[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2418-H2429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 4872, HEALTH
CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 111-458) on the resolution (H. Res. 1225) providing
for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4872) to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13), which
was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1225 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1225
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall
be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
4872) to provide
[[Page H2419]]
for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res.
13), 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 chair of the Committee on Education and Labor
or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
Labor. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
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 materials 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate
amendments to H.R. 4872. It shall be in order to take from the
Speaker's table H.R. 4872, 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 Chair of the Education Committee that the House concur
in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The rule provides 10 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of
the Committee on Education and Labor. Finally, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
Madam Speaker, the disturbing atmosphere that we've seen around the
Capitol recently is alarming. The rash of ominous threats, voice mails,
letters, brick throwing, and other sordid acts of protests is downright
despicable and marks a low point in the Nation's history. I say this in
part from firsthand experience. As many of you know, my Niagara Falls
office was the target of attack last week when someone hurled a brick
through the window in the dark of night. Separately, I received a phone
call on my campaign office phone line that referenced 16 sniper teams
and an attempt that would be made to target the children of Members of
Congress who voted for the health care legislation.
Each day my four offices give me a careful log of phone calls and
emails from people who have taken the time to share their opinions with
me, and I read each of those comments because I value that input and
want to hear from everyone, not just the people who agree with me. I
daresay there isn't a single elected official in the country who has
not had a heated run-in with someone who felt strongly that they had
voted the wrong way on an issue. In fact, it is part of this country's
great tradition that we not only tolerate dissent but we encourage it.
To speak up and to take part in democracy is a noble and treasured
part of the American way. But all that changed last year when suddenly
town hall meetings across the country turned into vicious shouting
matches. Persons who had taken the time to go to the town meeting to
learn about the health care bill were oftentimes harassed and
frightened and unable to learn anything except that they felt somewhat
under siege. I remember that someone arrived at a meeting with a
handgun holstered to his leg, and he could not have been more than 50
yards away from the President of the United States.
Spirited debate has become negative. All of us have noticed that in
our offices. As I mentioned, I have four offices. The calls that came
in--I thank my staff, and I'm sure all of you do, too, for simply
tolerating it. It was all day. One day the calls came in so quickly
that not another piece of work could be done in all my offices. We were
threatened. We were cajoled. We were told--mostly by people from Texas
and Oklahoma--that they would never vote for me again, which would be
very unlikely in New York anyway.
But I am happy to tell you that as of Sunday night and the passage of
this bill, all of those calls are gone. We were getting up to--I would
say totaling in the four offices nearly 100 a day. It's all gone now,
and the people who call express sorrow for the trouble that has been
put upon me, saying that their America does not do that to anyone,
particularly someone that they have put their trust in.
But this week, the leader of the national Republican Party said that
Speaker Pelosi should be put ``on the firing line.'' Another Republican
leader and former national party candidate placed rifle site targets on
a national map showing congressional districts of Democrats who
supported health care for all Americans, and that same leader urged her
supporters, ``Don't retreat, reload.'' And even worse were the remarks
made here by the minority leader, who recently said that one of my
colleagues who backed the legislation was politically a ``dead man''
back home. Taken together with the incidents around the country, these
episodes might prompt a quick and forceful repudiation of comments that
would endorse violence, but instead, we get just the opposite.
{time} 1845
When Republican Members went out onto the balcony off the Speaker's
lobby Sunday to shout to and encourage rowdy protesters, they were
implicitly encouraging a discourse that had already soured. In fact, I
was dismayed to learn--not dismayed, dismayed doesn't cover it--I was
angry. I was concerned. It terrified me, the thought that we would have
to live through any of that again. When I found out that some of my
colleagues were the victims of racial epithets, spitting, homophobic
slurs, this sort of display is shocking even to someone who has seen
some pretty terrible things over the years.
Despite all this, Democrats move forward with hope and optimism. It
is my sense that as more Americans learn about the provisions of the
health care reform legislation, they will in increasing numbers support
the vote over the weekend, and the polls show this already happening.
It is a surprise to me today that with the passage of reconciliation
by a 56-43 margin in the Senate, that the other side would continue to
try to throw up petty roadblocks or complain that they haven't had time
to read the bill.
Do you want to know what we are debating here today? We are debating
two sentences. That's it, two sentences. Does it make sense to anyone
that the other side is demonizing a bill that has already been approved
by both the House and Senate and signed into law? No, instead we should
celebrate the incredible accomplishment of finally passing this
legislation after a struggle of more than a hundred years.
I won't even bother reciting all of the ways in which ordinary
Americans will gain as we shift the balance of power away from
insurance companies and back to patients, because they will know very
shortly. I have already spoken at length about how under our bill
families will no longer feel trapped by their coverage or fearful about
children with preexisting conditions. Health care reform, I am happy to
say, is now the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to join me
today in quickly adopting these small technical fixes to the
legislation so we may move on to more pressing challenges.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, this rule is to amend a reconciliation
bill that is amending a bill that no longer exists. The bill has been
signed into law. Therefore, the references in the reconciliation bill
are no longer accurate. Is it possible for us to wait until the bill
that has been signed into law has been codified so we can have accurate
references in the reconciliation bill? Otherwise wouldn't the House be
voting on an inaccurate piece of legislation?
[[Page H2420]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry. The issue he raises is a matter of debate.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry. The issue he raises is a matter for debate.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will be inaccurate.
The reconciliation bill is inaccurate in its current form, and the rule
should be withdrawn until proper references can be made because an
inaccurate bill will be voted upon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman
has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, once again, doesn't it require that the
legislation presented to the floor of the House has to be accurate in
order for us to vote on it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the pending
resolution.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that
when a bill becomes law it is no longer a bill; therefore, when we
amend a nonexisting bill, we cannot vote on an accurate piece of
legislation? Is it not in the rules of the House that we have to vote
on accurate legislation?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman
has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair will not
entertain debate under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry at this
time.
Mr. TIAHRT. I'm not trying to debate; I'm simply trying to understand
the rules. My question was not answered on the parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me first extend my appreciation to my
good friend from Rochester, New York, Ms. Slaughter, 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. Madam Speaker, last Sunday when we opened debate here on
the rule, I opened by condemning the attacks that have been made on
Members of this institution, their families and their staffs.
Unfortunately, it is something which all of us who have been privileged
to serve in elective office and as Members of Congress in particular
have had to face for many years. I will reiterate, Madam Speaker,
violence or the threat of violence is simply unconscionable, and we all
join together in calling for an immediate end to these types of utterly
unacceptable acts.
Madam Speaker, last Sunday I also predicted that we would be back
here voting once again on the reconciliation bill. And here we are.
The need for another vote is further demonstration of just how flawed
the tactics of the Democrats in charge of Congress have been. It
shouldn't surprise anyone, Madam Speaker, that the reconciliation bill
was found to violate Senate rules, as traditionally has been the case
with the only exception in 1983. No legislation of this magnitude can
be slapped together at the last minute and then withstand scrutiny. Our
revote today is just further evidence of the perils of the refusal of
the Democrats in charge to act in a bipartisan and open way.
We have been debating the issue of health care reform in the Congress
for a long period of time. As a Nation, we have been struggling with
the very serious issue of increasing access to quality care for many,
many, many years. We all want to expand coverage and improve quality
for the American people. There are a number of key reforms that enjoy
broad bipartisan support that would bring us much, much closer to that
goal.
Yet, despite these opportunities for bipartisanship, Madam Speaker,
the Democrats in charge insisted on forcing through the most partisan
and costly bill possible. And despite all the time that has been spent
on this issue, they insisted on forcing through a reconciliation bill
that was largely written the night before we voted on it. Again, Madam
Speaker, this was written in large part the night before we voted on
it. That is why it should be no surprise, and there were those of us
last Sunday who predicted that we would be back here.
Less than a week after that vote, serious mistakes in the legislative
package have already been discovered, as I have said. Today's
underlying package, as I said at the outset, has been returned to the
House because it contained provisions that violated Senate rules.
Far more significant, however, are the mistakes that have been
uncovered relating to a key provision in the Senate health care bill
that is now law, mistakes that will not be fixed today; and I
underscore, mistakes that will not be fixed today. One of the
centerpieces of that legislation was a provision to ensure that no
child is denied coverage for a preexisting condition. This is an issue
that again enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. I believe very
passionately in the need to ensure that no one is denied coverage for
preexisting conditions.
Madam Speaker, had we taken a responsible, step-by-step approach to
reform, this provision dealing with preexisting conditions could have
been signed into law months ago; but because the Democrats in charge
shunned bipartisan cooperation and an open, transparent process,
forcing through a hyper-partisan bill with no opportunity for open
debate or any amendment, their $1 trillion bill passed Congress without
any real accountability.
The result? They botched the language on preexisting conditions and
we now know, Madam Speaker, that children will not get the coverage
that they were promised. This is the inevitable result of a closed,
partisan process.
Even the good ideas that are put out there that both Democrats and
Republicans alike can come to an agreement on are undermined by a lack
of scrutiny and transparency. Their bill was certainly filled with a
lot of terrible ideas. Spending $1 trillion we don't have and hiring
tens of thousands of new IRS agents to investigate hardworking
Americans ranks at the very top of that list. But even the provisions
like preexisting conditions that had bipartisan support are being
undermined by shoddy work.
While the legal experts sort out the mess that was made of the
legislative language, job creators are assessing just how much damage
has been done to them. Today, The Wall Street Journal pointed out that
companies large and small are taking stock of the new taxes that have
been imposed and what the impact will be.
Now, we had an exchange upstairs about the fact that we have seen the
stock market go up, and we all know that the stock market has gone up.
But that does not belie the fact that Caterpillar will face $100
million in new taxes in the first year alone. The medical device
company Medtronic fears it may have to lay off 1,000 workers in order
to pay the new taxes.
Madam Speaker, with the national unemployment rate as we all know
hovering just under 10 percent, this could not be a worse time to
impose job-killing tax increases. The prospect of crippling new taxes
and further job losses is not acceptable. We should focus on creating,
not losing, good private sector jobs.
The process of reforming the so-called reform bill and undoing the
damage that has been done will take years, wasting untold taxpayer
dollars we cannot afford. Wasting precious time while the American
people wait for real reform that actually improves access to quality
health care is a waste. It shouldn't be done, and this is a tragically
missed opportunity.
To the many Americans who are outraged by this bill and the process
by which it was considered, and by the way, we are here under what is
known as martial law rule. We just completed our meeting in the Rules
Committee a few minutes ago, and without any consideration we have come
right down to the House floor. People are outraged with this process.
That has played a role in creating the anger that is there. I can only
say there are still some Members of Congress, and I am one of them, who
believe in bipartisan cooperation--in bipartisan cooperation, and we
believe, as was promised in a new direction for America that then-
Minority Leader Pelosi put forth for the American people and said she
[[Page H2421]]
would have when she took the oath in January of 2007, an open,
transparent process. To many Americans who had high hopes for a true
reform bill, I will say there are still some Members of Congress who
will fight for real reform even if the Democrats in charge will not do
that.
We will fight to ensure that all Americans have effective guarantees
of coverage despite preexisting conditions. We will fight for
meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, and we will work to allow small
businesses and States to band together to offer better and more
affordable coverage.
We will work to ensure that government bureaucrats never come between
patients and doctors. We will make sure that no one will be forced to
give up their current coverage if they do not so choose, and that those
who have diligently saved in their health savings accounts are not in
any way punished.
If we can abandon the failed tactics that the Democrats in charge
have put forward and work in an bipartisan and open fashion, these are
the kind of real reforms that can be enacted so all Americans will have
access to quality, affordable health insurance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members and staff they
should not traffic the well while a Member is under recognition.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, is it within the rules for the majority
manager to withdraw a rule at this stage in the debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TIAHRT. Is it also true that since the legislation that will be
amended is inaccurate and does not have correct references to existing
law, that we should not have a vote on it, that the rule should be
withdrawn?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, since the bill that is being amended no
longer exists, the references are inaccurate. How can we possibly have
a vote on an inaccurate bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is
engaging in debate and has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry.
The Chair will not entertain debate under the guise of a parliamentary
inquiry.
{time} 1900
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the time is now. On the issue of health
insurance reform, just about everything has been said and just about
everyone has said it.
On Sunday, this House passed the most meaningful health care bill in
over 40 years. We voted to end the most abusive practices of the
insurance companies, to provide coverage to millions of hardworking
families, to bring down the costs of health care for families and small
businesses, and to pass the biggest deficit reduction package in 25
years. That reform is now the law of the land.
Already, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle
saying that they want to repeal that law. They want to allow insurance
companies to once again discriminate against people because of
preexisting conditions. They want to take away help for small
businesses to purchase insurance for their workers. They want to
continue to let families go bankrupt because of their medical bills.
That doesn't make much sense to me, Madam Speaker.
The bill before us today provides important improvements to the law
by improving affordability for working families. It strengthens
provisions to attack waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.
It strengthens consumer protections, including prohibiting lifetime
limits and the practice of dropping people when they get sick. It
closes the doughnut hole in Medicare and extends the solvency of that
vital program, and it removes the special fixes for Nebraska and
Florida.
This has been a contentious debate, and we have spent a lot of time
arguing about things that don't matter a whole lot to people in their
everyday lives; things like reconciliation and filibuster and CBO and
parliamentarians. So I'd like to close by focusing this debate back
where it belongs, on the American people.
Last week, a letter to the editor appeared in the Orlando Sentinel,
and I'd like to read it. And I quote:
``Three months ago, my wife became pregnant. Two months ago, she
miscarried. Today, the insurance company refuses to insure her for at
least 5 years because the company classifies a miscarriage as a
preexisting condition. This is the only reason insurance is being
denied.
``If life is to be truly valued in America, then we must all pull
together to make health care available for all our citizens. This is
the greatest moral issue facing our Nation today.''
Signed, Blake Harrington, Orlando.
Well, Mr. Harrington, your voice has been heard, and because of this
Congress and this President, no family will have to go through what you
did.
The time is now, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes
to a very hardworking new Member who's an expert on TennCare, an
obstetrician from Johnson City, Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, a recent news article posed a
question that gets at the heart of this debate: Will the law as the
Democrats have planned spur economic growth by lowering health care
costs and allowing companies to expand and hire new employees or, as
many business advocates have argued, will the opposite occur? It's a
good question. It is a fair question. So let's look at the evidence
that we have.
In Massachusetts, they passed a plan with broad mandates and an
exchange-like health care marketplace. The plan has resulted in the
highest insurance premiums in America, rising faster than anywhere else
in America as a percent, and a large number of individuals forego
insurance until they get sick, then they show up and get the care and
pay a relatively low penalty.
In Tennessee, where we've expanded our State's Medicaid program, we
saw employers shift the cost to the public sector and then watch as our
program tripled in costs. Now, before any of these expansions go into
law, our State's being forced to limit enrollment and ration care.
And nothing in this bill helps control costs like tort reform, and
it's nowhere to be seen. And trust me, as an OB-GYN doctor, one of the
things you could do for our patients is to work on this very needed
bill, apart from this bill, and we could do it separately, and yet we
haven't done that.
What's being proposed now is combining the worst part of both State
systems, and I think the evidence clearly shows that costs will be
higher and with the decreased access and lower quality. The American
people deserve to know that this bill flies in the face of real-world
experience and it deserves to be defeated.
Another comment, Madam Speaker, I'd like to make is that, in my years
of experience, I have not seen a patient's health care denied or a
preexisting condition because of a miscarriage. I have personally not
seen that, and I'd like to see reference to that if I could.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and
underlying legislation.
The health care package that we passed on Sunday and have the
opportunity to finalize today represents years and sometimes decades of
work put in by many of my colleagues here in the House, and it also
represents the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans who live one
accident away from bankruptcy, one paycheck short of making ends meet.
I've heard from many of the families and seniors who live in my
district who've been terrified as they see their insurance rates go up,
and fearful of losing their insurance and high quality of care.
But in between the time this House passed one of the most important
legislative initiatives in our lifetime and
[[Page H2422]]
today, I have started to hear from many Sacramentans with a simple
message: Thank you. Thank you to this Congress for having the courage
to stand up for what's right. Thank you to the Speaker for her
leadership in delivering this bill to the American public.
And I would like to say thank you back to the millions of Americans
who voiced their strong support of the health care bill. You may not
have always been the loudest voice in the room, but that doesn't mean
we don't hear you.
Thank you to my colleagues for standing up for the American people in
the many hearings, markups, town halls, and floor debates we've had on
this issue. I look forward to standing with you today as we pass these
improvements on the historic legislation passed on Sunday.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation as we stand together and ensure the quality health care
Americans deserve at a cost they can afford.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume, and I would like to engage in a discussion, if I might, with
my good friend from Johnson City, Tennessee, who, as we say, appears to
be the only medical doctor here on the House floor at the moment.
He was just discussing his role and many years he's served, worked as
an obstetrician, and one of the things that we have found, reports
are--and this is before this bill was even considered--that there are
many people who are in a position where they are being told, people who
are under Medicare, that they are being refused an opportunity to have
the kind of physician choice that they want.
We regularly have heard throughout this debate that you'll be able to
choose your own doctor. But, Madam Speaker, I ask the question: Will
your doctor choose you? What kind of incentive do we have at this
juncture for people to get into the medical profession?
And I'd like to yield, if I might, to my friend from Johnson City, if
he might respond to this notion of, well, you may be able to choose
your doctor, but will your doctor choose you. And I am happy to yield
to my friend.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. In our State right now, let me just give you
some real-world experience as to what's going on in our State-run plan,
TennCare, which is the State Medicaid plan.
Right now, we're discussing limiting patient visits to eight per
year, no matter how many times you may need to go to the doctor.
Number 2, the State's considering paying only $10,000 in total for a
patient visit to the hospital, no matter what the cost is, meaning that
those costs are going to get shifted to private insurers. And over
time, if that occurs, and we expand massively the Medicaid system
around the country, you're going to shift more and more cost to the
private insurers, and when that happens, eventually they're going to
fail. And I think that may be the purpose here.
The other thing is that I had a friend of mine visit this week from
home, and right now, to get an orthopedic surgeon to see you, you're
going to have to drive 100 miles to see this orthopedic surgeon.
The State of Tennessee, as of the 1st of July of this year, will no
longer cover rehabilitative services for a patient who's operated on or
any rehabilitative services for an injury. That's what we have now. And
we're asking our State to take on more and more cost.
And what concerns me--it's not about the good things that are in this
bill, and there are some things I agree with very much. But the other
things are how do we pay for it, and how do we then find someone to pay
for the care?
The other little caveat is that these plans never pay for the cost of
the care. TennCare, right now, pays about 60 percent of the cost and
going down. Medicare, as you know, pays about 80 to 90 percent of
physician cost.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his remarks. And let me just say,
this notion of you may choose your doctor but your doctor may not
choose you, is that a fair assessment?
I'm happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. It is a fair assessment. And now, countrywide,
40 percent of our primary care physicians choose not to see a Medicaid
patient, and 60 percent of specialists. It's estimated that it will be,
when this plan goes into effect, 60 percent of primary care physicians
won't see these patients and 80 percent of specialists won't see these
patients.
Mr. DREIER. And that's why I was arguing that it is really difficult
to imagine why it is that people will pursue the medical profession, as
the gentleman has done so ably over the years.
And I am happy to further yield to my friend.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Thank you for yielding.
One of the things that is disturbing, and I have taught medical
school and taught medical students, only 2 percent of our graduates now
are going into primary care. And I'm in a group with 70 primary care
doctors. I was in a group until I came to Congress. And we can't get
our best and brightest to go into primary care. And it's a real quality
issue, because what concerns me about our Medicare plan is this: At the
time I came up here, I was having problems finding primary care
doctors, internists, family practice to see my patients that I'd
operated on.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I feel I need to introduce Dr. Donna
Christensen, who is a medical doctor from the Virgin Islands, for 15
seconds.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The legislation that we have before us will take
insurance companies out of the doctor/patient relationship. There will
be more incentives for doctors. There will be more National Health
Service Corps positions, more loan repayments to bring doctors into the
system, and doctors will go into neighborhoods where they've never gone
before because Medicaid will pay more and Medicare will pay more.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, this morning I was at a meeting, a
breakfast of the Epilepsy Foundation of America. I have a daughter who
has epilepsy, and she and one of my other daughters and I attended this
breakfast.
And the relief that people feel, particularly parents, about us
having passed this bill, us working to advance, really, freedom by
doing away with the discrimination against people who have prior
illnesses was palpable in that room. And as a dad, I can tell you, we
have advanced the cause of millions of people across this country.
Everybody in this room has somebody who's close to them. It could be
a family member, could be a friend, a neighbor who has a prior illness,
has some kind of condition, suffered in some accident, and what we've
done is given those people the freedom to have some health care so they
can seize the opportunities that this Nation provides.
It's relief. It's freedom. It's civil rights that we passed in this
last couple of days. And I know it's been contentious and I know there
are strong philosophical differences, but when the rubber hits the
road, for parents, for kids, for people who have these kinds of
preexisting conditions, we really advanced the ball for them, and we
advanced the cause of freedom.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume, and I would like to engage in a discussion, if I might, with
my friend and argue that I totally concur. We totally concur with the
need to work on this issue of preexisting conditions.
The problem, Madam Speaker, has been that while this was
extraordinarily well-intentioned, we've already found that this
shoddily put together bill has denied the addressing of preexisting
conditions. There are people out there who unfortunately believe, Madam
Speaker, that the issue of preexisting conditions has been taken care
of. One needs to look at the news reports right now of the problems
that exist with our shared bipartisan goal of addressing that issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1915
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
[[Page H2423]]
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, since 1985, I have worked for today as we finish our
job to enact health care reform in America. This reconciliation bill
provides affordability of insurance premiums for low- and middle-income
Americans. We've delayed the impact of the Cadillac tax plan on health
benefits and ensured that changes are financed in a fair manner.
The reform bill signed into law by President Obama is a historic step
for our Nation. These bills provide health security for all families.
The people with no coverage are guaranteed affordable coverage. Those
who currently have insurance will find that coverage improved and more
secure.
I am honored to have helped to get us to this point. I look forward
to working with all of my colleagues and the administration as we
implement this vital new law. Today, we join all modern countries in
providing quality, affordable health care to all. It's a great day for
America.
If I didn't think they'd take down my words, I would want to say
``yippie.''
Madam Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Ways and Means, as well
as staff from the other Committees, leadership offices and support
agencies, logged countless hours to make this legislation a reality. We
owe them our thanks for their efforts to bring us to this day.
Current and former staff from my office and from the Committee on
Ways and Means who worked on this legislation over the past year
include: Janice Mays, John Buckley, Cybele Bjorklund, Debbie Curtis,
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Jennifer Friedman, Geoff Gerhardt, Tiffany
Swygert, Drew Crouch, Marci Harris, Tom Tsang, Drew Dawson, Ruth Brown,
John Barkett, Mark Schwartz, Matthew Beck, Lauren Bloomberg, Brian Cook
and Cameron Branchley.
Because this legislation was really a product of three committees,
I'd like to also recognize the health staff of the Committees on Energy
& Commerce and Education & Labor.
We are truly indebted to the staff of the House Office of Legislative
Counsel--Ed Grossman, Jessica Shapiro, Megan Renfrew, Henry Christrup,
Wade Ballou, Lawrence Johnston and others in the office that I may have
missed--who turn our ideas into legislative language.
Finally, I'd like to recognize and thank the very capable analysts at
the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. Doug
Elmendorf, Phil Ellis, Holly Harvey and the rest of the CBO team, as
well as Tom Barthold and the JCT professional staff, have worked
tirelessly to provide guidance, technical assistance and key analyses
of the costs and effects of the various proposals during consideration
of health reform legislation over the past 15 months.
On behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means, thank you all.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 14\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DREIER. I will reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. This is the last step that we must take to make health
insurance reform a reality in this country for millions of Americans.
For far too long, the Federal Government has allowed insurance
companies to get away with the most abusive practices that prevent
people from getting the medical treatment that they need to be healthy.
Earlier this week, we said ``no more.'' Just as the leaders of the
civil rights movement did before us, this House took the courageous
step to put an end to the blatant discrimination that millions of
Americans suffer from every year at the hands of insurance companies.
We said that we aren't going to let insurance companies put profits
before people anymore. We've said that we're going to put patients and
their doctors back in charge.
I know already I'm hearing from the other side of the aisle, Let's
repeal and replace this bill. What I want to know is what do they want
to repeal first? Closing the doughnut hole in Medicare so that seniors
can afford their medicines? Or stopping insurance companies from
dropping people's health insurance when they get sick and need it most?
Or letting dependents stay on their parents' health care policy until
the age of 26, especially amid a recession when it's hard for people to
even find a job? Or maybe even providing small businesses with tax
credits to help them afford health insurance for their employees.
Madam Speaker, in the last few days I have heard from so many people
here in Washington as well as at home about how important this bill is
and makes a difference in their lives on a daily basis and is going to
be good for them and their families.
We've already taken a great step forward on behalf of the American
people. Republicans shouldn't let us take it back. We can't let that
happen. Let's just keep moving forward. Let's take this last step.
Let's finish the job and pass this bill on behalf of America's
families. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to a very hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the
latest recipient of the Ronald Reagan award, our friend from
Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California for yielding time.
I want to say that it has been said over and over again that
Republicans want to block health care reform. We don't want to block
health care reform. We want commonsense health care reform--not an
overhaul of the system that is a government takeover of health
insurance and health care in our country.
One of the things that people tell me they dislike the most about the
way the Congress operates is when the Democrats put together two bills
that are totally unrelated because one of those bills cannot get passed
on its own. That is what happened in the reconciliation bill, a bill
totally unrelated to health care where the government is going to take
over the student loan program in this country making the Federal
Government the fifth largest bank. That is reprehensible to the people
of this country. We shouldn't have done that.
I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to separate those two.
The bill on student loans should have stood on its own but it can't and
so it got attached to this bill. These are minor technical amendments,
but we were denied major amendments. One hundred nine amendments were
offered in the Rules Committee on Saturday. We had 13 hours of debate.
Some of our amendments were excellent amendments and should have been
accepted.
We want reform. Republicans want to change many things. We want to
take care of preexisting conditions; we want to lower the cost. The
problem with this bill is it doesn't lower costs; it makes them larger.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week history was made with the
enactment into law of the comprehensive access to quality affordable
health insurance for all Americans. Tonight we complete action on this
legislation and cement for all Americans their sense of security that
they will always be able to afford and access health care for
themselves and their families.
Since our passage of the underlying legislation last weekend, the
American people are beginning to fully appreciate the benefits that we
have written into law. When fully implemented, reform will bring 32
million uninsured Americans into the health insurance system, seniors
will see immediate help with the cost of their prescription drugs, and
people who have preexisting medical conditions will not be denied
health insurance or charged more for that insurance. If you lose your
job, you will not lose access to health care.
Our vote tonight improves on what President Obama signed into law on
Tuesday. This includes closing the gap in Medicare prescription drug
coverage, including the rebate this year to eligible seniors; improving
affordability for those with income up to 400 percent of the poverty
level; eliminating the special Medicaid deal for Nebraska; and
increasing matching rates to States for the costs of services to newly
eligible individuals to 100 percent for the first 3 years of coverage
expansions.
Increasing Medicaid payments. The rates will be increased for primary
care physicians so that new Medicaid beneficiaries will have access to
primary
[[Page H2424]]
care and a greater investment into community health centers. These
initiatives are fully funded and paid for.
The reconciliation bill reduces the deficit by more than $1 trillion
over the next two decades.
Health security is a fundamental right for every American, and we
remain faithfully committed to that objective.
I want to use my time here to give special thanks to our health team
on our staff. First of all I want to single out Karen Nelsen, who has
been director of the health staff going back to the time I was chairman
of the Health and Environment Subcommittee and during the time we were
over at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. With her able
assistance, we have Jack Ebeler, Tim Gronniger, Andy Schneider, Purvee
Kempf, Brian Cohen, Ruth Katz, Anne Morris, Tim Westmoreland, Stephen
Cha, Virgil Miller, Katie Campbell, Bobbie Clark, Sarah Dupres and
Naomi Seiler.
I want to just close by saying I wish the Republicans would have
worked with us instead of fighting this bill every step of the way.
They're complaining now they didn't get amendments, but when we called
on them to help us, they said no. They wouldn't work with us on the
stimulus bill, they wouldn't work with us on the energy bill, they
wouldn't work with us on the health bill, but we got it done anyway.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is to be commended as a model of cooperative
federalism. Under the new law, ``a State is free to establish a health
insurance exchange if it so chooses. But if it declines, the Secretary
will establish an exchange.'' This is a strong example of what the
Supreme Court has recognized as an appropriate exercise of federal
power to encourage State participation in important federal programs.
``[W]here Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under
the Commerce Clause, we have recognized Congress' power to offer States
the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards
or having state law pre-empted by federal regulation. Hodel v. Virginia
Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., supra, 452 U.S., at 288, 101
S.Ct., at 2366. See also FERC v. Mississippi, supra, 456 U.S., at 764-
765, 102 S.Ct., at 2140. This arrangement, which has been termed ``a
program of cooperative federalism,'' Hodel, supra, 452 U.S., at 289,
101 S.Ct., at 2366, is replicated in numerous federal statutory
schemes.'' New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 165 (1992).
Individual Responsibility
The individual responsibility requirement requires individuals to pay
a tax on their individual tax filings or provide information
documenting they fulfill the requirements for having essential minimum
coverage over the past year. Congress makes the following findings to
support this requirement, these are in addition to those made on
Sunday, March 21, 2010:
(1) The requirement is necessary to achieve near-universal coverage
while maintaining the current private-public system. It builds upon and
strengthens private employer-based health insurance, which covers
176,000,000 Americans nationwide. In Massachusetts, a similar
requirement has strengthened employer-based coverage: despite the
economic downturn, the number of workers offered employer-based
coverage has actually increased. Sharon K. Long and Karen Stockley,
Massachusetts Health Reform: Employer Coverage from Employees'
Perspective, Health Affairs, October 1, 2009.
(2) Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, if there
were no requirement, many individuals would wait to purchase health
insurance until they needed care. Those individuals would then get the
benefit of the lower premiums that are a direct result of the Act's
reforms, even though those lower premiums result in part from the fact
that other younger and healthier people bought insurance at an earlier
point. Higher-risk individuals would be more likely to enroll in
coverage, increasing premiums and costs to the government. The Urban
Institute, January 2008. The requirement will broaden the private
health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will
spread risk, stabilize the market, and lower premiums. Congressional
Budget Office, An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, November 30, 2009. It is
necessary to create effective private health insurance markets
throughout the country in which improved health insurance products that
are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of pre-existing
conditions can be sold.
(3) Administrative costs for private health insurance, which were
$90,000,000,000 in 2006, are 26 to 30 percent of premiums in the
current individual and small group markets. Congressional Budget
Office, December 2008. The requirement is necessary to create effective
private health insurance markets throughout the country that do not
require underwriting, eliminating its associated administrative costs.
By significantly increasing health insurance coverage and the size of
purchasing pools, which will increase economies of scale, the
requirement, together with the other provisions of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, will significantly reduce
administrative costs and lower health insurance premiums.
(4) Health insurance and health care services are a substantial part
of the national economy. National health spending is projected to
increase from $2,500,000,000,000, or 17.6 percent of the economy, in
2009 to $4,700,000,000,000 in 2019. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Expenditure
Projections, 2008-2018. Private health insurance spending is projected
to be $854,000,000,000 in 2009, and pays for medical supplies, drugs,
and equipment that are shipped in interstate commerce. Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary. Since most health
insurance is sold by national or regional health insurance companies,
health insurance is sold in interstate commerce and claims payments
flow through interstate commerce.
(5) The requirement, together with the other provisions of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will add more than
30,000,000 consumers to the health insurance market. Congressional
Budget Office, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
Incorporating the Manager's Amendment, December 19, 2009. In doing so,
it will increase the demand for, and the supply of, health care
services. According to one estimate, the use of health care by the
currently uninsured could increase by 25 to 60 percent. Congressional
Budget Office, December 2008.
(6) Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the
Public Health Service Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, the Federal Government has a significant role in regulating
health insurance. The requirement is an essential part of this larger
regulation of economic activity, and the absence of the requirement
would undercut Federal regulation of the health insurance market.
(7) Payments collected from individuals who fail to maintain minimum
essential coverage will contribute revenue that will help the Federal
government finance a reformed health insurance system that ensures the
availability of health insurance to all Americans.
The preceding 7 points cite numerous studies and papers which
illustrate the extensive evidence that the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, as amended by Section 1002 of the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act, substantially affects interstate
commerce. These citations are included as hyperlinks or in their
written entirety for the record.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it's nice to see you, but I should say for
the record I did enjoy seeing Ms. Edwards in the chair more than I am
enjoying seeing you here. But it's always good to see you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. With that, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our
very hardworking colleague from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I served 14 years on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and was proud of the wastewater treatment
plants that we were able to install in my district. But I have to tell
you on a busy Friday night, I saw less sewage go through those
facilities than I've heard here this evening.
The President invited people down to this big powwow down at Blair
House. It reminded me of my favorite movie, ``Braveheart,'' where the
king has all the Scottish nobles down and gonna talk peace, and winds
up hanging them all in the barn. The takeaway from that meeting,
however, was the President said, These are the things that I agree with
you Republicans on.
So it really surprises me to hear my friend from California say that
the Republicans didn't want to work together.
One of the things the President said he thought was horrendous were
the special deals in this bill. I've heard my friends proudly talk
about Florida and Nebraska. Unless I am misunderstanding it,
Connecticut, still a hundred million dollars for a hospital; Montana
miners are treated differently than everybody else; North Dakota
frontier counties get an enhanced physician payment; Massachusetts and
Vermont get higher Medicaid reimbursement rates; and Nebraska and
[[Page H2425]]
Michigan--I thought the health care insurance companies were evil
around here--they don't have to pay the tax. And the pharmaceutical
companies, I thought they were bad, but if they're in New Jersey, they
get a billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take the gentleman from California at his
word. I want to work together, and I would like to offer an amendment
to this bill.
So I would ask the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee if
she would yield to me for the purposes of a unanimous consent request
so that I could offer an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would ask the gentlelady from New York, would you
yield to me for the purposes of a unanimous consent request so I could
amend this bill simply by keeping the President's word to remove these
special deals.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I cannot yield for that purpose.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. You can't or you won't? Of course you can.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I cannot.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. You will not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the reconciliation bill before us does more than advance
the cause of health care. It makes a landmark investment in education,
one that will make college more affordable for millions of students,
and all without adding a dime to the deficit.
Under this bill, Federal student loans will now be made through the
Direct Loan Program. That means the elimination of $61 billion in bank
subsidies over the next 10 years. This bill then takes that $61 billion
and reinvests $36 billion out of it in Pell Grants, raising the value
of Pell Grants and making college a reality, a possibility, for more
than 8 million students.
The bill takes other steps to improve access to college and helps
students graduate from college. For example, it includes more than $2
billion for historically black colleges and universities, and it
invests $2 billion in community colleges which are increasingly
important in our economy as well as in our educational system because
our economy more and more demands skilled and educated workers.
Finally, it helps students after they graduate by lowering the amount
they will have to repay.
As we switch to making student loans through the less costly Direct
Loan Program, I am pleased to see that this bill doesn't try to fix
what ain't broke. It leaves the current Perkins Loan Program by which
colleges provide low-interest loans from a revolving fund to low-income
students, and it makes it easier for colleges to pursue public service
by canceling loans, the debt incrementally, if they're employed in
public service.
Mr. Speaker, a productive economy demands an educated workforce, and
this reconciliation bill moves us towards that goal at no additional
cost to the American taxpayer and no impact on the deficit. It's a win-
win solution.
I urge support for this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton), the hardworking
ranking minority member on the Committee of Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think it's time for us to take a deep breath,
take a timeout and go home and listen, Mr. Speaker. So I asked the
Rules Committee this evening to not move this package tonight, but let
us go home for the next 2 weeks and then come back week after next or
week after 2 weeks and actually fix what needs to be fixed.
I listened when my chairman, Mr. Waxman of California, talked about
the reconciliation package before us fixes the Nebraska problem. Well,
the way they fix it, Mr. Speaker, is by giving every other State the
same sweet deal they gave to Nebraska but only for 4 years.
{time} 1930
After 2014, that deal goes away for Nebraska and every other State. I
don't think that's much of a fix.
No one on the majority side, Mr. Speaker, has talked about the
Medicaid trap. When this fully kicks in in 2014, everybody that's
eligible for Medicaid in the country, that is below 133 percent of
poverty, has to be in Medicaid and that's their only choice. They
cannot be in a private sector plan. And obviously we all know they
don't have the option of not taking the coverage.
Some of us think that that may be unconstitutional. Even if it's not
unconstitutional, I don't think it's fair to our low-income Americans
to say that the only health insurance plan you can have is Medicaid.
We have talked about the preexisting conditions, Mr. Speaker. This
bill does require that preexisting conditions be covered. That's a good
thing, not a bad thing. But it's not funded. They have only got $5
billion in this bill for 4 years. That's a little over a billion
dollars a year. You can't cover 8 to 10 million Americans that have
preexisting conditions and no insurance today for $1.25 billion a year.
I call that the preexisting short sheet.
And, finally, this reconciliation package doesn't do anything to
prevent the requirement in the original Senate bill that's now the law
that elective funding of abortion be offered in at least one plan in
each State. I really believe if there was an up-or-down vote on that
again in this body, that that would be voted down.
Please vote against this reconciliation package rule. Let us go home
and listen to our constituents.
``Unorthodox Process'': My friend from California Mr. Dreier coined
the process and procedure that has been forced upon as ``at best,
unorthodox.'' But it doesn't have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. There is
no deadline that says we need to push this through tonight. Let's do it
right.
Hoping for similar luck to have I had last Saturday when I asked that
Rules drop the ``deem and pass'' scheme and they did, I asked this
afternoon in the Rules Committee for an extension on this
reconciliation vote until after the two-week recess. We could talk to
our constituents, hear their thoughts. We could look for more issues
that will need fixing and then fix them. There is no deadline that says
we need to push this through tonight. Let's do it right.
The new version of the reconciliation package that we vote on today
reflects two relatively minor changes made by the Senate to education
program provisions in the bill. We had to strike these provisions
because they violated the Byrd Rule that governs budget reconciliation
bills in the Senate. But that's the point, Mr. Speaker. We rushed,
rushed, rushed and made mistakes. I shudder at the thought of the
additional mistakes we'll need to fix as we finally have time to digest
this massive law.
My Democrat colleagues insist that the Senate bill is law, signed by
the President, and that there should be no more debate on the policy.
But just because it received an entirely partisan majority, and just
because it was signed by the President, doesn't mean it's good law.
This was a partisan process, a partisan bill, with bipartisan
opposition.
This Act increases the penalty on individuals who fail to comply with
the new requirement to maintain Washington-bureaucrat-approved
insurance coverage:
Modifies the individual mandate penalty in three ways: (1) exempts
income below the filing threshold from the calculation of the penalty,
(2) lowers the flat dollar penalty from $495 to $325 in 2015, and from
$750 to $695 in 2016, and (3) for individuals paying a penalty based on
family income, changes the penalty from 0.5% to 1.0% of family income
in 2014, from 1.0% to 2.0% of family income in 2015, and from 2.0% to
2.5% of family income for 2016 and later years.
This Act increases the penalty on employers who fail to comply with
the new requirement to buy their employees Washington-bureaucrat-
approved insurance coverage:
Increases the annual per-employer penalty from $750 per employee to
$2,000 per employee, and subtracts 30 full-time employees from the
penalty calculation (e.g., a firm with 100 employees would have to pay
the $2,000 annual penalty on 70 employees; (100 - 30) x $2,000 =
$140,000 total annual penalty).
This Act adds even more federal-mandates on all insurance plans:
Makes health insurance more expensive by requiring grandfathered
health insurance plans--those in existence today--to (1) eliminate
lifetime limits on benefits; (2) restrict annual limits on benefits
within six months of enactment; and (3) cover certain married and
unmarried adult ``children'' up to age 26. Group
[[Page H2426]]
plans may no longer exclude coverage for a pre-existing condition for
any child under 19.
This Act traps 90 million people into Medicaid, a broken welfare
program that half of doctors refuse to accept:
Increases federal outlays on the Medicaid program by $434 billion
during 2010-2019, $48 billion more than the enacted bill. The bill
eliminates the ``Cornhusker Kickback,'' (permanent 100% federal
financing for Nebraska's newly eligible Medicaid populations) but it
still includes the ``Louisiana Purchase'' (increased federal funding
for the State of Louisiana) and other special deals for certain states.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, it has now been just 2 days
since President Obama signed historic health care legislation into law,
and it is already evident that the massive effort to frighten and
mislead the American people is losing steam. Just since the bill
passed, new polls indicate Americans see through the scare tactics and
doomsday rhetoric and are growing in their enthusiasm about health care
reform.
Had reform been the economic disaster it was portrayed to be, why
then did the stock market climb nearly 200 points in the day since the
law was enacted? In a town hall meeting I held on Monday, it was
evident that my constituents are rejecting the misinformation campaigns
that have surrounded our efforts for reform and are instead focusing on
what the bill will do for them both in the short term and the long
term.
The bill before us today is a huge step towards ensuring that
Americans who get sick or injured can focus on their recovery rather
than worrying about their coverage. Because of this legislation, my
constituents are assured that they are in control of their own health
care, not a government agency or a faceless insurance agency
representative.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Senate for acting so quickly on this vital
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
our hardworking colleague from Indianapolis, Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My wife's a doctor, and she and a lot of her colleagues have been
talking, and they have seen these statistics that show that almost half
of the doctors say they will leave their practices if this bill becomes
law. Now let's just say that only 10 percent of that is accurate. That
would be 5 percent of the doctors.
And with 32 million people that you are adding to the rolls, how in
the world can you say that you are going to save a trillion dollars
over the next couple of decades? I mean, come on, nobody in America is
going to believe that. You are adding 32 million people, you are going
to have fewer doctors, and we are already short on doctors, and the
cost is going to go down, and you are going to save money, and you are
going to save a trillion dollars. Nobody in America believes it.
And Medicaid, in the State of Indiana, we are going to pick up
500,000 new people on Medicaid, and you are going to shift the burden
to Indiana for 500,000 people? It's going to cost an arm and a leg. We
are going to have to raise taxes there. You are going to have to end up
raising a lot of taxes here. There is no question about it. You can't
do what you say you are going to do, and the American people know it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it has been 2 days since President Obama
signed this bill into law. And after all the overheated, over-the-top
rhetoric about government takeover, you would expect that the health
insurance industry would have collapsed in the wake of that act.
Well, what have we seen from the stock market in the last few days?
Aetna's stock is up, CIGNA's stock is up, United Health Care stock is
flat. The fact of the matter is is what we have done is tried to
reshape a private health insurance market so that people will have a
coherent, understandable benefit that has a minimum level of consumer
protection in a provision to make it affordable for working Americans,
which will be a healthy, prosperous future for our health insurance
industry, which the minority side indicates that that is something that
they care about.
All they have to do is look at their own benefits, their own
purchasing exchange, which, as Members of Congress, they participate
in, with a choice of private health insurance plans, comprehensive
benefits, no rescissions, no lifetime limits, no annual limits. That's
what we are giving to the American people, what Members of Congress
have. It's time to move forward and create an end to the days of have
and have not.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Athens, Georgia (Mr. Broun), another one of our very able medical
doctors.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This bill, as well as the underlying bill is a farce, just two big
farces. Let me tell you a couple of things that they won't do and some
things that they will do.
The first thing that it will do is it's going to drive millions of
people out of work. Also, besides that, it's going to drive many
doctors out of business, as Mr. Burton was just talking about. When
people have that free health care insurance card issued by the Federal
Government in their pocket, it's going to be about as worthless as the
Confederate dollar was after the Civil War because you are not going to
find any doctors who are going to be willing to take the government
insurance card.
So access is going to be worse. It's going to be worse for the people
who can least afford it to be, and that's the poor people in this
country as well as senior citizens.
We need to repeal this bill. We need to stop this reconciliation
process farce tonight. We need to repeal ObamaCare, and we need to
replace it with policy that will create more access, create jobs, which
will lower the cost of health care and not be a government takeover of
the health care system.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, critics are still screaming at the top of their lungs
that this health reform is tyranny, an end to private hospitals and
doctors, as we just heard, a government takeover of health care. These
attacks are drowning out the truth, and I would like to set the record
straight.
Nothing in this law, not even that dreaded Washington bureaucrat,
will come between you and your doctor. The law does keep insurance
company bureaucrats from denying you care. Secondly, we are actually
increasing access to private health insurance. In return for those
millions of new customers, however, insurance companies must end
abusive practices like dropping you when you get sick.
Finally, since this bill has been passed, not one hospital or
doctor's office has been taken over by the government, and I doubt that
one will. There is nothing to suggest that that will happen. That is
overblown rhetoric, deceptive and wrong. It is time to start telling
the truth and stop spreading fear. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule and pass the final piece of health reform.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our friend from Goddard,
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should be withdrawn. The Senate bill is now
law, and it's the greatest intrusion into our private lives that we
have seen under this Congress. It's going to hurt our economy, it's
going to cost us jobs. Plus, there are special provisions within the
bill that's been signed into law that should have been corrected in the
reconciliation bill, but this rule fails to address those corrections
that need to be taken.
The Louisiana purchase is still law today. It should have been
corrected. The University of Connecticut hospital that received the
earmark should have been corrected by this underlying legislation. The
Hawaiian disproportionate share hospital program is exempt from cuts.
Other States aren't.
Tennessee is also exempt from the DSH. The frontier funding in
counties in some rural areas is exempt and
[[Page H2427]]
other rural areas are not. Montana received special benefits for
asbestos, those workers who were exposed to asbestos. What about the
other 49 States?
Connecticut and Michigan have got a handful of hospitals that are
going to get higher Medicare payments because of the legislation, and
this rule fails to address it and change the underlying bill so that we
can correct these improper measures.
So I would request that we withdraw the rule and get a proper bill
before us.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers
she has remaining?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes, I have three.
Mr. DREIER. We don't have that many.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying legislation on health and higher education. I thank my
colleagues in the Senate for their courage in passing this historic
legislation this afternoon by making the single largest investment in
financial aid in history.
Our Nation is taking bold steps to ensure accessibility and
affordability in higher education for years to come and lead us to
prosperity, more affordable student loans, and investments of $36
billion in Pell Grants, scholarships which will help students and
families pay for college. I am proud that the investments of $2 billion
in community colleges and $2.55 billion in minority-serving
institutions will move us closer to building a world-class higher
education system for all students.
Over the next 10 years, it is estimated that Texas will receive at
least $2.4 billion in Pell Grants and a total of at least $2.8 billion
from the higher education programs funded in this reconciliation
package.
HBCUs and HSIs such as the University of Texas-Pan American, South
Texas College, and Texas Southern University will greatly benefit from
this legislation.
This Federal funding will prepare a new generation of minority
scientists, mathematicians, and innovators in Texas and across our
Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my very
good friend, another medical doctor who is with us here, the gentleman
from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
You know, it's ironic, isn't it? Two days ago a bill was signed that
is going to fundamentally change the way health care is delivered in
this country for the next three generations, and 48 hours later we are
back on the floor of this House trying to fix the problems in this bill
because, Mr. Speaker, we all know when the Senate passed this bill
Christmas Eve, they didn't intend for this bill to become law. This was
never the vehicle that was intended to be passed through this House.
This was a bill that was passed to get the Senate out of town before
a snowstorm on Christmas Eve. They always planned to come back and fix
it in conference, but because of an election in Massachusetts those
plans went by the wayside.
The Speaker of the House said in January, I don't have a hundred
Members who will vote for this bill and yet, somehow, the line being
the shortest distance between two points, we ended up passing this bill
on Sunday night when we hoped, we hoped the American people were not
looking at us.
But we did pass it, and now we have got to come back tonight and fix
the problems. We will be back next week. We will be back the week after
that. This bill is going to require significant fixes, probably for the
remainder of my lifetime on this Earth. This was probably the worst
product we could have put out there for the American people.
And what about the insurance companies, their stock prices going up?
Of course they went up. They got everything they wanted. What did they
want when this year started? They wanted an individual mandate and no
public option.
Guess what, ladies and gentlemen, that's exactly what they got. Who
is standing on the side of the insurance companies? Who is standing on
the side of the people? I think you have got that wrong.
What about PhRMA? They got everything they want. Yeah, you can close
the doughnut hole but you have got to buy brand-name drugs, and, oh,
yeah, you can't import drugs from overseas.
{time} 1945
They got exactly what they want and their stock prices have gone up
this week. Let's not kid ourselves about who is fooling who here.
I have asked for the White House to give me information on these
special deals that were cut down at the White House, but we can't get
that information. We get copies of press releases; we get copies of Web
pages. The White House has no interest in being transparent in this
process because they have so much to hide about this bill. This is a
bad bill for America, it's a bad bill for medicine, it's a bad bill for
patients. We should do the right thing, come back and try to fix these
problems in a real way.
And don't tell me Republicans didn't try, weren't there to help. I
reached out my hand to the transition team and got it slapped. I
reached out my hand to my committee chairman and got it slapped. We
were there and ready to work, but you weren't interested in working
with us.
What was the bipartisan nature of this bill? We'll throw it over the
transom on July 15. Read it quick, because we've got a markup in full
committee the next day.
This bill was never intended to pass this House. The Senate passed
this bill as a last-ditch effort on Christmas Eve to get out of town.
And what have we done? What have we done? We delivered this bill as the
law of the land to the American people, and they are correctly outraged
by what they see.
You know, you had some experience back in 1988 or 1989; you passed a
very bad catastrophic care bill. Seniors across this country said this
will not stand. The former chairman of the Ways and Means got run out
of his town hall. And we had to repeal that bill. I think we should
follow that same trajectory here.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have good news, and I thank
the gentlewoman from New York. While my colleagues are talking about
process, which has been approved by our Parliamentarians, and while
profanity reigns on our phones, we are saving lives: 45,000 who have
died every year because they have not had insurance.
No doctors' offices have closed. The hospitals are open. And the
attorney generals are filing frivolous lawsuits, because if they would
look at what the bill stands for and the present bill, they will know
that the seniors' doughnut hole will be closed, that the special deals
have been taken out, that community health centers that will allow you
to come out of your house, walk down the street, and go to a
physician's office is expanded by $11 billion.
They will understand that Medicaid has been expanded and right now
individuals, 133 percent or 400 percent of poverty, can actually go and
see a doctor. Maybe the mother who has insurance that only covers the
emergency rooms can now get her children preventative care. Vote for
this reconciliation bill to save lives.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. May I inquire of the distinguished Chair of the Committee
on Rules how many speakers she has remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more speaker.
Mr. DREIER. And then you plan to close?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. As soon as you have.
Mr. DREIER. So then no more speakers other than your close. Is that
it?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more speaker, then I hope that you will
close and then I will close.
[[Page H2428]]
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the Speaker. I thank the gentlelady.
The American people very clearly want bipartisanship, but equally
clearly they don't want paralysis. They have had 40 years of talk about
solving this problem, and now they want it solved.
At the Blair House summit, the minority said it would be a good idea
to have new ways to cut back on fraud and abuse in Medicare, so it's in
the law the President signed on Monday and in this underlying bill as
well.
The minority said that they would like a way for small businesses to
pool together and make it easier to buy health insurance, so it's in
the law the President signed on Tuesday and it's in the bill tonight.
The minority said that they would like to find a way that people
could buy insurance across State lines, so the bill tonight says that
the exchanges that are created can be regional across State lines so
people can buy and sell that way.
The minority said they would like to see a way to cut back on
nuisance lawsuits, so it's in the bill the President signed on Tuesday.
There are many good ideas from both sides in this bill and on the law
signed on Tuesday, but the best idea is to finally act. After 40 years
of promises, 40 years of politics, 40 years of paralysis, 40 years of
inaction, isn't it time that people can't get turned away because they
have preexisting conditions? Isn't it time that hardworking Americans
can afford health insurance? Isn't it time that seniors can finally get
the prescription drug coverage?
The question tonight is, Whose time is it? It's time for the working
families and seniors of America. It is time to end the paralysis, end
the politics and vote ``yes.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I did misspeak. Mr. Rangel has come in, and I would
like to give him 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me yield 1 minute to Mr. Rangel, the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. And on this historic
occasion, I guess those of us who have served so long in the Congress
hope and prayed that this day, this night will come. And, of course, a
lot of us are concerned how we will be remembered. When you reach my
age, that seems to be a little more important.
And on this bill, when you just talk about health care and health
reform, it seems to me that now is an opportunity even for those who
fought this concept over the years and fought all the concepts such as
Medicare and Social Security, to think about how they would like to be
remembered. And I hope that that memory would be that even though the
bill was not as perfect as they would want it to be, that they did vote
for health reform, because that means Congresses that follow us, the
same way we followed those that created Social Security, those that
created Medicare, will have the opportunity to improve upon it.
So we are not saying that this is the best legislation ever. We are
saying this is the best and only opportunity that we have now.
So I do hope that when the final vote is taken, that we will have it
as a bipartisan vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, now may I inquire of the distinguished Chair
of the Committee on Rules if she has three or four more speakers? I
don't know, Mr. Speaker, if the distinguished Chair on the Committee on
Rules has anymore speakers.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have no further speakers.
Mr. DREIER. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to close the debate as I had
begun, by denouncing the charges and smears that we have seen over the
past several weeks. Tragically, those of us who serve as Members of
Congress for years have dealt with that. It is unacceptable and
outrageous, and we all join together in decrying the things that we
have seen.
Mr. Speaker, there is a high level of frustration over the process
through which we have gone, and there is an understandable outrage from
people all across this country for the final work product that we have.
The process has been, at very best--I am trying to be generous--
unorthodox. The notion of utilizing reconciliation, which is designed
to reconcile budget discrepancies, for this, is not the right thing to
do. And it has never, ever, since passage of the 1974 Budget
Entitlement Act, been used for such a monumental piece of legislation.
We have tried desperately to work in a bipartisan way, and everyone
talks about this. But, Mr. Speaker, we have reached out, as Mr. Burgess
said, time and time again, and we have been rebuffed. The only thing
bipartisan about this legislation and the vote that we will see
tonight, Mr. Speaker, is not the support for it but the opposition to
it.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a 70-seat
majority, and yet many of their Members will be joining us, as they did
last Sunday night, in opposing this. Why? Because they know that this
is badly flawed legislation. It's badly flawed legislation, because, as
we listened to so many medical doctors point out, we are told that you
can choose your own doctor. We constantly hear that refrain from the
President and others. But the question is, With the decrease in the
numbers of doctors out there, will your doctor choose you?
And then, Mr. Speaker, we get to the question of, Will we or will we
not be able to pay for this? Well, $1 trillion, 569.2 billion in tax
increases, and tremendous uncertainty is not going to adequately
address the challenges that we have.
We all want to ensure that no one is denied access to health care
because of preexisting conditions. We can do that in a bipartisan way.
But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this bill doesn't do that.
There are people out there who today believe that they will not be
denied access to insurance because of preexisting conditions. But,
guess what? Because this bill was so poorly put together, right now
they are denied access. We want to make sure, and we are happy to work
in a bipartisan way, to address that concern.
As we look at the fact that we are back here tonight because of those
two amendments that were problems in the Senate, the fact that we
already have announced problems with the goal of ensuring that everyone
has access, is not denied access because of preexisting conditions, and
when we look at the challenges that have been put forward time and time
again, we simply ask our colleagues: When we work to clean this up, Mr.
Speaker, I hope very much we will be able to work in a bipartisan way.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 30
seconds.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind us that we have been
all this time debating about three lines in the bill. If you want to
take the nastiness out of the Senate bill, this is the bill you have to
vote for.
I ask a ``yes'' vote from all my colleagues on both the previous
question and on the rule.
I move the previous question and the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. 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 225,
nays 199, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 193]
YEAS--225
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
[[Page H2429]]
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
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
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)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
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--199
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
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
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
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
Skelton
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--5
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Davis (AL)
Reichert
Space
{time} 2023
Mr. ALTMIRE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, during the recorded vote on H. Res. 1255, a
resolution providing for the consideration of Senate amendments to the
bill (H.R. 4872), I attempted to cast a vote in opposition. Due to a
malfunction of my voting card, my vote was not recorded. I wish to
express that my intention was to vote in opposition to the resolution.
____________________