[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 8 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H361-H373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INSTRUCTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO REPORT LEGISLATION REPLACING THE JOB-
KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 26, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 9) instructing certain committees to report
legislation replacing the job-killing health care law, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 9
Resolved, That the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and
Means, shall each report to the House legislation proposing
changes to existing law within each committee's jurisdiction
with provisions that--
(1) foster economic growth and private sector job creation
by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations;
(2) lower health care premiums through increased
competition and choice;
(3) preserve a patient's ability to keep his or her health
plan if he or she likes it;
(4) provide people with pre-existing conditions access to
affordable health coverage;
(5) reform the medical liability system to reduce
unnecessary and wasteful health care spending;
(6) increase the number of insured Americans;
(7) protect the doctor-patient relationship;
(8) provide the States greater flexibility to administer
Medicaid programs;
(9) expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility
for health care coverage and costs;
(10) prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide
conscience protections for health care providers;
(11) eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful
spending; or,
(12) do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement
programs or increase the tax burden on Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution
26, the resolution is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Rules or their designees. The amendment printed in part B of House
Report 112-2, if offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) or
his designee, shall be considered read, and shall be separately
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today we begin the process of implementing health care
reform. I underscore that. Implementing health care reform is what we
begin today.
This resolution, H. Res. 9, initiates the second step of a two-part
process, which, as we all know with the 245-189 vote last night, saw
repeal of the health care bill.
Having taken that action to wipe the slate clean, we're now moving on
to the far more challenging task of crafting real solutions for the
American people to ensure that we can drive down the costs of health
insurance and health care.
This resolution instructs the four committees of jurisdiction to
draft legislation that brings about meaningful health care reforms.
Furthermore, this resolution lays out 12 clear guidelines that define
what real reform is. Some of these guidelines are simply commonsense
principles, such as the need for reform that doesn't hurt job creation
or the need to eliminate duplicative wasteful spending.
But if there is one overarching principle for true reform, it's that
we cannot pick winners and losers. Real reform must be accessible to
every American.
If a family is forced to give up a health plan that is working for
them, can we call that reform? If a small business must lay off
employees to comply with new mandates, can we call that reform? If a
doctor is forced to close her family practice because the cost of
malpractice insurance is prohibitive, can we call that reform? If
government bureaucrats make decisions that should be left to doctors
and patients, can we call that reform, Madam Speaker? Obviously not.
Our goal is to increase access to quality health care for every
single American, including those with preexisting conditions. H. Res.
9, that we're going to be considering here today, puts us on the path
to do just that.
As I said at the outset, this is a tremendous challenge. Achieving
the goal of meaningful health care reform, which we all share, will
demand an open and collaborative process. The four committees of
jurisdiction have a great deal of work ahead of them. This is a process
in which we all must contribute--Democrats and Republicans alike.
We have good ideas that are coming from both sides of the aisle, and
I believe that they will be considered through this deliberative
process. These ideas must be shared, analyzed, and debated. If we all
participate in this open and transparent process, I believe that we can
address the health care challenges that we face in an effective and
meaningful way.
Ultimately, we all hope to arrive at the same place. We all share the
same goal, that is, access to quality care for all. That's what House
Republicans want to achieve, and that's what my Democratic colleagues
want to achieve as well. And that's what President Obama wants to
achieve. We all have our own views on how we get there.
{time} 0920
In this body alone we have 435 views on the best way to reform our
health care system. We owe the American people nothing short of a
rigorous and thorough debate. But if we conduct that debate in good
faith, Madam Speaker, grounded in the recognition that we all hope to
achieve the same outcome, I believe that we, in a bipartisan way,
Democrats and Republicans together, can come up with real solutions.
Now, we saw the day before yesterday that the President said that he
is willing and eager to work with Republicans on the issue of health
care. That's a sentiment that I, and I know my colleagues on this side
of the aisle, share wholeheartedly. This resolution, H. Res. 9, puts us
on a path towards doing just that. It will begin this critically
important process.
So I hope very much that we will have strong, bipartisan support for
this resolution. I will say that we have an amendment that will be
coming forward, a Democratic amendment that the Rules Committee has
made in
[[Page H362]]
order, I am happy to say, that will add to that list that our friend
Mr. Matheson has provided. And I will also say that contrary to the
argument that has been put out there that we don't have solutions,
there is a wide range of proposals that exist. And we look forward to
having this committee process vigorously pursue just that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this resolution
and very strong opposition to the very closed process in which we are
discussing this resolution. Once again, I am deeply disappointed that
instead of working to create jobs and strengthen the economy, the new
Republican majority continues to focus on reopening old wounds and
fighting old battles. The resolution before us today is allegedly the
replace component of the Republicans' repeal and replace strategy. I
say allegedly, Madam Speaker, because this resolution is not a serious
legislative effort. It is a series of talking points. It is a press
release.
What this resolution does is ask the committees of jurisdiction to
hopefully, maybe someday, if they would be so kind, to report
legislation to the House that meets certain vague goals. Instead of
repeal and replace, this is repeal and relax. Trust the Republicans to
do the right thing. No thank you, Madam Speaker.
Yesterday, this House voted, without a single hearing or markup,
without a single amendment, to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its
entirety. The Members who voted for that bill voted to return to the
days when insurance companies could discriminate against people based
upon preexisting conditions. They voted to eliminate the ban on annual
and lifetime limits on care. They voted to eliminate the ability for
young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans up to the age of
26. They voted to reopen the doughnut hole in Medicare. Basically, they
voted for a tax increase on senior citizens who need prescription
drugs. They voted to eliminate tax credits for small businesses who
want to do the right thing and provide health insurance for their
workers. All of that, Madam Speaker, would have the force of law. All
of that was done with real legislative language. But not the resolution
before us today.
Instead of real language that would provide real benefits to real
Americans, this resolution is simply a collection of empty promises.
And the ironic thing is that most of the provisions included in the
resolution were actually addressed in the Affordable Care Act.
According to this resolution, we should, quote, ``lower health care
premiums through increased competition and choice.'' Well, the
Affordable Care Act already does that. Of course, many of us argued for
a public option, which would have lowered premiums even further with
increased competition and choice, but my Republican friends didn't want
to have anything to do with that.
The resolution before us today says we should ``preserve a patient's
ability to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it.'' Well,
the Affordable Care Act already does that. Increase the number of
insured Americans? Well, we did that by 30 million people. Protect the
doctor-patient relationship? We did that. And so on and so on.
On the critical issue of people with preexisting conditions, however,
it's interesting to see the language that my Republican friends use in
this press release that they call a resolution. They say they support,
and I quote, ``provide people with preexisting conditions access to
affordable health coverage.'' Well, that sounds nice. But what we did
in the Affordable Care Act was to actually ban insurance companies from
discriminating against those people. I will be very interested to see
how my Republican friends handle that critical issue and how much
influence the big insurance lobby has around here now that they're in
charge. And the doughnut hole? The resolution is absolutely silent on
the doughnut hole.
Madam Speaker, health care is of vital importance to every single
American. It is a big deal. And to treat health insurance reform as
just another opportunity for happy talk and wishful thinking is not the
way to do business in the people's House.
I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I do so to say to my friend that I appreciate his very conciliatory
remarks. Everyone has acknowledged that this measure is flawed. The
President said in his press conference right after the election it was
flawed. We have had the courts already throw the mandate out. We need
to deal with the problem even before this measure is being implemented.
So it seems to me to be absolutely essential that we proceed with this
work.
With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member from
our Rules Committee, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr.
Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, I have been a Member of this body for 2 weeks and 2
days, and I could not be prouder to be on the House floor today in
support of the chairman's resolution. For the entire last year in my
district we have been focused on one thing and one thing only, since
March of 2010, and that is the repeal of the President's health care
bill.
You know, before March of 2010 my district cared about health care
reform. We talked about tort reform, we talked about putting patients
back in charge of decisions. We talked about ending the tax preference
that businesses get so that we can purchase insurance on our own and
own those policies as we do our other insurance policies. But the
moment this bill was signed into law, the moment the President's bill
was signed into law that discussion stopped and the repeal discussion
began. And with the repeal yesterday, we now begin anew the discussion
of how properly to reform the system. And I am anxious to have that
discussion.
You know, we learned a lot in our time in the minority. One of those
things we learned is that bringing simple, straightforward resolutions
to the floor is better for the process. It's better for the American
people. The Speaker has made that commitment. We continue that
commitment today with these instructions to go back to the drawing
board and bring things forward one at a time.
Now, I sat through 10 hours of hearings in the Rules Committee, where
folks came forward and said go ahead and repeal the bill, but save this
one provision. Let's have this one provision stay. Go ahead and repeal
the bill, but keep this other one provision. We now have that
opportunity. We have now repealed the bill here in the House, and we
have the opportunity to bring those provisions forward one by one.
And I will tell you what, I am not going to like all those
provisions. And some of those provisions are going to pass the House.
And that's the way it ought to be. You shouldn't have a one-size-fits-
all, take-it-or-leave-it kind of system. You ought to be able to have
that discussion on both sides of the aisle. And I have no doubt that
provisions are going to come forth from our committees that I am going
to vote ``no'' on, but my colleagues on the left and on the right are
both going to vote ``yes'' on, and it's going to pass. And that's the
way the process ought to be, one provision at a time, one idea at a
time. Tort reform, insurance reform, putting patients back in charge of
those decisions, putting doctors back in charge of those relationships.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I think our objection is not with the idea of having a
serious debate on these issues. There are areas where we can come
together and hopefully make the bill even better. Our objection is the
fact that my friends on the other side voted to repeal everything,
voted to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against
people with preexisting conditions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
They voted to take away the benefit from senior citizens that we put
in there to help try to close the doughnut hole in the prescription
drug bill. And what do they do in terms of replacing it? They come not
with an alternative;
[[Page H363]]
they come with a press release. That's not serious legislating. That's
politics as usual.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am just amazed. I listened to the
gentleman from Georgia who just spoke, and he said that in his district
all of the focus is on health care and health care repeal. Well, I
don't know, when I go home all I hear in my district is jobs and the
economy. People are concerned about the economy. They want us to create
jobs, they want us to focus mostly on that issue, not on repeal of
health care.
{time} 0930
The other problem I have with the gentleman from Georgia's comments
is he seems to think that because the House passed this repeal
yesterday that the health reform is repealed. Well, let me tell
everyone it's not, and this is just a ruse. This bill, this health
reform wasn't repealed. The Senate isn't even going to take it up. The
President has said that he would never sign a repeal bill.
So the Republicans are just wasting their time, rather than focusing
on what we should be focusing on, the jobs and the economy. They keep
talking about this false repeal that is never going to happen.
Now, I also wanted to say something about what Mr. Dreier said
before. He talked about increasing access, increased choices. That's
not what goes on if this bill was ever repealed. The choice is now for
people who have preexisting conditions, they can't get insurance. They
have to pay more if they try to get it, or the kids that are on the
policies that would be taken off if we had the repeal, or the people
that would again face lifetime caps.
You don't have choices under the old system because you were denied
care through the insurance companies' discrimination. The only way you
have choices and access is under the health reform that this House and
this country have put into law where you are guaranteed you get
insurance, even if you have a preexisting condition. You don't have to
worry about lifetime caps. You can put your kids on the policies.
So don't talk to me about choices and access. People don't have
choices and access with those discriminatory policies that would be put
back in place by the insurance companies. As they continue to raise
premiums, more and more people will not have access to health care and
have access to health insurance. The only way you have access and
choices is if we keep the health reform in place.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very,
very good friend and California colleague, the dean of our delegation,
Mr. Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I think the entire public knows that America has had
in place for a long time one of the finest health care delivery systems
in the world. It's the envy of many.
That is not to say that it's perfect. That's not to say that we don't
have major challenges like preexisting conditions and like questions of
portability. But, indeed, if the people who put in place a health care
plan last year had had their way, they absolutely would have taken the
next step; that is, to have a centralized, government-run health care
system. That's the pattern of their future.
At this moment, Great Britain, which had such a thing in place for
some time, is attempting to back off of their system and have more
relationships between physicians and their patients. Indeed, they are
doing that because their system does not work.
It's very important that we not allow the former majority to take
their next step; that is, to have government-run health care. With
that, yesterday, we passed a repeal that will take us to conference
with the Senate, and, in turn, today we are beginning the process of
reexamining where we have been to make certain that we put in place
health care that is positive for all Americans, not health care that's
run by the IRS.
Madam Speaker, our health care system is the envy of much of the
world. That does not mean it is perfect.
There is no question we must resolve major challenges such as pre-
existing conditions, portability and cost. But we can deal with these
by breaking down barriers between States, liability reform and tax
incentives. We certainly do not need IRS-enforced mandates.
Despite the loud and clear protests of the American people, the
Democrat leadership of the House and Senate rammed through a job-
destroying health care act last year. It created a large and costly new
government bureaucracy that gets between doctors and patients. The law
includes hundreds of new burdensome taxes, regulations, and mandates on
businesses and individuals.
There is no doubt in my mind that supporters of this massive bill
would have passed a government-run single payer system if they could
have gotten away with it. What they did pass was a first step towards
total government run healthcare. The same kind of healthcare system
that Great Britain is trying to abandon, because it doesn't work.
We must stop America from going down the path of a government-run,
single-payer healthcare system.
Yesterday the House acted on our promise to repeal Obamacare, and
today we must vote to start the process of replacing it with common
sense, affordable solutions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I 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 my friend from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, well, we could have a bill on the floor today that
expands fair trade for American companies, but we don't. We could have
a bill on the floor today that finds ways to stop sending a billion
dollars to the Middle East to buy oil every day and instead create jobs
producing energy in America, but we don't. We could have a bill on the
floor today talking about ways to regenerate our real estate market and
get people buying and selling houses again, but we don't.
What we have is an empty promise that someday, somehow, the new
majority will come to the floor with a bill that will fix the health
care problem. Quoting from Speaker John Boehner, he said on June 18,
2002, ``Instead of focusing on new health care mandates that will
increase costs on employers and swell the ranks of the uninsured,
Senate Democrats should focus on providing access to health insurance
for the 39 million of Americans who remain without health coverage.
That should be our first priority.''
So at a time when Republicans had a majority in this House, a
President in the White House, and for most of the time a majority in
the Senate, their first priority, which was to deal with the health
care problem, they didn't do. That's the standard against which we
should measure today's promise. It doesn't leave much room for much
optimism.
I would say, instead of focusing on yet another empty promise, let's
focus on putting Americans back to work.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, everyone has acknowledged that the legislation that
has passed is flawed. Everyone has acknowledged that. The President of
the United States, when he said that the 1099 issue imposing mandates
on small businesses needed to be rectified in his first news conference
after the election, recognized that there were problems.
We had, the day before yesterday, the distinguished assistant
minority leader, the former majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, say that he
believes that Republicans and Democrats should work together to improve
this bill. We have already had a Federal court determine that it is
unconstitutional to impose this mandate. Madam Speaker, we need to work
together to resolve the very, very great challenges that we have ahead
of us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, with last year's important health
insurance reform law, we provided real guarantees to American families
against insurance monopoly abuses. Today, Republicans tell these
families, ``Forget the binding guarantees. We have 12 platitudes for
you.''
This isn't a Republican prescription--this is a placebo. And for the
American middle class, it's a very bitter pill indeed.
[[Page H364]]
Yesterday, House Republicans, in a remarkable measure, with one vote,
decided to increase the national debt, reduce the solvency of the
Medicare Trust Fund, raise insurance premiums, and charge seniors more
for their health care.
During the last 12 years that these Republicans were in charge, 6 of
them with near total domination of the government here in Washington
under the Bush-Cheney administration, they failed to enact even one of
these 12 platitudes in this flimsy 2-page excuse of a bill. Twelve
health care platitudes up now, missing in action for 12 years.
Who wouldn't be for some of them? They are broad platitudes that
propose something that they apparently kept hidden under a bushel for
the last 16 years and now will unveil. Well, I think it will just be
the same old tired, rejected, retread Republican proposals to give more
income tax breaks to those at the top.
If you believe that they have got something new to offer to genuinely
reform our health care system in a way that will help middle-class
Americans instead of health insurance monopolies, I think you will want
to buy some of that Republican ice cream that helps you lose weight.
Our families don't need Republican platitudes; they need real help.
I will have to stay I think the tea party types are right about one
thing. There are dangers from soaring debt, dangers they forgot for a
decade. There are dangers from Big Government. But, you know, that's
not the only threat our families face. They face threats from big banks
and from big insurance monopolies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. Our middle-class families are threatened not only from
the challenges of government, but from the big pharmaceutical
monopolies that charge our people more than anyplace in the world, from
the giant insurance monopolies. And sometimes, sometimes our families
need government to come down on our side because otherwise those giant
economic forces will take advantage of our families by writing out the
very protection that the sick and injured need the most, protection
that they write into the fine print of an insurance policy that no
ordinary person can understand, where they are told that they are not
covered anymore, that they have a preexisting condition, that you have
reached your policy limits and cannot get the care that your doctor
says is vital to sustain your life, that this policy just doesn't cover
sick people or that it can be rescinded.
I say we need to provide people genuine protection. That's what we
did last year. That's what they want to eliminate this year. Let's be
on the side of the people, not the 12 Republican platitudes to benefit
insurance monopolies.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of the hardworking
members of this brand-new class that has come in carrying this strong
message, the gentleman from Columbus, Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
{time} 0940
Mr. STIVERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I voted for the repeal of the health care bill
yesterday because I think doing otherwise would have been supporting
the status quo, and that's unacceptable. I believe there are some good
ideas that were in the original health care bill that can be used and
improved; but some of those ideas are in H. Res. 9 today that instruct
the committees on next steps on health care.
However, there is one idea that I think we need to add to that list.
I think we need to add the allowing of young folks to stay on their
parents' insurance through H. Res. 9. In this tough economy, many
students are unable to find jobs right out of school. As a member of
the State senate, I sponsored a bill that would allow those up to age
30 to stay on their parents' plan, and I just heard from a constituent
that his 23-year-old son Justin is back on his parents' insurance.
Moving forward, I'm committed to working with my colleagues in a
bipartisan manner to support reforms we agree on, like allowing young
adults to stay on their parents' plan. This was included in the
Republican alternative last year, and it should be included in the
replacement bill this year.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
comments in recognizing the fact that the provision that allows parents
to keep their children on their insurance until they are 26 is a good
idea. But he voted yesterday, along with all the Republicans, to repeal
that, to take that away. And this press release that they're now saying
is a bill on the House floor here doesn't even address that issue.
So I wish the gentleman would have actually voted with his
convictions yesterday and voted against repeal, because what he did,
if, in fact, this bill becomes law, will deny parents to be able to
keep theirs kids on their insurance until they are 26.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
Republicans' cynical attempt to replace the health care reform law.
Yesterday's decision to repeal the Affordable Care Act was truly
damaging to the American people, but today's decision to tout the
central reforms of the Affordable Care Act as Republican ideas is
simply baffling. If the provisions in H. Res. 9 were really the
Republicans' priorities, they would leave the Affordable Care Act
intact because all of these provisions exist in the current law.
If we all agree on the importance of keeping young adults on their
parents' insurance, prohibiting insurance companies from dropping
coverage for the sick and strengthening Medicare, then this spectacle
is a colossal waste of time that we don't have. If Republicans really
want to guarantee these consumer protections to the American people,
they would not stage partisan antics with this kind of resolution.
Even when Republicans had control of the entire government for 6
years, they did nothing to reform our Nation's health care system. And
during that time, premiums skyrocketed, the number of uninsured
Americans grew to 47 million, and those with insurance saw their
benefits decimated. Of course, it would have been great to have the
Republicans as willing partners during the last 2 years as we worked
hard to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Unfortunately, they insisted on being the Party of No even as we
incorporated so many of their party's ideas into the law.
Rather than roll back the hard-fought consumer protections and
freedoms that unshackled Americans from the whims of private insurance
companies, as former Republican Senate Majority Leader Brill Frist
said, Republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the
health care system.
Not to mention, every potential minute spent in committee focusing on
redundant legislation is another minute that we are not helping
American families and businesses emerge from this recession. Democrats
have pledged to measure all legislation by the proposal's success at
creating jobs, strengthening the middle class and bringing down the
deficit.
Unfortunately, the Republican majority's hasty vote to repeal the
Affordable Care Act fails on all such accounts. The American people
deserved and got real reform. This vague resolution stating so-called
Republican principles on health care reform is like giving the American
people a wish sandwich. There's nothing between the bread, but we wish
there was.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my
very good friend that the fact of the matter is the Republicans sent
association health plans to make sure that small businesses could drive
the cost of health insurance down to the Senate, and our friends in the
other body in the other party killed that measure. We put into place
for seniors access to affordable prescription drugs. And so we have
worked diligently to make this happen.
With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Fort
Myers, Florida (Mr. Mack).
Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, yesterday was a great day for democracy and freedom in
this country. Yesterday, the Republican-led Congress voted to repeal a
[[Page H365]]
health care law that was passed by the Democrats that would mandate,
that would force people to buy something even if they didn't want to.
It's unconstitutional, it's un-American, and it is not what this
country stands for.
Now we are hearing a lot of our colleagues on the other side talk
about how we want to strip away this and we want to strip away that and
we are playing games and this resolution is a game. Well, let me remind
you that it was the President of the United States in his State of the
Union that talked about tort reform, which was not included in
ObamaCare. We intend to include tort reform in this Congress. We also
believe that association health plans are very important to ensure that
more people have access to health care, something that your side of the
aisle failed to do.
There are real ways to do commonsense reforms. It is not by having
the government mandate what you have to buy as a citizen of this
country. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to remember to address
their comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for maintaining decorum in
the House. We appreciate it.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, we are seeing today that after 75 or so
hours of markup, hundreds of hours of hearings, 16 months of long
debate, thousands upon thousands of meetings and town halls, the
Republicans come to Washington and don't know what they want to do in
health care yet. My constituents should understand, and the Speaker
should understand, that this resolution says, go back and figure out
what we want to do.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that last year during the
health care debate, the Republicans had a chance to offer an
alternative. They didn't. Now they come to Washington and say, oh,
let's have the committees go try to figure this all out. Yesterday they
were the Party of No, and today they are the party of ``we don't know
how to go.''
Who are these Republicans? After months and months and months of the
national debate, you can go into any coffee shop, any church basement,
just about any card game in this country and people have solid ideas
about what they think about health care. But not the Republicans.
They've got a resolution today that says, hey, committees, go try to
figure this stuff out, it's complicated.
And by the way, I don't know, Madam Speaker, if I read it correctly,
but I don't think there are any deadlines. I don't think there are any
deadlines. I will eat this rostrum if they come back with legislation
that actually accomplishes the things that they just repealed
yesterday. It's not going to happen.
And this is the fundamental problem that I believe the majority party
now has: they have the campaign slogans all down. I just heard the
gentleman from Florida do one: ``unconstitutional.'' They have the
campaign slogans locked. And I have to give them credit, they were
successful with them. They came here, we're against, we're against,
we're against. Well, now here it is. Unlike past Congresses that come
in all geared up for the things they want to do, they're all geared up
with a resolution saying, hey, go figure out what it is that we should
do.
The American people deserve a lot better than this. They deserve
comprehensive health care that saves them money. That's what was
repealed yesterday.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my
friend from New York, it is very interesting that the President of the
United States the day before yesterday said that he was willing and
eager to work with Republicans to ensure that we rectify this flawed
bill. The distinguished assistant minority, the former majority whip,
Mr. Clyburn, said in a program earlier this week that he looked forward
to working with Republicans in a bipartisan way to address this.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from
Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House voted to repeal the
misguided health care law of 2010, which is seriously flawed, both in
its structure and its practical implementation. I keep hearing
discussion about the Affordable Care Act. If one believes the
Affordable Care Act will not add to the deficit, I think that one is
apt to believe just about anything. But today we have the opportunity
to direct the committees to produce practical and effective reforms.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and
commit to working together to enact meaningful reforms that will lower
health care costs, expand access to affordable insurance coverage, and
foster economic growth and jobs.
The current law is simply unwise and unsustainable. I believe we must
replace the misguided policies of the current law with reforms that
will address rising health care costs. Specifically, I support medical
liability reforms to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. I
believe Congress must provide Americans with more options for
affordable health coverage, such as low-cost catastrophic plans for
younger individuals, patient-driven health care savings accounts,
cross-state purchasing and effective high-risk pools or reinsurance
models as a backstop.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and let's get
on with this serious debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. I just want to respond to the distinguished chairman. The
President did not say anything about this dastardly flawed bill. He
said we should ``implement and improve.'' You say ``repeal and
replace.'' You put that to a vote of the American people. Implement and
improve is the way we build important legislation in this country.
{time} 0950
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond.
Madam Speaker, let me say to my friend that the President did say
that he is willing and eager to work with Republicans to rectify the
problems that are here, and right after the election, he said that he
wanted to correct the 1099 issue, recognizing it is a flawed measure.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am actually disappointed that I am
standing on the floor of the House of Representatives today yet again
defending and protecting the rights of the American people to health
care.
It is such a shame that yesterday and the day before for 7 hours our
Members on the other side of the aisle spent their time deciding for
the American people to take away the ability of parents to provide
health care for their young people up to age 26.
They spent 7 hours, other than finding jobs, trying to make sure that
small businesses who are providing health care don't get a tax credit
anymore for the health care that they are providing for their
employees.
They spent 7 hours trying to strip away the ability of our seniors to
make sure that they don't have to reach into their own pockets, deeper
pockets, not deep anymore, to pay for prescription drugs.
Yesterday and the day before they spent 7 hours debating whether it
is a good idea for insurance companies to be able to deny people health
care for preexisting conditions when they know that at least 129
million of us, 65 percent or so of us, actually have preexisting
medical conditions.
So it is really disappointing that here we are yet again with the
Republicans saying we took it all away in one day, and now we are going
to think about some of it that we might replace again.
Well, we have created a health care law for the American people that
is about affordability and accessibility. And I know that the Democrats
are going to stand on the side with the President, implementing the
law. And thank goodness for the American people. They should know that
the Republicans didn't do anything yesterday other than putting a whole
bunch of stuff on a piece of paper that has no chance of going
anywhere. The paper is not even worth the ink that is printed on it.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as a native of the Show-Me State, I am
very
[[Page H366]]
pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from St. Elizabeth, Missouri
(Mr. Luetkemeyer).
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this
resolution, a bill that would direct committees to craft new health
care legislation and which would help steer our country back in the
right direction. A serious fix for what ails health care in America
will entail more than tweaking the law; it means replacing the health
care bill with real reform.
Missouri is the Show-Me State, and last August, 71 percent of
Missourians went to the polls and said ``no.'' They rejected this law.
As I go about my district and talk to my employers, they tell me that
instead of premiums going down, they have actually gone up 25-40
percent. And instead of improving access to care, we actually have
doctors retiring in record numbers.
True reform would be passing significant lawsuit reform so doctors
can faithfully perform their jobs of taking care of their patients. I
also support increasing access to insurance by allowing small
businesses to pool together to get the best plan for their employees.
All along Republicans have offered a commonsense approach to
improving our health care system and in a way that controls cost and
provides the quality of care that Americans deserve. Today's vote is an
important step in realizing that goal.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 15\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield to one of the
other new Members who comes with a very strong message here. She is a
nurse, and she is from Gallatin, Tennessee. I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of middle Tennessee who
spoke loud and clear this last year that they do not want the Federal
Government dictating their health care. The plan that was signed into
law by the President was supposed to increase access to health care and
lower costs for American families. However, in the months since the
bill passed, it has been shown to do neither. We now know that the
health care bill not only increases premiums for families but hinders
job creation and is filled with unintended consequences that not only
diminish the quality of our health care system but also do great damage
to our economy, and increase our deficit.
This new Congress was sent here to follow a more responsible path.
Through commonsense, market-based solutions, we can replace a flawed
health care bill to have the best health care system in the world.
I am eager to take part in drafting the new Republican plan and
focusing on rolling back the individual mandate, eliminating the
onerous demands on small businesses, and actually lowering the cost for
families and increasing access to quality, personalized health care.
I also look forward to a thoughtful discussion that includes
solutions that went ignored before, like tort reform, increasing
competition, and tax breaks instead of tax hikes.
As a nurse for over 40 years, my top priority will be making sure our
plan honors the doctor-patient relationship that is so sacred in
medicine because there is no place for a government bureaucrat in an
individual's health care decision.
As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I am excited to work
with Chairman Dave Camp and my fellow committee members on a new way
forward to responsible health care reform. Let's do the work that the
American people sent us here to do.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend if he has any
further speakers on his side?
Mr. McGOVERN. I have further speakers, but there is a time
discrepancy; so I will let you catch up.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just say that I don't have other
speakers here yet. I have others on their way over to the floor. I
understand the disparity that exists in the timing, and I could talk
for all that period of time, but I don't want the gentleman to suffer
through that. So I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, as I am sitting here listening to this,
I am thinking this must be something like Alice in Wonderland. This is
the most bizarre debate I have heard in a long, long time.
We need jobs. We need to be focusing on the American economy. This
particular resolution has no sense of reality. I have heard debates
here and discussions on the floor about association health plans. I
know about association health plans. I was the insurance commissioner
for 8 years in California, having to deal with these non-insurance
programs that left hundreds, indeed thousands of people, holding the
bag when the association health plans went belly up. It doesn't make
any sense.
California has had tort reform for 30 years. We have in the law today
in America a protection for every individual in America from the
onerous hands of the insurance companies that have continued over the
years to deny benefits, to make the doctor decisions, and to literally
put people's lives at risk--it's called the Patients' Bill of Rights,
and our Republican colleagues want to repeal that. We have a law that
is in place. It should be implemented.
The cost issues that have been discussed here on the floor are really
a discussion about what has taken place in the past. The law has yet to
be implemented with regard to cost containment, the oversight of the
insurance companies. All of those things are in the days ahead, and a
market system is available with the exchanges. You want to talk about
market, that is how you get there, with exchanges.
Replace, repeal--how bizarre is that? Americans have a protection.
Yesterday, our Republican colleagues voted to remove their protections.
They gave to the insurance companies once again the power to regulate
their lives. We cannot allow that to happen. This step today is just
Alice in Wonderland.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H. Res. 9.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield 1 minute to my hardworking
colleague from Lincoln, Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
{time} 1000
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Madam Speaker, health care reform, the right type of reform, is
important to me and important to every American. The right type of
reform will actually reduce costs and improve health care outcomes
while we protect vulnerable persons. However, the current health care
law, as we all know, is a complicated mess that is going to shift costs
to more unsustainable government spending and actually reduce health
care liberties.
America deserves better.
Following yesterday's vote in support of the repeal of this law, I
believe it is important to craft a new commonsense policy that provides
new insurance models for families, farmers, and small business owners.
Yet, as to any model that we craft, the replacement must continue to
build upon a culture of health and wellness, allow newly insured
persons to keep their current coverage and also retain protections for
preexisting conditions. This will be important.
So now the hard work begins; but this time we have the opportunity to
get it right.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise as the incoming co-chair of the Congressional
Women's Caucus to talk to you a little bit about the impact that
repealing this health care law will have on women.
[[Page H367]]
As you all may be aware, women are twice as likely to be dependent
upon their spouses for health care, and they are less likely than men
to have employer-sponsored insurance. For single female heads of
household, this has a devastating impact on the entire family when
there is no health insurance. Of course, all of us have heard stories
from our districts about the devastating impact the repeal of this law
will have on women, and I heard such a story just yesterday:
Meet Nicole Lipski. She is 25 years old, is working part time, and is
going to school part time; but, because of the health care law, was
able to remain on her dad's insurance. Lucky for her, because just last
week she had an infected pancreas and had to have her gallbladder
removed in emergency surgery, which cost $13,000 that, fortunately, was
covered by her parents' insurance.
You know, this law outlaws gender rating as insurance companies, of
course, charge women higher premiums than men for coverage. It also has
a disparate impact on women with respect to preexisting conditions--
when you consider that being a victim of domestic violence is
considered to be a preexisting condition.
Now, you don't have to be a Harvard economist to know that this law
is not a job killer, but we do have a Harvard economist to back us up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. MOORE. David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard,
released a new study on January 7, finding that repealing the health
care law would destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually, and many of
these jobs will be women's jobs--CNAs, LPNs, x ray techs, RNs, and the
cleaning woman who cleans up the emergency room.
This law is a game changer and a lifesaver for women's health and
employment opportunities for women.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good
friend from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Chairman Dreier, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, last night House Republicans took a major step in
keeping our pledge to America by passing the repeal of ObamaCare. Now
we must work to replace this budget-busting law with sensible, market-
based policies that actually lower costs for families and small
businesses and expand access to affordable care.
Small businesses are the job creators that hold the key to our
economic recovery. They cannot afford the hundreds of billions of
dollars in new taxes in the ObamaCare law and the new employer mandate
as well. Our small businesses need certainty in the Tax Code and
certainty in the regulations coming out of Washington. ObamaCare only
makes matters worse.
I look forward to an open and transparent debate in this Congress on
alternative, affordable solutions. That's what the American people
want, and that's what my constituents desire. I would also challenge my
friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the American people
and to join our efforts to work towards better solutions to our
Nation's health care challenges.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts
for yielding.
Madam Speaker, let me say that the good news is that the only thing
that occurred last evening was simply a vote, because the law of the
land is still the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I hope
that the President's words are not twisted, because I agree with him:
we are all willing to work together to do the right thing, which is to
amend a bill.
I don't understand the understanding of my friends on the other side
of the aisle. Repealing the law of the land has nothing to do with
questioning some of the provisions. Frankly, they're not even listening
to a distinguished doctor, Senator Frist, the former majority leader,
who said this bill--our bill--is the law of the land, and it is the
fundamental platform upon which all future efforts to make that system
better for that patient and that family will be based.
What is there not to understand?
Amend the bill. Don't repeal it.
In fact, Senator Frist said if the bill were on the floor, he would
have voted for it. I spoke to some students the other day, and they
asked about doctors. This bill has in it scholarships for medical
professionals, the bill that we have.
In fact, the issue, of course, is one that you cannot dispute: this
bill saves lives, so much so that the Republican majority leader ran to
the media to promise seniors that they wouldn't lose the $250 that our
bill, the patient protection bill, guaranteed them so that they would
have some cover, some cushion, for their prescription drugs.
So, my friends, I know we are doing the right thing. We are all
willing to amend, but how ridiculous it is that you would repeal the
law of the land or attempt to do so. I know the President still has his
veto pen--because this bill will save lives.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of our new
Members, the gentleman from Oklahoma City (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, the repeated diatribe from Members on the other side
of the aisle that somehow they are the only individuals in this Chamber
who care about the health of American families demonstrates again the
deep-seated partisanship that we must work to defeat.
We all want great health care in America. We hear the American people
loud and clear. They don't like ObamaCare, but they do want something
to be done.
We must have real national tort reform to reduce the costs of
defensive medicine.
We must encourage medical innovation to deal with the FDA approval
process that covers any new discovery in paperwork, costing $1 billion
a drug just to get it through the FDA process.
We must open up more options for insurance carriers, allowing someone
who is frustrated with the service or the cost or quality of his
carrier to fire them and to get a new insurance provider.
We must reject price fixing as a cost-cutting solution.
We must allow every American to choose their own doctors, even pay
their doctors directly if they choose to do that.
We must give senior Americans more choices in physicians who accept
Medicare patients.
We must provide States with greater flexibility; and we must deal
with portability, high risk, and preexisting conditions.
Republicans have friends and family who are dealing with the same
medical issues that Democrats deal with. Suffering, disease, and pain
have no respect for political affiliation. We just believe that, if you
are sick and hurting, you should contact your doctor, not Washington,
DC, to see what to do next.
Let's surprise America. Let's work together, and let's get something
done. Let's show them that, even with a divided House and Senate, we
can reject the gravitational pull of politics, that we can put aside
our differences, and that we can work together for the good of those
who are most vulnerable.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I just want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke. We hear these
distortions over and over and over again. We heard them during the
campaign, distortions that were perpetrated by my friends on the other
side of the aisle and by their allies in the insurance industry, and
that, somehow, what we passed was a bill that wouldn't allow you to
keep your own health insurance. That's just wrong.
What we passed was a bill that actually provides competition and
insures tens of millions more Americans.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison).
{time} 1010
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, repeal and replace? What about protect
and improve? What about improving the bill that is there right now
rather than repealing and replacing?
You know, the fact is the Republican Caucus is talking about
replacing a bill, and yet whether it's preexisting
[[Page H368]]
conditions or filling in the doughnut hole, I've heard several of them
say, ``Oh, we want to keep that.'' But yet they don't want to protect
and improve. They just want to repeal. Why? To protect the insurance
industry. I can't see any other reason why they are doing this.
The Affordable Care Act is a good bill; and can it be better? Of
course it can be better. But that's not what we're talking about doing
today. We're talking about taking away benefits that Americans have in
their hand. The Republican Caucus is snatching away people who want to
get their children on their health care insurance who are under 26
years of age; snatching away free preventative care for seniors;
snatching out of the hands of families whose children are trying to be
able to get care who may have a preexisting condition; snatching out of
the hands of seniors who are filling in the doughnut hole. They are
taking away a benefit Americans have right now. This is wrong and it's
a shame.
The fact is the Democratic Caucus when we had the White House and
both Houses of Congress, within 2 years we brought to the American
people a health care bill. When the Republican Caucus has the House for
6 years, between 2000 and 2006, they don't do anything other than do a
big fat giveaway to PhRMA.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 15 seconds, Madam Speaker, just to say as
I had said to my friend earlier, it's interesting that they continue to
say that we did nothing. Associated health plans, which Democrats and
Republicans like, designed to drive down the cost for small businesses
to provide health insurance, was submitted from this Republican House
to the other body. The Democrats, in fact, killed that measure. So
attempts were made to put into place real reform.
With that, back by popular demand, the Rules Committee member from
Lawrenceville, Georgia, for 2 minutes, Mr. Woodall.
Mr. WOODALL. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, I return to the well because I wonder if folks have
the same small business people in their district that I have in my
district. I wonder if folks are doing the same listening in their
district that I'm doing in my district. We are here today to respond to
exactly what folks have been asking for.
Now to give credit where credit is due, last year before the last
Congress expired, Democrats and Republicans came together to extend for
1 year, and I would have liked to have seen it extended longer, but to
extend for 1 year the tax cuts that our small business men and women
were demanding. But the second part of the indecision that was there in
the small business community, of the anxiety that was there, the
uncertainty that was there, is what's going to happen with my health
care cost. What's going to happen with the health care plan? Now we
have not solved that. We have not solved that anxiety. We have not
solved that indecision, because we've only gotten one-half of it done.
We've gotten it passed in the House, but we've still got to take it to
the Senate and we've still got to take it to the White House.
Now again, in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, I told
folks throughout my campaign that I thought the President identified
exactly the right two health care challenges, rising costs and access,
and then came up with exactly the wrong solutions to those problems.
Now we talk about what's going to happen to folks when the doughnut
hole change goes away. Well, did we have a chance last year? And I'm
new to Congress. Did we have a chance in the last Congress to vote on
that standalone doughnut hole closure? I don't believe we did. Did we
have a chance in the last Congress to vote on a standalone preexisting
conditions solution? I don't believe we did. Did we have a chance in
the last Congress to talk about kids under the age of 26 and what they
can do? We did not. But what we do, we have this resolution today that
is going to give us, for the first time, the opportunity as a nation to
vote on those provisions one by one, because the only option Congress
had last time under Democratic leadership to vote for a doughnut hole
solution, to vote for preexisting condition solutions, to vote for
insurance for kids under the age of 26, was to do it with the
unconstitutional mandate, a trillion dollars in new spending, and
hundreds of new bureaucracies.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I would remind the gentleman, because he's on the Rules Committee
with me, that we could have had a chance to vote on all those things
individually and in fact he did have a chance to vote as to whether or
not we could vote on them individually on the floor, but he and the
other Republicans on the Rules Committee voted each and every one of
those protections down. They voted against protecting people against
preexisting conditions. They voted against closing the doughnut hole.
They voted against allowing people under 26 to be able to stay on their
parents' health insurance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. They voted against everything.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time had expired.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to our
Rules Committee colleague in the name of comity and civil discourse to
respond.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, I would just say to my friend that I absolutely voted
no on every single one of those Rules Committee amendments in the name
of repealing the bill yesterday, and now today I have returned to speak
in favor of this resolution so that you can work with the committee
leadership to bring each and every one of those provisions to this
floor for a vote again for the very first time. For the very first
time. I'm glad to support you in having that opportunity and I'm
pleased to be here in support of this resolution today.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must ask Members to bear in mind
the principle that proper courtesy in the process of yielding and
reclaiming time in debate--and especially in asking another to yield--
helps to foster the spirit of mutual comity that elevates our
deliberations above mere argument.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire, Madam Speaker, how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank my very, very good friend from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, what troubles me with this debate, and I would
particularly address myself to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, is that we took two votes yesterday. One was to provide coverage
for ourselves; the next really to deny it to our constituents. That I
find troubling, because we all have the right for guaranteed coverage
regardless of preexisting conditions. We have a choice of easy-to-
compare health insurance plans. We have coverage for early retirees.
Women have equal premium coverage. We have access to affordable care;
low-cost preventive service. All of these things for ourselves but then
voted to deny it to our constituents. I find that troubling.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, what is before the House today is not a
serious legislative effort. It's a series of sound bites that mean
nothing. Committees don't have to do anything. Speaker Boehner is
quoted in The Hill basically saying that he's not going to hold any of
these committees accountable. They can do it if they want to; whatever.
If they don't, so be it. What we are dealing with here today really is
kind of a political ploy, not a serious legislative effort to replace
anything.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have gotten up over and
over and over again and said, we're really with
[[Page H369]]
you on preexisting conditions, we're really with you on the doughnut
hole, we're with you on allowing parents to keep their kids on their
insurance until they're 26. But yet they're really not. Because if they
were, they wouldn't have voted yesterday to repeal all those
protections. And if they were really with us, then we would be talking
about today coming to the House floor with a series of initiatives that
would actually continue to protect those benefits for consumers. But
they voted to repeal all of that.
{time} 1020
I want to know, how could anybody in this House, how could anybody,
in light of the protections that have been put in place, go back to an
individual who is now able to get health insurance because we
prohibited insurance companies from discriminating against them for a
preexisting condition, how can you go to them and say, well, we're
going to change our mind; we're not going to do that anymore?
How do you go to senior citizens who are struggling with that
doughnut hole--and we've begun to close it--how do you go to them and
say we're going to raise your taxes? How do you do that?
How do you go to a parent whose child can remain on their health
insurance because we've extended it to allow them to stay on it until
they're 26 and say, well, that doesn't matter anymore? It just doesn't
make sense.
That's not what people voted for in the last election. They didn't
vote for you to repeal all of those things. What they voted against was
this distortion of a health care bill that you put out there, my
friends on the other side of the aisle, that was very well funded by
the most expensive advertising campaign funded by the insurance
companies in the history of our country, this distortion out there.
Everybody was against that distortion. That is not the reality.
As the months have gone by and as the reality has become clear to
people, as they have seen the benefits and the protections, as people
have been able to wrest control of their health care from the insurance
industry, as consumers realize they have more and more rights, as there
are more and more protections that are built into law to protect people
of all ages, people say, well, we don't want you to change that; we
want that to be saved.
I will just say one thing. When my friends say, well, we can just do
a little bit of this and a little bit of that, you really can't,
because it's kind of like a domino effect. Everything has an impact.
So this is a serious debate. And if there is some indignation on this
side of the aisle, it is because we know that this is a big deal, and
real people who have real challenges affording their health care and
dealing with the complexities of the health care system and the
inequities of the health care system are now getting some relief, and
they will be hurt by what you are doing.
So let's be honest here. What happened yesterday was my friends on
the other side of the aisle went on record as saying, We're against
everything.
Today, we're going to pass a resolution, I guess, that doesn't do
anything, doesn't even require committees to do anything, but it's just
for all these nice, feel-good sound bites. That's not a serious
legislative effort. That's why people are cynical.
We can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, there was a very powerful and resounding message that
came last November 2, and that is the imperative for us to create jobs
and get this economy growing.
The American people are hurting. In my State of California, we have a
12.5 percent unemployment rate. Part of the area I represent has a 15.5
percent unemployment rate in the Inland Empire in southern California.
It is essential that we focus our attention on creating jobs, and I
believe the step that we are taking today is going to be very, very
important as we pursue that goal.
Now, why is that? When we look at what passed last year, was signed
last March 23 by the President, it was a measure that imposes mandates
on small businesses, jeopardizing their ability to hire new workers.
It's a measure that imposes dictates on doctors, a regulatory structure
which undermines their potential to hire new employees. It is a measure
which, in many ways, jeopardizes our potential to grow the economy
because it is a dramatic expansion of the entitlement programs which
Democrats and Republicans alike say need to be addressed if we're going
to create jobs and get our economy back on track.
One of the things that I think is important to note is that people
have said that repeal of the health care bill in fact is going to cost
$230 billion based on those CBO numbers that came out. Well, only in
Washington, D.C., can one cut a $2.7 trillion expenditure and have it
labeled as a cost.
Why is it a cost? It's a cost because the measure that was signed
last March 23 imposes a three-quarter of $1 trillion tax increase on
working Americans. Now, what does that do to create jobs and get our
economy growing? Obviously, it undermines our shared priority of
creating jobs and getting our economy back on track.
We know that with the $14 trillion national debt that we have and
deficits down the road we need to do what we can to rein in that
spending, tackling entitlements and dealing with issues like the one
that we're facing today.
Now, having said that, we all know that Democrats and Republicans
alike want to ensure that every single American has access to quality,
affordable health insurance so that they can have access to quality
health care. And I underscore the word ``quality,'' because if one
looks at the important research and development that takes place in the
United States of America, I believe that the measure that was signed
last March 23 and that we voted in this House to repeal yesterday, that
that measure undermines the very important pursuit of research and
development to deal with many of the diseases that are out there.
So, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that we all say we want every
American to have access to quality, affordable health care, and
everyone has acknowledged that that bill that was signed last March 23
is in fact flawed. In his news conference right after the election, the
President of the United States said that he believed that we need to
address the so-called 1099 provisions that impose, again, an onerous
mandate on small businesses, undermining their ability to create jobs--
exactly what I was saying earlier.
I quoted the distinguished assistant minority leader, the former
majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, who on a program earlier this week said
Republicans and Democrats need to work together to rectify some of the
problems that exist with this measure.
And, as I said, it was 2 days ago that the President of the United
States wrote his editorial in The Wall Street Journal in which he
talked about the need to reduce the regulatory burden that is imposed
on the private sector so we can get our economy going and create jobs.
And he also said on that same day that he is willing and eager, Madam
Speaker--willing and eager--to work with Republicans to rectify some of
the programs that exist in this measure.
Now, I heard my friend Mr. Matheson this morning, on National Public
Radio, state that there was not a plan out there, and that's the reason
that, having voted against the bill, he did not vote for repeal,
because there's not a plan out there. I heard that at 7:35 this morning
on WAMU. Mr. Matheson made that statement. But the fact of the matter
is, unlike the plan that was signed into law March 23 of last year that
did not include the kind of bipartisan participation that we believe is
essential, I've got to say that we are planning to proceed with this
direction to the four committees that will allow virtually every Member
of this House to be involved.
We have 12 items. And I'm happy to say that under this rule we have
made in order Mr. Matheson's amendment that we will be considering in
just a few minutes that will add a 13th item to deal with the so-called
``doc fix.'' So that, again, underscores our desire to work in a
bipartisan way to address some of the concerns that are there.
Now, what is it that we say needs to be done? And, frankly, the
President of the United States has indicated some of these he supports.
[[Page H370]]
We need to make sure that people do have a chance to purchase
insurance across State lines, which is now, under McCarran-Ferguson,
denied.
We need to make sure that we put into place associated health plans--
again, a provision that passed the Republican House but was killed by
Democrats in the Senate when we last were in the majority.
We need to do everything that we can to allow for pooling to deal
with preexisting conditions.
We need to make sure that we expand medical savings accounts that
provide incentives for people to put dollars aside to plan for their
health care needs.
And one of the things that the President of the United States said in
his State of the Union message 1 year ago right here in this Chamber,
we need to deal with meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that we can
have attention focused on patients and doctors and not on trial
lawyers.
So I would say to my friend from Utah, those are five items that are
part of our plan that I believe can enjoy strong bipartisan support.
{time} 1030
And so, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 9 so
that we can proceed with a bipartisan consideration of this very
important goal that we share of creating jobs, getting our economy back
on track, and ensuring that every single American has access to
quality, affordable health insurance.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution. The House Republican majority has brought this resolution
to the House floor claiming that they will take action to replace the
health reform bill that they voted to repeal yesterday--yet again, with
no specifics. But the Republican record on tackling the issues with our
health care system is clear. Between the years 2000 and 2006, health
insurance premiums doubled--went up 100 percent--and the profits of the
major health insurance companies quadrupled. What did the Congress do
during those years to stop those skyrocketing premiums? Nothing.
In contrast, the health reform bill signed by President Obama finally
provides the chance to rein in those exorbitant premiums and will
reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the next 20 years. It
has already put in place important consumer protections, reduces
prescription drug costs to seniors by closing the Medicare Part D donut
hole, and provides tax credits for small business owners who provide
insurance coverage. And Washington Republicans just want the American
people to trust that they will come up with a plan--without a single
detail, without a timeline, without any track record of addressing this
crisis in our Nation.
There are certainly areas where we can improve this historic reform
legislation. In fact, the House voted in the last Congress to repeal
the 1099 provision on small businesses--House Republicans opposed that
effort. But the American people don't want to go backwards by repealing
these new rights, and doing so without a specific plan to replace it is
simply irresponsible. It's time to stop playing shell games and start
working to move America forward.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues vote nay on this resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House
Resolution 9, a measure that directs a number of House committees to
begin the process of drafting and reporting to the House individual
bills to improve our Nation's health care system.
As you know, the House voted yesterday to repeal the health care
reform law that Congress approved last year and which has deeply
divided our country. The one thing made clear from that debate is there
are a number of areas where all sides agree that we should look first
to begin reforming our Nation's health care system. These areas
include:
Preserving the rights of patients and families to keep their health
plan if they like it;
Ensuring that people with pre-existing medical conditions have access
to affordable health care coverage;
Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage for patients
who are sick;
Allowing young adults to remain on the health insurance policies of
their parents;
Reforming our nation's medical liability system to lower health care
costs by reducing the burden of medical liability policies and
eliminating wasteful health care spending;
Protecting doctor--patient relationships;
Lowering health care premiums through increased competition and
choice and by making health care policies available across state lines;
Providing incentives to employers to provide health care coverage,
rather than fines and penalties on those who do not.
The legislation we consider today directs our committees to look at
these issues bill by bill so the House can debate each issue one by
one, giving all the members of the House opportunity to provide their
input.
Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the nation is so divided over the
health care bill enacted last year is that the House did not have the
opportunity for a full and open debate on this important issue. We
voted to repeal last year's legislation to give us as a nation the
opportunity to start over and to do it right this time.
We should start the process again by working to enact the areas above
on which we agree and through the repeal effort to undo the problems we
see with last year's effort. These problem areas include:
Reversing the more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts that threaten
the availability of health care for our Nation's seniors;
Eliminating the Federal mandates that individuals must purchase
health insurance, and the penalties imposed upon those who do not;
Eliminating the Federal mandates on businesses that do not provide
employees with health insurance, and the penalties imposed upon those
who do not;
Eliminating the more than $700 billion in fees and taxes which
threaten to stifle our economy and the creation of new jobs at a time
when our Nation and our State of Florida struggle to get people back to
work.
Madam Speaker, in addition to these concerns is the overall concern
about the short-term and long-term cost of the current health care law.
Much has been made of predictions by the non-partisan Congressional
Budget Office that repeal of this legislation would actually increase
the Federal deficit. But CBO's former Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin
wrote in The New Your Times just two days prior to it being signed into
law that ``In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary
games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The
health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, Federal deficits
by $562 billion.''
He goes on to say, ``Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To
operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses
would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But
this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the
Congressional Budget Office's tabulation.''
It is no wonder that this legislation is so costly because it creates
160 boards, bureaucracies and commissions and this 2,700 page
legislation will require more than 10,000 pages of new Federal
regulations to implement fully.
It is this cost to the American taxpayer, this cost to American
businesses, and the uncertainty this legislation creates throughout so
many sectors of our economy and the health care industry that we seek
to correct through this two-pronged effort this week.
Madam Speaker, we all can agree that our Nation can do a better job
at providing health care coverage and services to the American people.
Many agree that we can also do a better job at bringing about these
changes through a more open and deliberate legislative process.
In the end, our goal is to provide a more patient centered health
care system in which we preserve the vitally important doctor-patient
relationship rather than a government centered health care system in
which the government injects itself into the system, mandates certain
provisions, penalizes individuals and businesses, and threatens to get
in the middle of doctor-patient decisions.
We as a nation can improve the quality and delivery of health care
for the American people and that effort begins in earnest this week
with the adoption of this resolution.
Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 9,
instructing the committees of jurisdiction to report legislation to
replace the job-killing health care law with a more patient-centered
set of reforms. This replacement resolution is the first step toward
fixing the recent job-killing health care law's serious problems: more
than $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, and $150 billion in cuts to
Medicare Advantage; crippling taxes and mandates on small business that
cost Americans jobs; and overreaching Federal policies that place
bureaucrats between patients and their doctor. As a physician, I see
firsthand the need to improve our country's health care system. What
was signed into law last year did include some good ideas, such as:
allowing dependent children to stay on their parents' insurance until
the age of 26; eliminating lifetime caps on coverage; and covering
individuals with pre-existing conditions. However, these policies were
coupled with unsustainable spending that saddles Americans with debt,
and compromises their access to quality health care. The American
people deserve better, which is why we need to go back to the drawing
board and develop solutions that provide stability and security for
those with health
[[Page H371]]
care, options for those without, and rein in spiraling costs for
everyone. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this Resolution, so that
we can get Americans back to work and give them the health care system
they deserve.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution.
The certain result of what the Republican leadership in the House is
proposing to do will be to saddle millions of Americans with higher
health insurance costs, less coverage, less competition, and higher
costs on small businesses and employers across the country.
This resolution is both unnecessary and a grave error in public
policy.
It is unnecessary because, by the resolution's very terms, the
Affordable Care Act is responsive to each and every one of the
objectives outlined in the resolution for responsible health
legislation.
For example: We are instructed to write changes to existing law that
will ``foster economic growth and private sector job creation.'' In the
wake of enactment of the Affordable Care Act, health is among the
fastest growing employment sectors in the United States, with a third
of the job growth in the entire country last year--over 340,000 jobs in
health care and social assistance.
The Affordable Care Act is a jobs creation law and repeal is a jobs
loss bill.
The resolution calls for changes in law that ``lower health care
premiums through increased competition and choice.'' This is exactly
what consumers will get from the health exchanges in the Affordable
Care Act--more competition and choice than they have today.
The resolution calls for laws that will ``increase the number of
insured Americans.'' The Affordable Care Act already does that--by some
32 million Americans.
Consumers can keep their health plans--just as called for in the
resolution.
The law encourages reform of the medical liability system--just as
called for in the resolution.
The resolution calls for those with pre-existing conditions to have
access to affordable health coverage. The Affordable Care Act prohibits
insurance coverage from being cut off for pre-existing conditions.
That is why the Affordable Care Act already meets all the public
policy goals outlined in this resolution.
This resolution is also a grave error in public policy.
It is important to appreciate what has been has excluded from the
instructions to our committees for changes in the health laws.
As I stated have stated earlier in the debate on repeal of the
Affordable Care Act, under the directions to us in this resolution,
there will be:
No prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans
with pre-existing conditions;
No prohibition on insurance companies cancelling your coverage when
you get sick;
No prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits;
No required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies;
No assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of drugs in
the donut hole;
No free annual check-ups and preventive care in Medicare;
No tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health
insurance.
All of these reforms are in the law today. None of these reforms will
survive if this resolution passes and the committees of jurisdiction
follow this terribly flawed blueprint.
I strongly oppose this resolution and urge its defeat.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 9 and
the promise of providing health care solutions that bring American's
access to quality affordable health care of their choice. This
resolution shows that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to
the future of health care in this Nation. Allowing the appropriate
committees to provide solutions for our Nation's health care problems
is the first step to that commitment.
I look forward to exploring and expanding high risk pools to create
universal access to those with pre-existing conditions; real and
meaningful tort reform so doctors do not have to practice defensive
medicine; the creation of small business health plans that generate
larger insurance pools and drive down health care costs. We should be
rewarding innovation and allowing States more flexibility to create
efficient and successful ways in dealing with their uninsured
populations; allowing for greater portability for individuals to
purchase health care across State lines; encouraging the Nation as a
whole to live healthier lives. Lastly, it is absolutely essential to
give every American the same tax advantage that Unions and corporations
enjoy in the purchase of health insurance.
There is no shortage of great ideas on how to reform our health care
delivery system, and most of them steer clear of creating new
entitlement programs that will bankrupt our country. In the wake of
record debt and deficits now is the time to work together for common
sense solutions that provide individuals the access to quality health
care without threatening the doctor patient relationship. I am a proud
cosponsor of the Resolution we are discussing on the floor today and I
look forward to voting for it later today.
Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment printed in part B of House Report 112-2 offered
by Mr. Matheson:
In paragraph (11) of the resolved clause, strike ``or,''.
In paragraph (12) of the resolved clause, strike the period
and insert ``; or''.
Add after paragraph (12) of the resolved clause the
following:
(13) enact a permanent fix to the flawed Medicare
sustainable growth rate formula used to determine physician
payments under title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
preserve health care for the nation's seniors and to provide
a stable environment for physicians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to H. Res. 9.
Although I do not support a wholesale repeal of the legislation, I do
believe that there are some bipartisan improvements that can be made to
the existing law, and I think now is the time for all of us in Congress
to roll up our sleeves and work together.
The goal of this amendment is pretty straightforward. It is set up to
maintain adequate health care service, to stabilize the business
practice of doctors, and to take into account the long-term economic
health of this country.
We all agree that the doctor-patient relationship is a fundamental
part of quality health care, but we have found that we have a flawed
formula when it comes to setting reimbursement levels. And every year
it threatens the ability of doctors to care for their patients, and it
threatens the ability of patients to see their doctors.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and stakeholders
throughout the health care community, physicians, senior citizens--they
all recognize that we have a flawed policy.
How many times in the past have we come together in a bipartisan way
over the years in the House of Representatives to provide a temporary
patch to this problem without fixing the underlying problem?
In 2010 alone, Congress took five different votes to delay a
scheduled cut without stepping up and dealing with a permanent fix to
the problem. By an overwhelming vote just a few weeks ago, Congress
supported a 1-year delay to a looming 25-percent cut in physician
payments.
My amendment is very straightforward and clear. It adds an additional
instruction to the committees of jurisdiction over health care
legislation to replace the flawed sustainable growth rate formula used
to set Medicare payments for doctors. And it requires that Congress
adopt a permanent fix to what has previously been an ongoing problem.
It's the right thing to do on behalf of doctors and patients. It's
the right fiscal policy as we look for ways to make health care funding
more sustainable and more predictable. And as we begin the year looking
towards improvements in this extremely complex and yet highly personal
and important issue of health care, I think that adopting this
amendment would be a good step to move in that direction.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment in a bipartisan
way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to claim the time in
opposition to the Matheson amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. I claim time in opposition to the amendment to say that I
support the amendment, Madam Speaker.
[[Page H372]]
I believe that as you look at the list of 12 items that we have in H.
Res. 9, they are not to be limited at all. And I think that by virtue
of our making the Matheson amendment in order to deal with the so-
called doc fix issue, we have made it very clear that we are already
beginning at this juncture to work in a bipartisan way in our quest to
create jobs, get our economy back on track, and ensure that every
single American has access to quality affordable health care.
And so this is, again, the beginning of a very important process. And
I'm very pleased that Mr. Matheson has been able to play a role in
fashioning H. Res. 9.
And Madam Speaker, I hope very much that with the President of the
United States saying that he is willing and eager to work with
Republicans to rectify the problems that exist with the passed health
care bill and the fact that Mr. Clyburn, the assistant minority leader,
has said that he wants to work in a bipartisan way to deal with these
issues, will lead to strong bipartisan support for Mr. Matheson's
amendment and for the underlying resolution.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MATHESON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Matheson's
amendment.
I do want to point out, though, that the Democrats, when we were in
the majority, many times tried to pass a permanent fix and did not
receive support, I believe, from many Republicans--except I think in
one case we did have Dr. Burgess from Texas' support.
Back in November of 2009, we passed a permanent fix, a doctors' fix.
But because we could not get any Republican support--any real
Republican support--we had to continue to rely on short-term fixes. We
did however, as you know, at the end of the last session pass a 1-year
fix, which is in effect now.
But I do think that this is a very commendable response that Mr.
Matheson has, and I certainly intend to support it.
But the difficulty is that the many years when the Republicans were
in the majority, they had the opportunity to pass a permanent fix and
to deal with this issue, and they always kicked the can down the road
and then did not cooperate with us on a bipartisan basis when we were
in the majority to try to achieve a permanent fix.
I certainly intend to work with the Republicans to do that, but they
are the reason we don't have it now.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I was mistakenly under the impression that
the gentleman from Utah had exhausted his 5 minutes, so I would like to
reclaim the remaining time that I have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman may reclaim
the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATHESON. I have no further speakers. I again want to thank you
for the opportunity to have this amendment considered, and I urge
support of all of my colleagues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as we know under the structure, I have
claimed time in opposition to the amendment, but I will state once
again that I am supportive of the Matheson amendment. I urge my
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come together and vote
for adding what would be item number 13, which will be the beginning of
wide-ranging reform to ensure that every single American has access to
quality health insurance so that we can again get our economy back on
track and focus on job creation and growth.
With that, I again urge support of the Matheson amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the
question of adopting the resolution if that question arises without
intervention of a motion to recommit.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 428,
nays 1, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 15]
YEAS--428
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
[[Page H373]]
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--1
Conyers
NOT VOTING--5
Costa
Giffords
Payne
Ruppersberger
Young (AK)
{time} 1100
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 15, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution, as amended.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253,
nays 175, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 16]
YEAS--253
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
Giffords
Johnson (IL)
Payne
Ruppersberger
Towns
Young (AK)
{time} 1108
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to
vote on H. Res. 9 and wished to express my intentions had I been able
to vote.
I had been in the middle of an Agriculture Committee Public Forum
with Secretary Vilsack when the first votes were called. I went down on
the floor with my notes, as I was the next in line to ask the Secretary
questions, and while I was reviewing my notes and questions mistakenly
missed the second vote in the series.
Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 16, to pass H. Res. 9,
Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-
killing health care law, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, I intended to
vote ``no.''
____________________