train and automobile, at their own expense, to petition their
government not to impose government run health care on them.
I spent the weekend speaking with many of these patriotic Americans,
many of whom were turned away by their own Representatives on the other
side of the aisle. I was struck not only by their personal stories
(from the great-grandmother with a bad knee who came from Pennsylvania
and navigated the Metro for the first time to the small business owner
from Wisconsin who has never gotten involved in politics but bought a
ticket to come out here because he felt this was so important) but also
by their determination. The media may have made the prospects for
killing the bill look grim, but they were not going to let that happen
without a fight.
The group was diverse but almost everyone with whom I spoke mentioned
the same concerns with the bill: government power grab, deficit
spending, increased taxes, rationing of care, taxpayer funded
abortions, and especially the restriction of freedom. If government can
take over one-sixth of the Nation's economy over the will of the
people, they asked,
[[Page H1841]]
what separates us from Venezuela and socialized nations?
Power grab
We have a one party town; the Democrats control the House, the Senate
and the White House. They are taking advantage of this situation to
centralize power in their hands so that they may control every aspect
of our lives including what cars we can drive, how we educate our
children, now our health care options. Believe me, the American people
are opposed to this, as indicated in rock bottom approval ratings for
Congress and even the President, who less than a year ago had the
highest approval ratings seen in a long time.
Patients benefit when their doctors make the decisions as to their
health care needs, not bureaucrats sitting in an office building in
Washington, DC. The federal government should not intrude in this
sacred relationship. The most famous line of the physician's
Hippocratic Oath is ``I will prescribe regimens for the good of my
patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to
anyone.'' Under government-run health care, Washington will override
their judgment and it will be government bureaucrats, not doctors, who
prescribe regimens.
It's not just the bureaucrats at HHS that Americans will have to
worry about, this bill also greatly expands the power of the IRS and
hands them the authority to harass and even fine American families and
job creators for their health care choice. Despite repeated inquiries,
no one has been able to tell me just how many new bureaucrats will be
added to the federal payroll to implement government-run health care.
The unfunded mandates on the States to provide health insurance
options and oversee the private sector, at a time when they are in dire
financial straits, are confounding.
Access
Today over 20 percent of physicians in Kansas already no longer
accept new Medicare patients because they will be forced into
bankruptcy trying to care for them with the grossly inadequate
government reimbursements. Now the new administration wants to compound
this loss of accessible health care professionals with a loss of access
to health care treatment. In response, 46 percent of family physicians
indicated that they would leave the medical profession due to a
government takeover of health care.
Cost
This bill will cost well over the $1.2 trillion that CBO has scored.
That score conveniently does not include the cost of the ``doc fix,''
the Medicare prescription drug donut hole fix, the Pell Grant expansion
inexplicably included in the bill, or many other provisions of the
bill.
As if the health provisions weren't enough, the Democrats have used
this bill as a vehicle to pass education and energy provisions that
will increase deficit spending by billions and kill even more jobs.
How are they paying for this? By cutting other areas of our bloated
federal government? No, they are paying for this on the backs of
American families and job creators. There is $569.2 billion in new
taxes included in this bill. Much of that burden will be shouldered by
the middle class and small businesses.
Rationed Care
My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals is the intended
rationing of health care. The Obama administration has already begun to
set the framework for rationed care with comparative effectiveness
research. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.
Freedom
We pride ourselves on being the home of the free but this bill will
reduce the United States to the level of every socialized nation in the
world. If this bill is signed into law, Americans will not have the
freedom to choose their doctor, their course of treatment, or their
health plan.
The federal government has no authority to force Americans to buy
health insurance or to mandate what benefits employers can and cannot
provide employees. In addition this bill begins to destroy Health
Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are what we should be promoting as a way
to expand choice, give patients more control over their medical
spending, and reduce health care costs.
Prevent innovation
Just this week I met with NTH Director Francis Collins. We spent the
better part of an hour talking about all of the exciting advances in
medicine, especially in the area of individualized medicine. It was not
lost on me that the treatments and cures we were discussing will never
come to fruition under a government-run health care system that rations
care and stifles innovation.
Seniors
This bill is a bad deal for our seniors. It expressly cuts $523
billion from Medicare and doesn't even fix the Medicare prescription
drug donut hole until 2020. The rationing of care will also
disproportionately affect seniors who, for obvious reasons, are the
largest consumers of health care.
Pro-Life Concerns
Finally, the bills before us include abortions paid for with federal
dollars and do not include conscience protection for medical providers.
This is in blatant disregard of the House vote just 4 months ago. More
importantly, it is in blatant disregard of the whopping two-thirds of
Americans who oppose using federal dollars to pay for abortions. Even
those individuals and organizations who strongly support government-run
health care, such as the Catholic Church, do not want such programs to
pay for abortions or euthanasia.
I want health care reform and am saddened that this process has
become so political that we won't see the much needed modernization
that will ensure Americans have access to the best health care for
decades to come. I am saddened that states like my home state of Kansas
are forced to take drastic action to try to protect their citizens from
being affected by Washington's takeover of health care.
Republicans have offered better solutions and principles that should
be included in any health care reform. Those principles should: let
Americans who like their health coverage keep it, give all Americans
the freedom to choose the health plan that best meets their needs;
ensure that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors,
not government bureaucrats; and improve Americans' lives through
effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs, while
developing new treatments and cures for life-threatening diseases. CBO
has declared that the Republican health care plan would lower health
care costs by at least 10 percent. This is the approach the American
people want to see passed by Congress, not the destructive bill that is
instead before us.
Our constituents have spoken loudly and clearly and it is our duty as
their representatives to listen to them, not ignore them and use the
sacred Speaker's gavel to impose personal political goals upon them.
Therefore, with every breath in my body, on behalf of my constituents,
I scream ``heck no'' and vote ``nay.''
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the next Governor of Oklahoma, Ms. Fallin.
(Ms. FALLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT. I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
(Mr. FRANKS of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.
(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Obamacare proposal that is
before the U.S. House today. Unfortunately for both the American
Taxpayer and millions of our senior citizens this legislation is a bad
deal. As crafted this bill will increase taxes by $569 Billion dollars
and cuts medicare by $523 Billion dollars. Additionally this bill will
create more than 118 new federal bureaus, agencies and czars.
Furthermore I am concerned that this legislation will in fact increase
health care premiums for millions of current policy holders because of
the taxes and mandates in the 2700 pages of
[[Page H1842]]
the bill. Also missing is any provision for tort or libiablity reform
that would actually bring down health care costs.
At a time when our national debt is ballooning out of control passing
a multi-year multi-trillion dollar spending measure is heading in the
wrong direction. Yes, I do agree that we need health care reform
however this bill badly misses the mark. Congress can and must do
better for the American people.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. Speaker, tonight, the House will vote on legislation that will
reshape our nation. The Federal Government will take control over one
sixth of our private economy in order to extend government approved
health care across America. Never before in our history has such an
important issue been brought to the floor on a party line vote. In
fact, the only bipartisan agreement on this bill has been the
opposition against it.
No one disputes the need for health care reform in America that
lowers costs and protects those with pre-existing conditions, but this
bill is not the answer. The reality is that we cannot even afford the
government we have today and we cannot afford the disastrous fiscal and
economic consequences this bill will place on future generations.
The Democrats' bill will create a $2.4 trillion entitlement when
fully implemented. Our deficit, already dangerously in the red, will
grow by $662 billion in 10 years. The bill raids Medicare and Social
Security to pay for these new entitlements and will require $529
billion in new taxes while national unemployment hovers around 10
percent. This health care bill is nothing short of a road map to fiscal
insolvency.
One of the cornerstone principles of this nation is that we have a
government by the consent of the governed. For over a year, the
President and Congressional Democrats have pushed this health care plan
over the vocal objections of the American people, my own constituents
and House Republicans who have offered solutions only to be denied at
every turn.
It didn't have to be this way. Health care reform could have been
achieved through bipartisan cooperation and a sharing of ideas between
the political parties. The American people deserve better than this.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Newport Beach, California (Mr. Campbell).
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. Speaker, those in favor of this bill often talk about the 30
million that they say will be covered by this bill. For the sake of
discussion, let's just assume for the moment that they are correct.
There are over 300 million Americans in this country right now . . .
what will this do to the other 270 million Americans? Well the answer
is that they all will suffer as a result of this legislation. Some will
lose the health care coverage they have right now, because their
insurance will be priced out of the market and their employer won't be
able to afford the fines. Some will lose their jobs as the deluge of
taxes and mandates begin to take effect, and some will lose out on good
quality medical care as doctors stop practicing medicine and hospitals
close because the practice of medicine no longer will be able to pay
the bills. Everyone will pay for the new taxes whether directly or
indirectly, and everyone who does not get their insurance from the
government will have to pay more. It even goes so far as to impact our
nation's veterans and members of the military because their health care
coverage does not meet the standards set forth in the bill. This will
result in fines for our nation's veterans for having veterans coverage,
and it will result in fines to members of the military and their
families just for having coverage provided by the military. Mr.
Speaker, how does this make sense?
I am strongly opposed to this legislation. It will require more IRS
agents to be hired in order to process the myriad of new fines, taxes,
fees, and penalties that this bill creates. And even the President's
own actuaries say that this bill will raise total health care costs in
the United States by $222 billion. The very same actuary went on to
estimate that nearly 20% of all health care providers who accept
Medicare will become unprofitable and likely go out of business within
10 years.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a bad deal. It would serve my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to listen to the voices of
the American people. For months, the American people have decried their
opposition to this government takeover of health care from every state
in the union, and this weekend they have descended on Washington to
make one final plea: don't ruin the best parts of the American health
care system by replacing them with the worst.
Mr. Speaker, don't pledge to insure 30 million Americans at the
expense of the other 270 million in this country.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
our newest Republican, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Griffith).
(Mr. GRIFFITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield for a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway).
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
(Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
unconstitutional health care bill.
Today the majority seeks to enact its health care reform legislation.
While, I appreciate the efforts of the majority to reform our health
care system, it is hard to underestimate what a grave mistake it would
be to enact this bill. It would fundamentally alter our citizens'
relationship with their government. It would seriously jeopardize our
nation's long-term prosperity. It would dampen the vitality of our
nation's health care innovators. It would restrict choice and access to
medical care for millions of our nation's elderly and poor. It would
tax hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy in the midst of
one of the most serious economic downturns in our nation's history. And
for all this--for all of these thousands of pages and hundreds of new
bureaus, boards, and bureaucracies--it won't make America any
healthier. And perhaps more fundamentally this legislation does not
solve the most pressing problem facing our health care sector; namely
its upwardly spiraling cost growth. If the majority is successful in
passing this bill, they will, at best, celebrate a narrow political
victory at the expense of the American public, and at worst, send our
nation further down the path towards financial catastrophe.
For the most part, Republicans and Democrats agree on the problems
our health care system faces. Even though Americans spend
[[Page H1843]]
more on health care than any other country in the world, current
projections assume that this level of spending will rise indefinitely.
As this spending increases, it is consuming a greater and greater share
of workers paychecks. Health insurance is too expensive, and some
people with chronic illness struggle to access health care services. We
agree on the problems.
But it is rare that a single piece of legislation can so crystallize
the differences in governing philosophy between our two political
parties. As a solution to these problems in our health care system, the
Democrats would propose a massive increase in government involvement--
expanding current government run health programs, and creating new
ones. Provisions in this legislation would restrict choice, and place
greater control of health care in the hands of the federal government.
For example, under the bill's terms, no longer would we exercise a
number of freedoms that we now take for granted, such as whether to
purchase health insurance or what medical benefits we feel are
necessary. Under this bill, this is now a matter for the government to
decide.
This is far, far removed from what our nation's founders envisioned.
And indeed, I submit that, fundamentally, this legislation violates the
Constitution and will be found unconstitutional when it is inevitably
litigated through our judicial system. This legislation would require
individuals to purchase private health insurance--health insurance that
has been approved by the federal government--or pay a fine. While
Congress is granted the authority to ``regulate commerce . . . among
the several states,'' and the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress
to regulate and prohibit all sorts of ``economic'' activities that are
not, strictly speaking, commerce, this is the first time in our
nation's history that Congress would seek to regulate inactivity. And
for the first time, Congress would mandate that individuals purchase a
private good, approved by the government, as the price of citizenship.
This requirement is plainly unconstitutional, and would violate the
commerce clause. I have been speaking out on the unconstitutionality of
this individual mandate on the House floor, in Budget Committee and
through the Constitutional Caucus, of which I am the chair. If we allow
that Congress has this authority under the Constitution, then there is
virtually no limit on its authority to compel our nation's citizens to
comply with the whims of a Congressional majority. If future Congresses
feel that we don't eat enough vegetables, they could simply mandate
that we purchase government approved salads. Or if future Congresses
feel that our domestic auto industry needs a boost, they could mandate
that we purchase a car from General Motors.
However, even if we allow that this bill is constitutional, it should
still be rejected because it further deteriorates our nation's
financial standing. In Congress, I have the pleasure of serving on the
Budget Committee. Ever since I first arrived in Congress, witness after
witness--Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative--who have
appeared before the Committee have all noted the serious long-term
funding issues that our country faces. Quite simply, we are running out
of money to pay for an ever growing government. According to the Peter
G. Peterson Foundation, America's three biggest entitlement programs,
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, are projected to consume over
80 percent of the federal budget within a generation. And the single
biggest driver of this increased cost is health care inflation.
Medicare alone has a $36.3 trillion unfunded liability. This past week,
three members of my staff were blessed with the birth of a child. As
soon as those children took their first breath, they each assumed a
health care debt of $121,000.
The majority claims that this bill would actually reduce the deficit,
but this rests on a number of assumptions that are wildly unrealistic.
The budget gimmicks in the bill have been well documented, but among
the highlights are that it would: pay for 6 years of benefits with 10
years of taxes; raid the Social Security trust fund of $53 billion;
double count the savings in Medicare to pay for a new entitlement;
disregard the increased administrative costs of running these new
programs; double count $70 billion in premiums for a new long-term care
entitlement which would later have to be used to pay for benefits; and
rely on unrealistic Medicare cuts.
This last point is perhaps the most important one. The chief actuary
of the Department of Health and Human Services wrote, in a letter to
Congress, that the Medicare cuts proposed in this bill are
``unrealistic'' and could ``jeopardize access to care'' for seniors.
Independent analysis says that many hospitals and health care providers
would simply leave Medicare altogether if these cuts are implemented.
So, under the terms of this legislation, future Congresses would have
to do something it has thus far shown no appetite for: limiting access
to vital medical care for our nation's seniors.
Another major assumption made by the majority is that this
legislation would enact a tough ``Cadillac tax'' on generous employer
provided insurance plans. But this tax's implementation date has been
pushed back to 2018; well after President Obama leaves office. For
years, Congress has assumed in its revenue projections that millions of
middle class tax filers should pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
each year. But every year, Congress has stepped in and passed
legislation to prevent this from happening. Similarly, we should assume
that a tax that is so unpopular that it must be pushed out 8 years
before being implemented is a tax that may never realistically happen.
So this gargantuan health care entitlement, once fully implemented,
would end up costing us approximately $200 billion per year, and then
increasing at a rate of 8 percent per year. But we can not afford our
current entitlements! How will we be able to afford this when the bill
comes due? I worry that this bill is a fiscal disaster of the first
order.
It should not have been this way. We had an opportunity to enact real
health care reform--reform that would have set our nation on a prudent
fiscal path, and one that would not have violated our Constitution. I
and my Republican colleagues have proposed a series of reforms, such as
enacting real medical liability reform; allowing individuals to
purchase insurance across state lines; allowing individuals to purchase
insurance through groups and trade associations the same way unions
can; allowing small businesses to band together to purchase insurance;
and eliminating the discrimination in the tax code against purchasing
insurance through the individual market by allowing individuals to
deduct insurance premiums the same way their employers can. While these
proposals are not the final word on health care reform, they certainly
would have served as a good starting point for bipartisan reform.
Instead we are left with this bill which, I am afraid, will do much
harm but provide little benefit. I strongly urge that this bill be
defeated, so that we can go back to the drawing board and find true
bipartisan solutions to the problems facing our health care system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
(Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my outrage about the lack of
protection for health programs provided to veterans, servicemembers or
their families in the health reform bill under consideration by the
House of Representatives.
This bill is deeply flawed. It covers TRICARE For Life but leaves out
the other TRICARE programs that serve 9.2 million beneficiaries.
Any health care reform legislation must explicitly protect TRICARE
and all other Defense or Veterans Department health plans by including
them in the definition of ``acceptable'' or ``minimum essential
coverage.''
If the health care reform package under consideration today by the
House of Representatives passes, millions of servicemembers, veterans,
and their dependents across the Nation will be at risk of having their
insurance plan being deemed ``unacceptable'' and therefore have to
purchase supplemental insurance or obtain a new plan altogether.
The tens of thousands of servicemembers, veterans, and their
dependents in the first congressional district of Virginia have made
great sacrifices for our Nation.
I have long held the belief that the benefits afforded our men and
women in uniform have been earned through sacrifice and hardship.
The TRICARE and Veterans (VA) health care systems are unique and are
designed to fulfill certain requirements that are not shared by the
private sector. We must respect the unique identity and role of the
military TRICARE and VA health delivery systems.
Now is not the time to change either the terms under which our
service members defend our country or the means by which we continue to
care for those that have served.
I cannot support legislation that does not uphold this Nation's
commitment to our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and their
families.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. It is an unprecedented intrusion
of government into one of the most personal areas of our lives.
[[Page H1844]]
It is unprecedented procedures to force through a bill of this
significance with two hours of debate and no amendments or alternatives
even considered.
It is unprecedented to pass a measure of this magnitude against the
strong, clear opinion of a majority of the American people.
I believe we need to reform health care, particularly the way that it
is paid for in this country. We can do that without upending the whole
system. Real health care reform would protect the nearly 85 percent of
Americans who currently have health insurance and want to keep it. It
would protect Medicare for those seniors currently enrolled in the
program and for those who will be enrolled in the future. It would make
health insurance more affordable for everyone, including those who do
not have coverage today. And it would keep government from interfering
in the doctor-patient decision relationship.
The bill before us does none of these things. It cuts more than $500
billion from Medicare and increases taxes over $550 billion dollars. It
fines individuals and businesses that do not sign up for the
government-approved insurance. It multiplies government bureaucracy by
adding a mind-boggling number of new commissions, commissioners,
committees, centers, and administrations. It empowers the IRS to
determine whether or not your personal health insurance is adequate in
the eyes of Washington bureaucrats. And it is filled with special deals
to attract support it could not get on its own merit.
I believe that this bill will not only fail to stem the growing cost
of health insurance; it will actually make it cost more. How could the
combination of increased taxes, expensive mandates, and new federal
regulations not increase the cost of health care for most Americans?
Mr. Speaker, common sense tells us that when the government spends
more money, it does not usually cost taxpayers less. Yet, the Majority
claims that this bill, which spends at least $1 trillion, will somehow
reduce our deficit. It cannot be true.
The vast majority of citizens in the 13th district of Texas who have
contacted me have been clear and consistent in their opposition to
reform that leads to more government, less choice, cuts in Medicare,
and increased taxes. The same sentiments have been echoed across the
country.
Unfortunately, the version the Democratic majority is trying to pass
includes new restrictions and more government intrusion. It is over
2,700 pages of big government that we don't need or want.
Mr. Speaker, President John Adams once said, ``Facts are stubborn
things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and
evidence.'' The facts here are plain and simple: this bill includes
massive government involvement in health care, higher taxes, and
hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts. I know it, most people who serve
in this House know it, and the American people know it. It is wrong for
our country and for its future.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
(Mr. POSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
(Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks
against this flawed health care bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Democrat health reform
legislation that imposes billions of dollars in new job killing taxes
on American small business owners and families. Make no mistake about
it, at a time when the unemployment in the United States is over 10
percent, over 14 percent in some parts of my district, this Congress is
choosing to take up a health reform bill that is a job killer.
Small business owners struggling to make ends meet who cannot afford
to buy government approved insurance for their employees will be
subject to a $2,000 dollar per employee tax. When employers realize
they can afford neither the government mandated insurance nor this
egregious new tax they will have no choice but to lay off more
employees.
For employers who can afford to provide health insurance to their
employees, this bill contains billions of new taxes and mandates that
will raise their premiums. These will drive up the cost of insurance,
forcing many employers and private individuals to reduce or drop their
coverage.
In addition, this bill imposes a never before seen Medicare tax that
would, for the very first time, apply to capital gains, dividends,
interest, rents, royalties, and other investment income of singles
earning over $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000. Currently,
capital gains and dividends are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, but
those rates are already scheduled to rise in 2011 to 20 percent and
39.6 percent, respectively. When the expansion of the Medicare tax is
coupled with the already scheduled capital gains rate increase, long-
term capital gains rates would rise by from 15 percent to 23.8 percent
and the top tax rate on dividends would nearly triple from 15 percent
to 43.4 percent.
At a time when Congress should be focusing on incentivizing
investment in America and putting people back to work we are instead
here today to levy over $560 billion dollars in new taxes on the
American public and approve over $938 billion dollars in new
entitlement spending. I urge my colleagues to stop this massive
government expansion and focus on America's most pressing issue,
putting our citizens back to work.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
(Mr. McCLINTOCK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
(Mr. JORDAN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health bill.
Mr. DREIER. I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, was there any time consumed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You were charged once.
Mr. DREIER. For what, half a second?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman was charged 5 seconds.
Mr. DREIER. Five seconds. Is there any way we can try and get that
back, Mr. Speaker?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Can you tell me how much time is remaining on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 10 minutes and
25 seconds.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of a
unanimous consent request to my friend, the former sheriff from
Washington (Mr. Reichert).
(Mr. REICHERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to my friend from San Diego, California (Mr. Issa).
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 full
minute to our friend from Gold River, California (Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in the famous play, ``A Man for All Seasons,'' there is
a tremendous scene there where Sir Thomas More looks out and sees
Richard Rich, who used to be a supporter of his, who was giving
testimony against him. And he notices that he has a medallion on
[[Page H1845]]
him designating that he happens to be the new attorney general for
Wales.
And, in response, Mr. Thomas More says, Richard, it profits a man
nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?
Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have worked so hard in the pro-life
movement for years and years and years, and who understand the
importance of the historic effort made by our former colleague, Mr.
Hyde, I beg those who have joined us over these years to understand
what they are doing if they sign off on an executive order. An
executive order is not law.
The reason we have had to have the Hyde amendment over the years is
that the courts have said that there is a statutory mandate to provide
abortion unless we say it does not exist. Therefore, an executive order
does not take precedence over the law. People should know where they
are. Don't be like Richard Rich of Wales.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from American
Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to all my
friends who oppose the legislation on the other side of the aisle, but
in full support of this most historical bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ``Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.''
Mr. Speaker, we stand today at the threshold of a momentous occasion
in the history of this great Nation. It is momentous in the sense that
this long-overdue, comprehensive overhaul of our national Healthcare
system is desperately needed to address rising medical costs and to
extend coverage to our fellow Americans that are often left to fend for
themselves.
I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her leadership and for
bringing this important issue to the Floor for consideration.
I also want to express my gratitude to President Obama and the
Democratic House and Senate leadership for their willingness to work
hand-in-hand with the Congressional Delegates to resolve our concerns
and reduce the health disparity facing the Territories.
On the House side, I want to particularly thank both Chairman Henry
Waxman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman Charles
Rangel of the Committee on Ways and Means for their unwavering support
in addressing the concerns put forward by the Congressional Delegates.
On the Senate side, I also want to thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator
Charles Schumer for their assistance.
Most of all, I wish to recognize my fellow Congressional Delegates,
Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands for her work in the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Gregorio Sablan of the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas and Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico for their
advocacy in the House Committee on Education and Labor, and Madeleine
Bordallo of Guam for her leadership as the Chairwoman of the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Healthcare Task Force.
Together, we worked relentlessly to bring about change for those we
represent.
This entire Healthcare overhaul would not have been possible without
the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional
Black Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
(CAPAC), and I want to especially recognize the efforts of Congressman
Mike Honda, Chairman of CAPAC.
While the bill we have before us today is far from ideal and not the
perfect solution to all our health care issues, it is imperative and
also the constitutional responsibility of the Members of this Chamber
to act in the best interest of those who are suffering, particularly in
light of the heart-wrenching stories told of people dying, parents
worrying and families living in fear because they have no health
insurance. Just last year, it was estimated that 625 Americans lost
their health insurance every hour.
So even though we may not agree on how to make this right, we can
agree that to do nothing is not an acceptable course of action. Our
fellow Americans deserve our help.
The some 4.4 million Americans living in the Territories also deserve
to be recognized and this is why I am pleased that this bill
acknowledges that we are part of the American family. Although much
remains to be desired, this bill is a step towards bringing the
Territories to parity with the States. Under Section 1204, the
Territories--Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands--will
receive an additional $6.3 billion over a 9 year period in federal
funding for Medicaid costs.
American Samoa will receive $285.5 million in total Medicaid spending
for the next 9 years, or an increase of over $180 million.
This legislation also provides $1 billion for the Territories to
participate in the Health Insurance Exchange program, the centerpiece
of this Healthcare Reform Legislation. Each of the Territories will be
afforded the option to participate or transfer their allocation to
their Medicaid program. If American Samoa chooses not to participate in
the Exchange, the Territory will receive an additional $18.75 million
for its Medicaid program.
With the historic passage of this legislation and the increased
federal funding it will provide, I am hopeful that the American Samoa
Government and Legislature will do all it can to provide quality and
affordable health care for the people of American Samoa.
In 2005, the findings of the American Samoa Health Survey estimated
that only 25 percent of the population had insurance and, with the
rising cost of health care, it is highly likely that the number of
insured in American Samoa has declined drastically since that time.
But now, with a significant increase in federal funding, ASG has the
tools it needs to improve healthcare and health coverage for the
residents of the Territory and to meet the challenges which have been
exacerbated by the Territory's remote location and the exponential rate
of chronic diseases.
In light of the current political environment surrounding healthcare
reform, President Obama's own testimony in Ohio last week best
summarizes the necessity and the very reason why Congress must pass
this legislation today. The President said, ``I'm here because of my
own mother's story. She died of cancer, and in the last six months of
her life, she was on the phone in her hospital room arguing with
insurance companies instead of focusing on getting well and spending
time with her family.''
Millions of Americans share the same story, and passage of this
legislation is critical for the welfare of all Americans. This
legislation is not only about saving money and reducing the deficit or
addressing the billions wasted in Medicare. Passage of this legislation
is about providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. It is
about the fundamental right of healthcare for all.
As Martin Luther King once said, ``Of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''
At its best, this bill is a step toward equality and justice for all
Americans and, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to support this
historic legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are very curious as to whether
or not any time was taken from the other side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman was charged.
Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to make sure. I just wanted to make sure in
the name of fairness here. I appreciate your fairness, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of
the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Vestavia Hills,
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in our Declaration of Independence, our
forefathers declared that we are endowed by our Creator with certain
inalienable rights. The first was life, yet this bill would permit the
public funding of abortions in a number of programs that would take an
innocent life formed by that Creator within a matter of months, if not
weeks or days.
The very first act of our government on this innocent and defenseless
life would be to end it. Our forefathers could not comprehend such an
outrageous act.
Let me close by saying that on this very day, March 21, exactly 61
years ago, Chaplain Peter Marshall prayed on the floor of the Senate:
Lord, our God, help us to stand up for the inalienable rights of
mankind, knowing that Thy power and Thy blessings will be upon us only
when we do what is right.
May we so speak, vote and live as to merit thy blessing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
my friend from Lincoln, Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, let's just imagine for a moment that
this health care bill before us today failed. Let's just imagine that
we all
[[Page H1846]]
awoke tomorrow and could say to one another now we have a chance to get
health care reform right, health care reform that is fair to everyone,
reduces costs and truly improves outcomes, instead of just shifting
costs to more unsustainable government spending and eroding health care
liberties.
Mr. Speaker, the debate has become very passionate, and I fear that
we sometimes lose sight of the fact that our actions have consequences
and can even affect little children. The other day a 9-year-old boy
approached me and he said, Congressman, I have a question. He said, if
the government gets so bad, which country should we move to? And I put
my hand on his shoulder and I looked at him and I said, America is
still a good country, we just have to make it better.
Mr. Speaker, I am not here to help manage the decline of America.
None of us are. We can do better. We must do better.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and for
the hard work of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the well of the House today to support the
rule and to commend President Obama and the Democratic leadership for
their willingness to stand up for America's families and for their
willingness to be strong and steadfast in the face of political
opposition. My North Carolina district is the fourth poorest district
in America: 100,000 uninsured, seniors unable to afford prescription
drugs, rural hospitals in the red, insurance premiums increasing while
insurance company profits are multiplying.
My constituents need health insurance reform, and they need it now.
The time for debate is over. We are poised to deliver on the Democratic
promise of health insurance reform.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that one day historians will write that
the passage of this bill took America to a higher level, to a higher
place, and restored confidence with the American people that Congress
is responding to the needs of America's families.
{time} 1715
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes and 55 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes and 25 seconds
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request I yield to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health bill.
Mr. Speaker, there's no such thing as a free lunch and there's no
such thing as free health care. Yet, the Democrats ramming this
legislation through the House against the will of the American people
would have you believe that we're going to extend coverage to 32
million and subsidize millions of others, and it's not going to cost
average Americans a thing. Somehow, they say, this will all be covered
by big businesses and high-income earners, and it won't have any effect
whatsoever on average Americans. It's the mysterious ``them'' who will
pick up the tab, not ``us.''
The truth is that we're all going to pay, and we will pay big. This
legislation will raise taxes by $569 billion, it will raise the
insurance premiums of all Americans, it will place a huge new tax on
jobs and it will put expensive mandates on individuals and employers.
There will be $52 billion in new taxes on employers who can't afford
to provide health insurance. So what's going to happen when you
drastically hike up the cost of jobs? We'll have fewer jobs. This
Congress is recklessly destroying jobs at time when unemployment is at
nearly 10 percent. At a moment when unemployed Americans are looking
for work to provide for their families, at a time when many more are
underemployed or working part time, at a time when businesses are
unable to get the loans they need to expand, the Democratic Congress is
taking us backwards. We will make a bad situation worse.
For the next 4 years, in fact, we'll implement the taxes but not the
coverage. We keep hearing Democrats say that 45,000 Americans die each
year because they don't have health insurance. According to the
Democrats' own rhetoric--as faulty as it may be--they're ignoring
180,000 needless deaths over the next 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, there is no free lunch. It is our duty, first and
foremost, to render tough decisions. We have to prioritize. Our
priority in today's climate should be creating and saving jobs, and
therefore, helping more Americans gain employer-provided coverage.
Then, we can focus our attention on bringing down the cost of health
care and expanding access without adding on a new entitlement that we
can't afford.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it's remarkable to me that for a President who
campaigned on reaching across the aisle and bridging the partisan
divide, the only bipartisanship on his signature issue is in
opposition. Democrats and Republicans are joined together in opposing
this government takeover of health care. There are 25,000 Americans
protesting this legislation outside these walls. There are 39 state
legislatures threatening to fight this law in court. Large majorities
of American citizens are begging their Member of Congress to vote
``no''.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
(Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request I yield to
the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. Schock).
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
my friend from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
(Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
(Mr. BOOZMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent, I yield to my
California colleague, Mr. Herger.
(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
my friend from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
my friend from St. Louis, Missouri (Mr. Akin).
(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this flawed health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H1847]]
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to this flawed health bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
(Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed health bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
our friend from Indianapolis (Mr. Burton).
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed health care bill.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members not to
frequent the well when another Member is speaking.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
(Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this government
takeover of health care in this so-called health care bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
We have reached a historic crossroads in our Nation's history. We can
choose to set our Nation on the path to improving the access to quality
health insurance for millions of Americans and finally containing the
cost of that care, or we can continue on the road of the status quo,
threatening to leave more families without basic care and bankrupting
the engine of our economy.
This bill in front of us today, this historic bill meets the four
tests my constituents set for it:
Will it bring down premium costs for families and small businesses?
Yes, it will.
Will it reduce the deficit? Yes, it will. Now and in the future.
Will it protect their choice of plan and doctor? Yes, it will.
Will it improve access to care? Yes, it will.
We have heard a lot of fear, we have heard a lot of disinformation.
But I quote today on the Sabbath 2 Timothy 1:7, ``For God did not give
us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love.''
=========================== NOTE ===========================
March 21, 2010 on H1847 the following appeared: quote today on
the Sabbath Timothy 2:1--7, ``For God did not give us a spirit
The online version should be corrected to read: quote today on
the Sabbath 2 Timothy 1:7, ``For God did not give us a spirit
========================= END NOTE =========================
Let us not be timid. Let us pass this historic piece of legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
my very good friend from Sarasota, Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
Mr. BUCHANAN. I want to thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. It does nothing to lower costs or
little to lower costs, it raises taxes $540 billion, and it cuts
Medicare.
Being in business and signing the front of payroll checks, I can tell
you that one of the biggest concerns with small businesses is the
escalation of health care. It is $10,000 to $12,000 today for a small
business in a family. CEO Roundtable is saying if we do nothing about
it--and this bill does nothing about it--it will go to $28,000 in the
next 10 years.
It also increases taxes $540 billion. A lot of those taxes are passed
through to small businesses, the LLCs and sole proprietorships. It
passes through to them, it hurts working families, and it will not
increase jobs.
The other thing, as someone that represents an area that has the most
seniors in the country, we have real cuts, not just waste, fraud, and
abuse, of $500 billion. This will really hurt seniors. I had a senior
the other day say, ``All I have is my Social Security and Medicare. It
is not perfect, but don't mess with my Medicare.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes, 55 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes, 20 seconds
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield for a
unanimous consent to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
(Mr. SIMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
the distinguished gentleman from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I was able to chair our Health Care Solutions group on
our side, and we had lots of ideas. In fact, many of those ideas were
included in the 80 amendments that went to the Rules Committee
yesterday, none of which were allowed.
This could be a bill, Mr. Speaker, about medical liability reform,
about small business health plans, buying across State lines, lots of
things that aren't there.
I don't think, Mr. Speaker, this bill improves what works and fixes
what is broken, which should be our goal. But that is not the main
reason, Mr. Speaker, we should not be proceeding today. The main reason
is not that it is not the best bill or a bill that I approve of. The
main reason is that it costs too much, Mr. Speaker.
This is a bill where the proponents say we are going to collect $1
trillion in either new taxes or Medicare cuts. We are going to
accumulate $1 trillion over 10 years, and we are going to spend it in 6
years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, by year 8, by year 9, by year 10, we are
spending $200 billion a year. When I checked with the Congressional
Budget Office, what about year 11? They said $200 billion as well.
Mr. Speaker, this will cost jobs. It doesn't head the country in the
right direction. I oppose the rule and will oppose the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question. I will be offering an
amendment to the rule. The amendment will require the Speaker to direct
the Clerk to call the roll on the final votes on the Senate health care
bill and the reconciliation bill.
As the Republican leader has said repeatedly, it is time for the
Members of this House to stand up and be counted.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and
explanatory material appear in the Record immediately prior to the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
[[Page H1848]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to my good
friend from Monticello, Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. I rise in opposition to the rule.
Why would the VFW National Commander state that he is furious?
Because Congress is moving a flawed bill that does not protect
America's military, dependents, veterans, widows, nor orphans.
The VFW stated, ``The President and the Democrat leadership are
betraying America's veterans.''
The VFW is asking for a ``no'' vote on this bill because it breaks
the promises the President made to veterans at their national
convention. This flawed bill covers neither our military and dependents
under TRICARE, nor VA programs for widows and orphans, nor the program
for children of Korea and Vietnam veterans with spina bifida. None of
these programs are considered minimum essential coverage. And where are
the protections for the Secretaries of DOD and the VA to preserve the
integrity of their health care systems? Absent from the bill.
Buck McKeon and I and others tried to fix this bill, but were denied
by this rule and our suspension efforts, even though Mr. Levin and I
tried to have an agreement. Many veterans groups support efforts to
correct these errors. Vote ``no.''
[Mar. 21, 2010]
National Healthcare Bill Betrays Veterans
Washington.--The national commander of the nation's oldest
and largest combat veterans' organization is furious that
Congress is moving ahead with a flawed healthcare bill that
does not protect the health programs provided to veterans,
servicemembers or their families.
``The president and the Democratic leadership are betraying
America's veterans,'' said Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., a combat-
wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis., who leads the 2.1
million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its
Auxiliaries.
``And what makes matters worse is the leadership and the
president knows the bill is flawed, yet they are pushing for
passage today like it's a do-or-die situation. This nation
deserves the best from their elected officials, and the rush
to pass legislation of this magnitude is not it.''
At issue is H.R. 4872 does not fully protect the healthcare
programs provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and
the military's Tricare system. Specifically, the bill covers
Tricare For Life but not the other Tricare programs that
serve millions of beneficiaries; it does not cover children
suffering from spina bifida as a result of a parent's
exposure to Agent Orange; and it does not cover dependents,
widows and orphans who are served by CHAMPVA, the Civilian
Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
``The president was very clear at our VFW national
convention last year when he said he was going to protect
these programs, as did the Democratic leadership in the House
and Senate repeatedly throughout the year. Now we have this
flawed package that everyone is trying to rush through that
blatantly omits any protections of the healthcare programs
our nation provides to millions of veterans, military
personnel, military retirees, and their families or
survivors.
``This is Washington doubletalk at its very worse, and the
uproar is going to be huge in America's military and
veterans' communities,'' said Tradewell, who wants Congress
to vote against H.R. 4872 today.
The issue surfaced publicly Friday when House Armed Service
Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) introduced legislation
to explicitly protect Tricare and other Defense Department
nonappropriated fund health plans from any health reforms
currently under consideration by Congress.
Yesterday, Reps. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) and Buck McKeon (R-
Calif.) tried to introduce an amendment to H.R. 4872 to
protect the integrity and independence of the VA and Defense
Department healthcare systems. Buyer is the ranking member of
the House Veterans Affairs Committee and McKeon is the
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
``The VFW salutes the congressmen and their supporters,''
said Tradewell, ``and I hope their messages were heard loudly
and clearly throughout Congress. Healthcare is important, but
so is protecting the programs that were promised to our
nation's veterans, military and their families,'' he said.
``Those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should not have to
worry about their dependents' healthcare programs, but they
are today, and so are millions of military retirees,
veterans, survivors and children.
``Military service is based on the fundamental principle of
trust, and once lost, it is virtually impossible to regain,''
said Tradewell. ``That is why I am urging the House to vote
`no' today, then go back and fix the bill with the language
proposed by Skelton, Buyer and McKeon, and then come back and
vote your conscience. Let's not rush to pass flawed
legislation that could tremendously impact our nation's true
heroes.''
____
Disabled American Veterans,
Washington, DC, March 20, 2010.
Hon. Steve Buyer,
Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Cannon House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Buck McKeon,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Members Buyer and McKeon: On behalf of the 1.2
million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I am
writing to express our support for your amendment no. 31 to
H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010, and its associated
proposed legislation, H.R. 4894, ``to amend the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure appropriate
treatment of Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of
Defense health programs.'' You recently proposed these
measures to maintain the integrity of the health care systems
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department
of Defense (DoD), and to ensure that the circumstances of all
persons covered by the VA or DoD health care systems meet any
minimum coverage requirements mandated by national health
insurance reform legislation now pending before Congress.
As you know, over six million veterans, and particularly
war-disabled veterans, have come to rely on the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system--a system
acknowledged by independent evaluators as one of the best
health care systems in America. Since national health
insurance reform legislation is under consideration in
Congress today, it is of vital importance to DAV and our
membership that the VA retain its autonomy to manage our
system to continue addressing the unique and specialized
needs of sick and disabled veterans. For this reason, we
support Congressional approval of the unambiguous language in
your amendment, that nothing in the health insurance reform
proposal, if adopted, could be ``. . . construed as affecting
. . . any authority under title 38, United States Code.''
We also appreciate the proposed clarifying language related
to the bill's minimum insurance requirements. Under the
legislation that earlier passed both Congressional chambers,
persons covered by VA health care under Chapter 17 of title
38, United States Code, were deemed to have met the
individual requirement to possess acceptable health insurance
coverage. However, as you pointed out, additional VA health
care authorities are extant that are not a part of Chapter
17, including children of Vietnam and Korean war veterans who
contracted spina bifida, the benefits and care for whom are
authorized within Chapter 18; additionally, Chapter 31, title
38, United States Code--an authority that governs VA's
crucial vocational rehabilitation programs for service-
disabled veterans, may be affected unless your language is
adopted by Congress. For these reasons, and to avoid other
potential problems that may be unintended but occur because
of the complexity of this reform legislation, we strongly
support your amendment as well as H.R. 4894, your bill to
clarify that ``minimum essential coverage'' includes all
persons covered under any part, chapter, or section of title
38, United States Code.
Thank you for your continued efforts to ensure that the
rights of sick and disabled veterans are fully protected as
national health insurance reform legislation is considered by
the Congress.
Sincerely,
David W. Gorman,
Executive Director, Washington Headquarters.
____
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, March 20, 2010.
Hon. Steve Buyer,
Ranking Member, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Cannon House
Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Buyer: The American Legion offers its
full support to the Buyer/McKeon Amendment to H.R. 4872.
As the nation's largest veterans' service organization, The
American Legion is extremely concerned about the impact
health care reform will have on the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) health care
systems. Throughout the discussion of national health care
reform, The American Legion and others in the military and
veterans' communities were reassured by both the
Administration and congressional leadership that both VA and
DoD beneficiaries would be exempted in any national health
care reform legislation.
Both VA and DoD provide quality health care services and
should be considered earned benefits by virtue of honorable
military service. Therefore, the insurance premiums have been
paid in full, especially by those who are service-connected
veterans and military retirees. Moreover, it would be an
unfair hardship for any of these heroes to have to purchase
additional coverage because they do not meet the definition
for the minimum essential coverage that is in the current
legislation.
Once again, The American Legion fully supports this
amendment and we appreciate your leadership in addressing
this critical issue that is important to America's service
members, veterans and their families.
Sincerely,
Clarence E. Hill,
National Commander.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
[[Page H1849]]
Democrats understand the importance of providing health care to
veterans. We started it. The House passed a bill yesterday affirming
our commitment to TRICARE and TRICARE for Life. And, in addition, the
VA Secretary has stated that this health bill will not undermine
veterans health care.
I submit for the Record a letter from five committee chairs and a
statement from Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2010.
Hon. Louise Slaughter,
Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: The House Democratic leadership
asked our committees to review H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872 to
assess the impact of the bills on the health care provided by
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Our reviews of H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872 lead us to
believe that the intent of the bills was never to undermine
or change the Department of Defense and Department of
Veterans Affairs operation of their health care programs or
interfere with the care that our service members receive
under TRICARE. However, we commit to look into this issue
further to ensure that no unintended consequences may arise
and to take any legislative action that may be necessary.
H.R. 3590, as drafted, does not specifically mention that
TRICARE coverage meets the individual responsibility
requirement, but such coverage would satisfy the requirements
of this bill. To affirm that this is the case, the U.S. House
of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 4887, the TRICARE
Affirmation Act, which provides assurances to the American
people that care provided to those in the military and their
families, as well as military retirees under age 65 and their
families, would indeed meet the requirement for coverage.
The members of our nation's military sacrifice much to
defend us all. We commit to these dedicated service members
and their families as well as our veterans that we will
protect the quality healthcare they receive.
Sincerely,
Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.
George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor.
Sander Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.
Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce.
____
Statement From VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
As Secretary of Veterans Affairs, I accepted the solemn
responsibility to uphold our sacred trust with our nation's
Veterans. Fears that Veterans health care and TRICARE will be
undermined by the health reform legislation are unfounded. I
am confident that the legislation being voted on today will
provide the protections afforded our nation's Veterans and
the health care they have earned through their service. The
President and I stand firm in our commitment to those who
serve and have served in our armed forces. We pledge to
continue to provide the men and women in uniform and our
Veterans the high quality health care they have earned.
President Obama has strongly supported Veterans and their
needs, specifically health care needs, on every major issue
for these past 14 months--advance appropriations, new GI Bill
implementation, new Agent Orange presumptions for three
additional diseases, new Gulf War Illness presumptions for
nine additional diseases, and a 16% budget increase in 2010
for the Department of Veterans Affairs, that is the largest
in over 30 years, and which has been followed by a 2011 VA
budget request that increases that record budget by an
additional 7.6%.
To give our Veterans further assurance that health reform
legislation will not affect their health care systems, the
Chairmen of five House committees, including Veterans Affairs
Chairman Bob Filner and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton,
have just issued a joint letter reaffirming that the health
reform legislation as written would protect those receiving
care through all TRICARE and Department of Veterans Affairs
programs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request I yield to
the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Motion to Concur in
the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 and to H.R. 4872--Reconciliation Act
of 2010. Over the past year, I have worked on and supported a health
care reform plan that would bring down costs for families, address the
issue of pre-existing conditions and improve availability of care
without destroying what works in our current system. Today, it appears
the Democrat majority will take an entirely different approach and I
will not support that plan. A plan that increases taxes by nearly $570
billion, a plan that cuts Medicare by more than $520 billion, a plan
that increases premium costs for Kansas families by more than $2,100
annually, and a plan that, according to the national commander of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, is ``betraying America's veterans.'' The
American people want healthcare reform, but they do not want this bill.
Kansans, and all Americans don't deserve this. They deserve much
better. So, today, I pledge that as long as I am here, I will listen
and fight for what Kansans want. Not the special interests. Not a
President or a Speaker looking to create a legacy. Just Kansans.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues'
comments. I have actually found some things to agree with.
Ms. Slaughter mentioned that the American people have been lied to. I
agree. They have been told that a policy which raises taxes for 10
years to pay for 6 years of government programs is fiscally sound.
I was struck, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. McGovern spoke of the small
business owner in Massachusetts who couldn't afford his premiums. What
he neglected to say is that Massachusetts has the same plan that we are
about to implement. In fact, the Democratic treasurer of Massachusetts
says that, ``If we implement this plan, we go bankrupt in 4 years.''
I was struck, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. Hastings, who spoke how the people
outside have lost hope. They have lost hope that Congress is listening.
They are tired of being told, ``You are not smart enough to understand
our wisdom. We, the Democratic leaders, will tell you how to live. And,
after we pass this vote, you will love us all the more.''
I am struck that Mr. Cardoza endorsed this, even though his State is
going bankrupt from Medicaid and this program expands Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to listen to the wisdom of the
American people. Vote for their constituents, not for their leaders.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York how many speakers she has remaining?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have two speakers left.
Mr. DREIER. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
{time} 1730
Mr. NADLER of New York. This health insurance package, despite real
inadequacies, deals with three basic problems:
First, 45,000 Americans a year die because they lack health
insurance. By extending health insurance to 32 million more Americans,
this bill will save these lives. A vote for this bill is a vote to save
45,000 lives a year. A ``no'' vote is a vote to acquiesce in these
deaths.
Second, 55 percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health
care emergencies and 75 percent of people who file for bankruptcy
because of a health emergency have insurance that proves inadequate
when they get an expensive illness. By banning rescissions, banning the
preexisting conditions insurance bar, banning annual lifetime caps, and
by capping out-of-pocket expenses in new plans at $6,200 per year for
an individual and $12,300 for a family, with lower caps for low-income
families, this bill will ensure nobody goes broke because they get
sick.
Third, the Congressional Budget Office tells us this bill will reduce
the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion
in the next 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is historic progress. We should embrace it.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: the bill before us today is
far from perfect. Like many of my colleagues in the House, I have
[[Page H1850]]
outlined numerous concerns with the Senate-passed health insurance
bill. And with good reason. The Senate-passed bill failed to include a
public option, the best available way to refocus our misguided health
care approach so that patients and doctors are put ahead of corporate
bottom lines. It contained draconian provisions on so-called ``do-
gooder'' states like my home state of New York. It imposed a new
restriction on a woman's access to safe, legal reproductive health
care. And it included a disastrous excise tax that would have done more
to cost people health coverage than it would to lower the cost of
health insurance.
After considerable struggle and intense negotiation, my colleagues
and I were able to ensure that ``do-gooder'' states like New York are
not punished merely for taking a more progressive stance in the
Medicaid system, turning what would have been a nearly $800 million
loss in revenue to the State under the Senate-passed bill into a $2.1
billion net savings.
We were also able to reduce the effect of the misguided excise tax,
to remove special deals for specific states, to increase affordability
credits, to close the Medicare Part D donut hole that ensnares
thousands of seniors, and to include numerous consumer protections.
And, even with these improvements, Mr. Speaker, the package before us
today is not perfect. But I am reminded that, when our predecessors
cast their votes in favor of Social Security in 1935, they passed an
imperfect bill. And when they passed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965,
they passed an imperfect bill. And in the years since those crucially
important programs were signed into law, Members of Congress who have
come after them have made--and will continue to make--vast improvements
to those programs.
Despite my concerns with the bill, our votes today mean something.
Our votes today mean that 32 million more Americans will have access to
health care coverage. Our votes mean that 45,000 Americans won't lose
their lives each year because they are too poor to have health
insurance or because their illnesses are too expensive. Our votes mean
that the Medicare program will continue to provide important benefits
to our seniors. And our votes mean that we will take a giant leap
forward in our quest to ensure that all Americans have access to health
care that they can afford.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of my adult life fighting for
universal health coverage. Today's vote doesn't end that fight. But we
simply can't lose sight of how historic this moment is. That's why I am
proud to cast my vote in favor of the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act, a bill that will have immeasurable
benefits for the American people for years to come.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield for
unanimous consent to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
(Mr. HARPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health
care bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield for a
unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner).
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed
health bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield for a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Inglis).
Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this flawed health care bill.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the Fourth District of South Carolina are
sending a message to Washington. They do not want a ``cram down'' of
this health care bill.
Last week I received over 3,000 letters from my constituents stating
their opposition to using reconciliation to pass health care reform.
They spoke loud and clear to me during town hall meetings last August.
I don't want this bill. The Fourth District does not want this bill.
The American people don't want this bill. And many of my Democratic
colleagues don't want this bill either.
We need health care reform and we can work on a step by step
approach. The American people want us to focus on creating jobs and
fixing the economy, not implementing a massive new federal entitlement
program. Mr. Speaker, let's throw out this bill and start working to
grow the economy.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman if she has
any remaining speakers?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have one, and then time for me to
close.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I'm happy
to yield to my very good friend from California (Mr. Lewis).
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
flawed health care bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the last speaker on
our side, except for closing, a valued Member--new Member of the
House--the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
Mr. BOCCIERI. Her story took me to a place I hadn't been in a long
time. I'm talking about Natoma Canfield, the face of this debate, who's
sitting in a hospital room at the Cleveland Clinic right now, with no
insurance, getting blood transfusions for the next 30 days. She doesn't
have health care insurance because, in 2009, her rates increased 25
percent. In 2010, her rates went up another 40 percent. Finally, she
just couldn't take it as a single mom, so she dropped her health care
insurance because she couldn't afford it.
I remember as a young boy standing at my mom's bedside when she told
me she had breast cancer. Luckily, my mom had good health care
insurance. She survived and is alive today. But how many people do not
have health care insurance and how would my life have changed if she
did not make it? Where would I be? Would I have been able to go to
college? Would we have been able to afford her treatment?
Nearly 40,000 people in the 16th District do not have health care
insurance, and 9,800 people live with preexisting conditions.
I'll remind my friends on the other side who voted to send Tommy
Thompson to Iraq with billion-dollar checks in hand to make sure that
every man, woman, and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage:
If it's good enough for Iraqis, it's good enough for Americans. Who are
you going to stand with today; the insurance industry or Americans like
Natoma?
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller.
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
failed health care bill.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the distinguished gentlewoman from New
York if she has any remaining speakers?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Absolutely not. Just for myself to close.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have obviously heard many, many, many stories of
tragic situations--and we all have them--from our constituents across
this great country, and it is absolutely essential for us to recognize
that every single Member of this institution does, in fact, want to
ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health
insurance. The contemporary writer and commentator, Dennis Prager, has
said that the bigger the government grows, the smaller the individual
becomes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me absolutely essential that we look at
what it is that is before us. It is a $1.2 trillion bill that has
$569.2 billion in job-killing tax increases. It has provisions that
will hire 18,000--18,000--new Internal Revenue Service agents to police
every one of the 300 million Americans--every one of the 300 million
Americans--to ensure that they comply with the new mandate that is
imposed by this measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have, as has been said, a plan that will have
taxes and regulations for 4 years, and maybe--maybe--some benefits in
the last 5 years of the decade. We believe that we can work in a
bipartisan way to do a number of things that will immediately--
immediately, Mr. Speaker--reduce the cost of health insurance to ensure
that every single American will have a better opportunity to have
access to quality health insurance.
We believe very fervently--and Mr. Cassidy has worked on this--that
expanding health savings accounts will go a long way towards increasing
access to quality health insurance. We
[[Page H1851]]
know very well that pooling to deal with preexisting conditions is
something that will play a role to ensure that those with preexisting
conditions have their needs met.
We know that we can drive costs down if we expand--expand--on
associated health plans so that small businesses can come together and
bring their rates down. And we know--we know, Mr. Speaker--that if we
allow for the purchase of health insurance across State lines, we will
create greater competition, ensuring that immediately our constituents
will have access to quality, affordable health insurance.
And, Mr. Speaker, we know, item number five, something we've sent to
the other body but the Democrats blocked, and that is something the
President also said he supported when he addressed the joint session of
Congress, meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that medical doctors do
not have to engage in defensive medicine.
Mr. Speaker, these are five commonsense proposals that we could
address in a bipartisan way, I would hope, that will immediately--
immediately--bring the cost of health insurance down and not force
every American to wait 4 years before they may have a benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on this rule and, if we get beyond it, vote ``no''
on the bill itself.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the question couldn't be more clear. You
either believe in insurance reform, which will give a decent chance for
health care for every American, or you simply believe in insurance
companies.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the
health reform package we are debating today.
I am reminded of a previous time we voted on a Sunday: March 20,
2005, when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle forced an
extraordinary vote to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Now, that is what a real government takeover of medicine looks like.
That midnight vote was a grotesque legislative travesty. For 215 years
it had been a solid principle of this country that Congress not get
involved in life-and-death issues like the tragic case of Ms. Schiavo.
Yet, on that Sunday, Congress broke with tradition and inserted its own
judgment. On that Sunday, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
sent the message that it knew better than families, doctors, and
hospital chaplains.
The health reform package we debate today is not a government
takeover; it is legislation that helps real people with real problems.
It gives them more choice, more control, and more access to health
care. One person this will help is a woman from Pennington, New Jersey.
She called me yesterday to let me know her concerns that she would lose
her job because of state budget cuts in New Jersey, which would mean
that she would lose her health coverage as well. She told me her
worries about finding affordable coverage while she looks for a new job
and tries to keep food on her table. To complicate her situation, she
has a pre-existing condition. This means that even if she could afford
health care, it is possible she could be denied due to her pre-existing
condition.
I will vote for health reform to help middle-class Americans like
her, who play by the rules and still find health coverage unreliable or
totally out of reach.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this health reform package
to give families and small businesses more control over their own
health care.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of health care
reform. The other side of the aisle would have us believe that we need
to wait longer to make health reform a reality. They don't want to make
the sweeping changes that the American people KNOW we need to make.
I cannot, we cannot, stand by and let this historic opportunity pass
us by; the people of my district deserve more and better from this
Congress.
I say yes to tax credits and other assistance to 86,000 families and
14,900 small businesses in my district. I say yes to coverage for
22,500 uninsured residents. I say yes to protecting 800 families from
bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
I say yes to reform.
All the other side is saying is no--to reining in health costs,
controlling insurance companies who have proven over and over that they
are willing to put profit over people's lives, to ending the confusing
morass of paperwork and lack of transparency that drives doctors,
patients, and hospitals to distraction and negatively impacts the
quality of patient care.
The opponents of this reform had their time--health reform was
defeated in 1994 and they had a decade to change the system. People are
still dying because they can't afford care. Doctors are still dealing
with ever more complicated paperwork rather than healing people. Our
public hospitals are reeling, and the number of uninsured continues to
grow.
We needed to act this weekend to step forward into the 21st century,
make the hard choices, take the tough vote, and act in the best
interests of our country. I am proud to vote in favor of health care
reform.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1183 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 6. With respect to any demand for a record vote on the
motion to adopt H.R. 3590 or on final passage of H.R. 4872,
the Speaker shall use her authority under clause 3 of rule XX
to direct the Clerk to call the roll.
____
(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 from 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 212) 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 for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time and move the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H1852]]
____________________