[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 85 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3589-H3599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 436, HEALTH CARE COST REDUCTION ACT
OF 2012, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5882, LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 679 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 679
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the
excise tax on medical devices. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 112-23, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution and except pro forma
amendments offered at any time by the chair or ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or
[[Page H3590]]
their respective designees for the purpose of debate. Each
such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gardner). The gentleman from South
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. For the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 679 provides for
consideration of H.R. 436, a bill to repeal the 2.3 percent excise tax
on medical devices enacted as part of the President's health care law.
It also provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5882,
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The legislative branch
appropriations rule is typically the only structured rule in the
appropriations process, and we are continuing that bipartisan tradition
here today.
We are voting here today to stand up for more than 423,000 American
employees and the health of millions that their work protects. A new
$29 billion tax on medical devices, passed as part of the President's
health care package, threatens to stifle innovation in the health care
industry. If medical device manufacturers are punished with this new
tax, we are all punished. Our health is punished. Our parents' health
is punished. Our kids' health is punished.
Yesterday, I talked with one of my constituents, Dan Denson, who owns
a medical device company in Summerville, South Carolina. He shared two
concrete examples of how this new tax will hurt his company, the health
care industry, and most importantly, it will hurt those in need of
medical care.
For Dan's home health company the profit margin is about 10 percent.
That profit is used to pay their employees, improve technology, and
expand when it's needed. So if you cut into it by 2.3 percent, you're
cutting into their ability to create better devices that then provide
better care for patients.
As Dan put it, ``I can assure you that any additional impact to our
cash flow will reduce the money available for innovation.
Dan also talked to me about his fellow medical device companies who
make the hoses for oxygen tanks and other devices which make life
bearable for so many Americans. They are absolutely dependent on these
devices. And what happens when we add a 2.3 percent tax to these
smaller companies? Well, these companies work on a margin of around 3
percent. So you don't have to be a math major to figure out that when
you have a 3 percent profit margin and you have a new 2.3 percent tax,
you are pretty close to zero.
You simply cannot afford to run a business in this environment. You
certainly cannot start a new business in this environment. We're not
only hurting our medical device companies, we're also discouraging new
entrepreneurs and innovators from being able to enter the ring.
I felt it was so important to share Dan's thoughts today, as it shows
in clear terms how this new tax will not only affect Americans'
wallets, but it could impact the health of Americans in this country.
{time} 1240
If our medical device manufacturers cannot continue to adapt and move
forward with new and better technologies, our medical care system will
slow down right alongside it.
Because of innovation, life expectancy in the United States has
increased by more than 3 years from 1986 to 2000, and the burden of
chronic diseases representing more than 70 percent of the overall
health care cost has been reduced. This tax affects devices ranging
from cardiac defibrillators to artificial joints to MRI scanners, or,
in plainer terms, the very devices that identify and treat patients in
their time of need, and even those devices that could save lives. These
days, technology is improving every single day.
Why in the world would we want to put our innovators at a
disadvantage? Why in the world would we want to take another $29
billion worth of investments out of our future, out of our health care
industry and put it in the hands of this government? There's no good
answer to these questions, and there's no good reason for another new
tax.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for the
underlying bills H.R. 436, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, and H.R.
5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that the House Republicans continue to bring
bills to the House under a closed process that restricts debate and
discussion and doesn't allow amendments that could improve the
underlying legislation and help forge a strong bipartisan majority.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans started this Congress with cries to
repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and yet here we are a year
and a half later, this body has voted several times to repeal the bill,
but we've yet to see any plans to replace it. And here we are again
with another bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As far as I can
tell, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not presented a
plan to reduce rising health care costs, to provide health care
insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans.
This body, and those who advocate repeal of the Affordable Care Act,
it should be incumbent upon them to talk about what we should replace
it with to prevent the rising cost of health care from being an
increasing burden on American businesses and American families. The
motivations for repealing the Affordable Care Act are weaker and more
blatantly political than ever, especially after several votes of this
body to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
There are many provisions of the Affordable Care Act that the
American people broadly support, including young adults staying on
their parents' health insurance until they're 26, including creation of
exchanges. Seniors throughout the United States are already benefiting
from the Affordable Care Act's elimination of the Medicare prescription
drug doughnut hole. In fact, in 2011, over 5.1 million Medicare
beneficiaries saved over $3.2 billion on prescription drugs thanks to
the Affordable Care Act.
States across the country, including my home State of Colorado, are
enthusiastically implementing health insurance exchanges in a
bipartisan way that will help us reduce health care costs and expand
access to high quality, affordable health care. So why are we still
here talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act instead of
focusing on areas where we share common ground?
Unfortunately, the Protect Medical Innovation Act has been brought
under a closed process which prohibits Members from being able to offer
any amendments to this collection of four different bills. If my
colleagues made an effort to compromise on health care proposals, there
might actually be a chance to see legislation pass both Chambers with
broad bipartisan support and signed by the President. This specific
bill already has a veto threat from the President, and none of my
colleagues on my side of the aisle were consulted with regard to a
method of paying for this particular set of changes.
[[Page H3591]]
Instead, the Republicans have chosen to cobble together three
unrelated bills that do three totally different things, along with a
very partisan offset with no opportunity to revise these bills; no
opportunity for us to do our job as legislators, to amend these bills;
no opportunity for us to work to forge a majority around commonsense
proposals that can improve health care and create jobs.
Let's take a look at what's in this diverse package of bills.
Now, the original Protect Medical Innovation Act, that was the
original bill before these three other bills were added and before this
payment mechanism was added, would've repealed the excise tax on the
manufacture or import of certain medical devices, one of the methods of
funding the Affordable Care Act.
Now a solid group of Members support repealing the tax. In fact, this
tax impacts companies in my district like ZOLL Data Systems. And I hope
we can have a straight up-or-down vote on this particular provision of
this bill. But instead, it has been cobbled together with two unrelated
bills and an unrelated method of paying for it.
Similarly, there's solid support for two other pieces of legislation
that are contained in this bill. One bill would have repealed the
Affordable Care Act's prohibition on using HSAs and FSAs to purchase
over-the-counter drugs, and another would have allowed individuals with
FSAs to redeem money left in their accounts at the end of the year.
Now, we all have our different opinions about these bills. I
personally support allowing HSAs and FSAs to purchase over-the-counter
drugs, and I personally oppose the FSA measure because I think that
people should be able to spend the money that's left in their FSAs by
the end of year; otherwise, what's the purpose of an FSA? It kind of
ceases to exist and simply becomes a tax shelter if it's not dedicated
to health.
But the fact of the matter is, under this rule, no Members of this
body will be able to express their support or opposition to any of
these bills in particular because they've all been cobbled together
into an incoherent mess of a bill which this rule is trying to jam down
the throat of this body. We should have brought up these bills one at a
time and found a reasonable offset. Instead, the Republicans have
chosen to place the burden of paying for this cluster of bills on the
backs of middle class American families.
Now, there's a number of alternative ways that we could have paid for
these bills. The most obvious one would have been repealing oil and gas
subsidies. This was an offset that was included in the Democratic
substitute which the majority failed to even allow to come up for a
vote by this body. That offset would have provided $32 billion in
reductions of oil and gas subsidies over 10 years, making sure that the
government doesn't pick winners and losers in the energy space,
allowing oil and gas to compete on a level playing field with all other
energy resources instead of being designated as a recipient of taxpayer
money and government subsidies. Now, that particular offset would have
not only paid for eliminating the medical device tax, but also reduced
our deficit by $3 billion.
Today I introduced a bill, H.R. 5906, which would repeal the medical
device tax and replace those lost revenues by eliminating tax loopholes
and subsidies for oil and gas companies. Personally, I'm supportive of
other ways of paying for the medical device tax as well. Let us work
together to find a way to pay for any changes in the Affordable Care
Act that don't fall squarely on the back of middle class American
families.
However, Mr. Speaker, instead of a thoughtful offset, the Republicans
have chosen to dig into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans
to pay for this bill. So let's look at how this bill would affect
American families.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this proposal would
force 350,000 people to lose their health care insurance. Yes, that's
350,000 people less that would have health care insurance.
Now, how devastating and misguided is this? Let's take an example.
Let's take a hypothetical family of four in Colorado, in Ohio, in
Florida, in Pennsylvania. Let's say their household income is $36,000 a
year. They're working hard to stay in that middle class. It's getting
harder and harder. The family income, $36,000 a year; father and a
mother. The mother has been out of work for 3 years. The total family
cost of health care insurance is $12,000. Now, let's say the mother
finds a job midway through the year. She's able to go back to work and
she earns an additional $36,000 for her family, bringing that family of
four's earnings to $72,000. They're fighting hard to stay in that
middle class to afford their kids' college education. Now, under this
bill, at the end of the year, that family is sent an additional health
care bill for $5,160, a tax increase of over $5,000 for that middle
class American family. Now, that's more likely to make it less of an
incentive for that woman to get the extra job. What's the extra
incentive to work if the government is going to stick you with a huge
tax bill just for trying to support your family?
Let's take another example. A family of four in Michigan, in Nevada,
a father and mother with two young children. Let's say that the mother
doesn't work outside the home. They're earning $36,000 a year and the
family is struck with tragedy. The mother passes on early in the year
leaving the father to support the kids. He takes a second job, as any
good father would do, and is able to earn an additional $18,000 during
the year working a 40-hour-a-week job and working a 20-hour-a-week job
to put food on the table. Now, that increases that family's income to
$54,000 from $36,000. And what does this Republican tax increase do?
Well, it presents them at the end of the year with an additional $3,330
tax increase, a $3,330 tax increase for a father who's just trying to
put food on the table for his kids.
{time} 1250
We can do better. The bill we are considering today would actually
increase the tax hike on families by removing the restriction on the
amount that families are required to pay. This has the perverse
incentive of discouraging families from working and taking on
additional jobs and working hard to get promoted. It takes away the
incentive to perform well at your job and get a promotion or raise.
Frankly, this payment mechanism encourages people to remain in poverty
and on government assistance rather than striving to do better and earn
more. This Republican bill punishes work, plain and simple, and is a
huge tax increase on the middle class.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we want to repeal the medical device tax, let's
discuss how to pay for it. If some people in this body think protecting
subsidies for oil and gas companies is more important than getting rid
of the medical device tax, well, fine, let's find another way to do it.
But, unfortunately, this approach before us today isn't a serious
approach to reducing the deficit. It's an approach that the President
would veto, it's an approach that puts a huge tax burden squarely on
the shoulders of working families in this country, and it doesn't help
get Americans back to work.
This proposal is based on politics, plain and simple, not on sound
economic policies that are good for the middle class, good for the
medical device industry, and good for America.
This underlying rule also makes in order the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act for 2013. Now, that's an act that funds Congress
itself and its supporting agencies. In these times of fiscal austerity,
everyone--especially Members of Congress--should be tightening their
belts.
This bill provides a 1 percent reduction from last year's spending
bill. Now, I am also heartened that it still ensures congressional
support agencies have the sufficient funding they need to function so
that we in this body can do our job.
But even while the House's budget has been cut over 10 percent over
the last 2 years, the House majority has chosen to spend scarce
resources that the taxpayers have appropriated to us to defend the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay and
lesbian servicemembers, veterans and their spouses from securing the
same benefits offered to straight military couples.
As President Obama has determined, the law is simply indefensible
constitutionally. And yet to date, this body, out of this bill, this
Legislative appropriations bill, has spent three-quarters
[[Page H3592]]
of a million dollars of taxpayer money on fancy lawyers defending this
discriminatory and offensive law. This waste of tax dollars is
especially troubling given the recent First Circuit decision which
found that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I can't support these underlying rules. It's beyond
troubling to have a closed rule, not allowing amendments and thoughtful
input from Members of both parties on four separate pieces of health
care legislation that completely shuts out Republican ideas and
Democratic ideas to improve the Affordable Care Act, improve job growth
in this country, and help get our economy back on track.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting
and almost hilarious that my friend to the left would talk about tax
increases when in fact embedded in this health care bill is $123
billion in new taxes on property owners. Really? $123 billion of new
taxes on property owners in addition to the $29 billion new tax they
were talking about today, in addition to eliminating $500 billion from
Medicare in order to fund this health care plan.
I think the conversation about tax increases is a conversation we
could spend a day on, and we'd be happy to have that conversation. But
today, I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas,
Chairman Sessions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we're on the floor of
the House of Representatives with our friends on the other side of the
aisle arguing about how we tax the American people, how if we're going
to take this tax out we've got to replace it with another tax. Good
gosh, aren't energy prices high enough already? Why do we want to pass
that on to consumers and make gasoline more expensive? It does not make
sense, and that's why we are here today to repeal a tax.
Mr. Speaker, what is the tax we're talking about? It is a tax on
business, on high tech. It is on medical devices that have allowed
America to lead the world in solving problems, to give people medical
devices, things that will make their lives even better.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Walter J. Humann, president and
CEO, OsteoMed. He came and met with me at my office and then sent me a
letter. Here's what Mr. Humann said--and I believe he represents not
just the industry, but thousands of people, patients also who rely on
high-tech and medical devices that would be without. He said:
In addition to challenges with the FDA and reimbursement,
this 2.3 percent excise tax--which is on gross sales, whether
or not a business has any profits or not--will directly
impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and
development and effectively compete in a global marketplace.
Further, he says:
It should be noted that OsteoMed is also aggressively re-
directing its business focus to international markets that
provide a less cumbersome and lengthy regulatory pathway with
revenue streams that are not subject to the medical device
tax . . . immediately saving 2.3 percent in the process. In
the past month, OsteoMed initiated the search for sales
managers in China and the Middle East to supplement recent
managers hired in Korea and Italy.
Mr. Speaker, this is not just a tax. It is not just making it more
difficult for employers to hire people. But it will stop America's
innovative-ness to compete in the future.
OsteoMed,
Addison, TX, June 5, 2012.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sessions: Thank you for taking time to
visit with me last week regarding OsteoMed and my concerns
about the significant ``headwinds'' we face, especially
related to the 2.3% medical device tax that is scheduled for
implementation in 2013. On behalf of OsteoMed's 400
employees, I thank you for your support of H.R. 436, which
would repeal this onerous provision that otherwise will
negatively impact innovation and job creation at a time when
we can least afford it.
As president & CEO of OsteoMed, a dynamic, 20 year old
surgical device manufacturing company based in your district,
I confront the challenges that America's innovators face
every day. In addition to challenges with the FDA and
reimbursement, this 2.3% excise tax--which is on gross sales,
whether or not a business has any profits--will directly
impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and
development and effectively compete in the global market.
OsteoMed formed a new subsidiary company a couple of years
ago to develop an innovative spine product that greatly
simplifies spine fusion surgery and improves patient
outcomes. OsteoMed launched this product last year which
quickly grew to almost $5MM in sales in 2011 and currently
employs a number of highly skilled, high paid individuals.
Due to the significant upfront investment and on-going
development costs, this new company is not projected to make
a profit in the near future but is nevertheless subject to
the device tax which will further delay this subsidiary's
success. As a result, OsteoMed has now delayed additional new
product developments and personnel in order to make ``ends
meet'' and achieve the returns initially envisioned when this
company was created.
OsteoMed's core business manufactures surgical implant
systems for use in craniofacial, neurosurgical and small bone
orthopedic (upper and lower extremities) surgeries. These
systems require extensive, specialized instruments that are
typically not sold, but are used to implant the devices that
drive OsteoMed's revenue stream. The device tax will not only
tax gross product revenues, but my understanding is it will
also tax the instruments OsteoMed must invest in and place
into hospitals at no charge thereby further reducing my
company's profit opportunities and forcing expense reductions
in other areas in order to achieve our profit goals.
OsteoMed's products are sold through a variety of sales
channels and will require a new level of administrative
burden in order to track the ``gross'' revenues defined by
this tax. This requirement, along with the recent challenges
imposed by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, force
additional levels of administration and non value added
expenses that make OsteoMed less competitive and viable.
The market in which OsteoMed competes is in turmoil and has
become increasingly competitive with many new offshore
competitors. As economics and recent government restrictions
have largely removed surgeons from the surgical device
purchase decision process, hospitals are now forcing
increasingly price concessions. Despite increased raw
material and labor costs, OsteoMed has been unable to raise
product prices over the past several years and is now equally
unlikely to simply pass along the device tax to our
customers.
Like any other responsible business, OsteoMed must
carefully manage expenses in order to make profit and
continue to grow and succeed. In order to cover the shortfall
the new device tax will create, OsteoMed has already started
to implement cut backs in its operations including the delay/
cancellation of new product development projects and the
hiring of additional personnel, including biomedical
engineering positions. It should be noted that OsteoMed is
also aggressively re-directing its business focus to
international markets that provide a less cumbersome and
lengthy regulatory pathway with revenue streams that are not
subject to the medical device tax. . . . immediately
``saving'' 2.3% in the process. In the past month, OsteoMed
initiated the search for sales managers in China and the
Middle East to supplement recent managers hired in Korea and
Italy. Unfortunately, OsteoMed has already started to
effectively trade U.S. jobs for overseas positions as a
direct result of the medical device tax and other
governmental involvement.
The medical device industry not only provides numerous
highly skilled and attractive jobs across the U.S., but it
also pays its workers on average 40% more than the typical
job. We are a vibrant sector of the economy and one of the
few remaining industries that produces a healthy export of
products. Tragically, this industry has now become the focus
of misguided and short-term government intervention and the
growth and continued prosperity of this proud American
industry now faces great hurdles.
Again, I thank you for your service to our country and
specifically for your support of H.R. 436 to repeal this tax
and to help America's innovators continue to improve patient
care and drive job creation. I look forward to your ability
to visit OsteoMed when you are back in Dallas so you can see
firsthand our great employees and the innovative products
they produce to help people around the world. Please do not
hesitate to contact me to discuss this issue or any other
issues impacting the medical device industry.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Humann,
President & CEO,
OsteoMed.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation
we will be voting on this afternoon to repeal the $30 billion excise
tax on medical device companies, and I'm proud to join Mr. Paulsen in
his effort to prevent this misguided tax from taking effect next year.
The district I represent in western Pennsylvania is home to a number
of medical device companies that have planted their roots in our
region. They offer high-paying, quality jobs and are developing
innovative devices that are saving lives.
[[Page H3593]]
One example is Zoll Medical, which manufactures the LifeVest, a
lightweight, wearable defibrillator that continuously monitors a
patient's heart. The device allows patients with medical conditions to
return to their daily lives with the peace of mind that they are
protected from sudden cardiac arrest. This is the type of innovation
that we should be encouraging in this country, not penalizing.
The excise tax is simply misguided policy. The American medical
device industry has proven that when given the chance to succeed, it
has the ability to produce devices that can better the quality of life
for Americans and even save lives.
The industry is already facing challenges from foreign competitors
that have an easier time getting their products to market. We must give
the U.S. device manufacturers the opportunity to succeed, not punish
them for being innovators and risk losing the incalculable
contributions they provide to our economy, the delivery of health care
and quality of life for every American.
The rule that we are debating today provides us with the chance to
vote to help ensure that the next great medical breakthrough is
developed in this country right here in the United States and not
overseas.
I urge my colleagues to support its passage, and I thank Mr. Polis
for yielding me the time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my friend, Mr. Scott,
and fellow Rules Committee member, for allowing me time to speak on
this important issue.
This rule brings to the floor a series of health issues that I hear
about every day from constituents back home. About 46 million Americans
have either a flexible spending account or a health savings account.
These are hardworking American families that plan ahead for their
health care. They're folks who don't want to be a drain on the health
care system. But the Federal Government has the audacity to look at
these funds from these families that have put aside for their health
needs and see this as money for the government's taking. We need to be
rewarding these people, not seeing them as a revenue source to pay for
ObamaCare. But the government takeover of health care is going to
punish them and encourage them to use more expensive treatment options.
The bill we are considering today will undo ObamaCare's limitation on
purchasing over-the-counter medications, freeing both health savings
accounts and physicians' offices from these new, burdensome regulations
that go into effect.
{time} 1300
It will allow families to cash out up to $500 in their unused FSA
balances at the end of the year as regular taxable income, and it will
repeal a 2.3 percent tax imposed on the sale of medical devices. This
tax will make health care more expensive. It will be passed down to the
consumer, and it's already costing innovation and jobs in the medical
device industry.
I applaud the Ways and Means Committee for their work on this
legislation and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
pass not only the rule, but support the underlying legislation.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'll
offer an amendment to the rule to make in order the Connolly amendment,
which proposes that Members who repeal Federal benefits for their
constituents must forfeit such benefits themselves. Why should Members
of Congress get special benefits that we deny to our own constituents?
To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 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 for yielding.
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke is on Capitol Hill today
warning that if the Congress doesn't get the debt and deficit under
control, we could be facing a fiscal collapse, a calamity. And he's
right. And I think we all know that one of the ways to avoid a calamity
is to move Americans from unemployment lines to payrolls.
But this is another day when the House will not consider legislation
that would cut taxes for small businesses that hire people. This is
another day when the House will not consider legislation that would
rehire police officers, firefighters, teachers. This is another day
when the House will not consider legislation to rebuild our roads and
our bridges and our electronic infrastructure.
There is going to come a day when the House, I fear, will consider
reductions in Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid to deal with the
deficit problem. Now, we need to consider these kinds of issues because
they're an important part of the deficit. But when we do, I think most
Members would agree with the proposition--I think all Members would
probably agree with the proposition--that we should live under the laws
that we write. If the Congress is going to consider a change to Social
Security, we should live with that change. If the Congress is going to
consider a change to Medicare, we should live with that change. We say
this to our constituents when we go back to our districts.
Let's vote for it today. We propose to put on the floor, as part of
today's legislative agenda, legislation that would say, pure and
simple, if there's a change to Social Security, Members of Congress
will live under the same change. If there is a change to Medicare,
Members of Congress will live under the same change. If there's a
change to Medicaid, Members of Congress will live under the same
change. I think we'd probably get a unanimous vote for that
proposition.
Let's put it on the floor and affirm to the people of this country
who pay the bills and serve the country, we live under the same laws
that we write.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and underlying H.R.
436, the Protect Medical Innovation Act. This bill will make a positive
impact in two critical areas: jobs and innovation.
For 40 consecutive months now, unemployment has exceeded 8 percent.
Just last week, we received the unwelcome news that unemployment had
increased in May from the prior month. We're on the wrong track, and
the medical device tax included in the Affordable Care Act will make a
bad situation even worse.
According to one industry study, the 2.3 percent medical device tax
could result in the loss of 43,000 American jobs, and this is just
outrageous. We should be taking steps to create good-paying American
jobs, not preserving a tax hike that would ship these jobs overseas.
Let me just put that in perspective, Mr. Speaker. I have a unique
observation point as a physician in practice for over 30 years, and let
me take you through some innovations that I've seen.
In 1974, I learned how to do laparoscopy, which is where you place a
scope inside the abdomen and look, just observe. And that's really
about all we could do.
I remember, 1986, my partner and I did the first ectopic pregnancy.
That's a tubal pregnancy, where pregnancy has occurred in the fallopian
tube, and we were in there trying to get this pregnancy out through a
scope. We did not have the equipment to do it.
Today you can take an ultrasound, diagnose this before rupture; and
before, most of these were diagnosed after rupture, required blood
transfusions, an open laparotomy, and days in the hospital. Today, I'm
happy to report that we diagnose almost all of these before they
rupture. We take a simple scope, with the new equipment and devices
that have been discovered and utilized and developed, remove this, and
send the patient home within hours.
I've watched, now, this go from just a rudimentary observation to
incredible surgery with the new Da Vinci device--we're able to do very
complicated pelvic surgery, prostate cancer surgery, other abdominal
surgeries, heart surgeries--that have done many things, have reduced
suffering, lowered morbidity, mortality, and we certainly do not need
to go in a different direction.
Let me give you a very personal example that happened to me just 8 or
9 months ago.
[[Page H3594]]
In September of 2011, I was walking through the airport in Charlotte,
North Carolina, when a gentleman arrested. If it had not been for an
AED, a medical device, this gentleman would not be here with his family
today. We were able to resuscitate him and send him successfully home
to his family.
We do not need to decrease this innovation. I've seen absolutely
spectacular things that have occurred over the last 30 years.
Also, this legislation is very simple. It does two other things. It
allows an individual to use their HSA, which I have, to buy an across-
the-counter medication instead of coming to my office, the most
expensive entry point into the health care system other than the
emergency room, to get a prescription. It's counterproductive. It
wastes time for the patient and their families.
I also would certainly support the FSA agreement for letting someone
keep $500 of their money.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. And letting that individual and that family
roll it over so they can use it the next year. Three very simple things
and I will close.
Regardless of what you believe in the Affordable Care Act, or how you
believe, I urge my colleagues to support this. And I find it a little
bit comical that we are fussing about a closed rule on these three
simple items when we discussed a 2,700-page health care bill on a
closed rule.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to my colleague, Mr. Roe's discussion of very expensive
medical devices and equipment, part of the justification for looking at
revenues for medical devices is, through making sure that more
Americans have access to insurance, we're able to increase demand and
compensation for procedures that involve costly medical devices. This
is a way that can actually drive business and job growth for the
medical device industry by having more people covered by insurance. The
Affordable Care Act will cover millions and millions of more Americans
to ensure that they have access to medical devices, driving consumption
and purchase of medical devices as well.
Look, there's plenty of ways that we can talk about to pay for this
bill. Unfortunately, this closed rule allows for no discussion, other
than the extremely partisan, middle class tax increase, which the
Republicans have proposed to pay for this bill.
Personally, I've also supported and continue to support looking at a
soda tax. Rather than tax something that makes people healthier and
improves public health, like medical devices, why not tax something
that makes people less healthy, like corn syrup with food coloring and
water, a little bit of caffeine added, no nutritional content,
increases diabetes, increases obesity, tooth decay, even been shown to
hurt kids' performance in schools. And a study by Health Affairs, a
nationwide tax of 1 percent on sugary drinks would actually go a long
way towards being able to pay for repealing the medical device tax.
So look, these are decisions that our constituents send us here to
make. How do we want to pay for things? If we don't want to tax medical
devices, are we going to tax the middle class instead, as this proposal
will do?
We talked about a family of four in Ohio, family of four in New York,
that would pay over $5,000 a year in extra tax just because the mother
went back to work, just because one member of the family might have
passed away in a year, sticking them with an enormous tax bill? This
tax-and-spend Republican majority continues to advocate tax after tax
after tax increase directly targeted to middle class and working
American families.
{time} 1310
Look, let's evaluate how we want to pay for health care in this
country. Health care is important. Health care is expensive. If you
have better ideas than the Affordable Care Act--better ways to reduce
health care costs for businesses, help families access health care--
let's get them on the table in an open process and talk about what we
want to do to help drive down costs.
But this cobbled-together set of bills will only decrease access to
health care in this country. It will undermine the very demand for the
medical devices that are so important to job growth and creation in
this country. It will undermine the incentive of middle class families
to try to improve their stations in life--to take on a second part-time
job, to seek a promotion at work. It's very contrary to our American
values that hard work gets you ahead in this country. If you work hard
and if you play by the rules, you have a shot in this country, and this
cobbled-together set of bills is an affront to that very concept that
makes me so proud to be an American.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I just heard the previous speaker say that the Affordable
Care Act is going to provide so much opportunity for medical device
manufacturers that they will simply be able to eat this device tax.
Well, that's not the case in my district, and there are three principal
reasons why we must repeal this device tax:
One, it increases health care costs for consumers on everything from
wheelchairs, to bedpans, to prosthetics, to tongue depressors. Two,
this is going to kill jobs. More than 400,000 jobs in the U.S. and
22,000 in Pennsylvania are directly employed by the medical device
industry. This tax will put up to 43,000 American jobs at risk. Three,
this is going to stifle innovation by reducing investment in R&D, which
leads to medical breakthroughs.
By the way, this is a familiar health care law trifecta: higher
costs, lost jobs, lost innovation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. DENT. This tax is going to have a profound impact in my
congressional district on companies like Aesculap, Boas Surgical,
BioMed, B. Braun, Olympus, OraSure, and Precision Medical Instruments.
If you don't believe me, Chris Field of Boas Surgical in Allentown, a
small business that manufactures custom orthotics and prosthetics,
explained that the tax may ultimately force the employer out of
business:
The medical device tax would simply destroy what is left of
our company. After giving it our all, we would simply have to
turn out the lights, lock the doors and send 45 employees to
the unemployment lines; and our patients, including many of
our soldiers returning from combat, would no longer be able
to receive medical devices, such as their prostheses, from a
company which has faithfully served the Lehigh Valley for
over 90 years.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
An executive summary of a report by the Bloomberg Government is
entitled ``Medical Device Industry Overstates Tax Impact,'' which was
put together by health care policy analysts.
This study calls into question the assumption that several of my
colleagues on the other side have indicated that the medical device tax
results in the loss of 43,000 jobs. After investigating, the Bloomberg
Government officials found that this figure was based on the
hypothetical assumptions of a 10 percent reduction in domestic
employment resulting from manufacturing moving their operations
offshore. So it was just based on guesswork. It was said, Well, how
many jobs do we want to say this would cost? Let's just say 10 percent.
Then they just put it down. There was no analysis. It was simply
based on a guess, which I can just say with the same amount of backing
that it will create 10,000 jobs or that it will eliminate 5,000 jobs or
that it will create 20,000 jobs. You can say whatever you want, but
there is no scientific analysis that leads to that conclusion.
In fact, throwing 350,000 Americans into the ranks of the uninsured
as this cobbled-together set of bills would do and reducing the number
of insured Americans by 350,000 is certain to reduce the demand for
medical devices. It is certain to reduce job growth and to hurt many of
the companies that are complaining about the medical device tax.
Again, if we can find a way to pay for it that doesn't throw over a
quarter million Americans out of health care
[[Page H3595]]
insurance and that doesn't increase taxes for a family making $72,000 a
year by over $5,000, let's do it. We can. We can look at taxing things
that make people less healthy rather than taxing things that make
people more healthy. We can eliminate tax loopholes and subsidies for
the oil and gas industry. We can discuss eliminating agriculture
subsidies.
There are a lot of great ideas that Republicans and Democrats have to
help replace the revenue that might be lost under this proposal; but
under this closed rule, both Republicans and Democrats are prohibited
from bringing any ideas forward about how to pay for this bill other
than with an enormous tax increase on the middle class, throwing
Americans off the insurance rolls, which actually reduces the demand
for medical devices and will cost jobs in this country under this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An excise tax on medical devices imposed by the 2010
federal health-care overhaul isn't likely to reduce industry
revenue as much as the device manufacturers say. This
Bloomberg Government Study finds that while some reduction in
revenue is likely if the tax leads to higher prices, it won't
hit manufacturers on the magnitude forecast in 2011 by an
industry trade group.
The price effect of the tax will be offset to some degree
by the expected increase in demand for medical devices as a
result of the estimated 32 million Americans who will obtain
health insurance under the law. The net impact on revenue
remains uncertain.
The 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, which include
pacemakers, artificial joints, and magnetic resonance imaging
machines, takes effect in 2013. The tax may be passed along
to the buyers of most medical devices, which will increase
prices. A 2011 study commissioned by the Advanced Medical
Technology Association, or AdvaMal, an industry trade group,
estimates the resulting drop in revenue will be $1.3
billion--close to the median of 12 scenarios in its economic
model. That projection represents about 1.1 percent of the
industry's $116 billion in annual revenue. The group based
its estimates on expected reactions by suppliers and buyers
of medical devices to changes in price, a phenomenon that
economists call price elasticity.
This study examines the economic assumptions underlying the
industry group's findings. Using relevant research, this
study finds that the price elasticity for medical devices is
likely to be weaker than the industry put forward; in other
words, an increase in price is not likely to lead to a severe
contraction in demand. Even the most modest scenario
considered by the AdvaMed study, projecting annual revenue
losses of $670 million, may be too high because it doesn't
account for the likelihood of an increase in demand for
medical devices by the newly insured.
This study also calls into question the assumptions behind
another industry assertion that the medical-device tax will
result in a loss of 43,000 U.S. jobs. That figure, the
AdvaMed authors told Bloomberg Government, was based on a
``hypothetical'' assumption of a 10 percent reduction in
domestic employment resulting from manufacturers moving their
operations offshore to avoid the tax.
The study is AdvaMed's only quantitative analysis of the
impact of the tax supporting the group's assertion that the
medical-device tax will be harmful to manufacturers' revenue.
This Bloomberg Government review of those findings gives
lawmakers reason to be skeptical of its main findings.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. It is interesting to talk about an open or closed rule
when we are discussing something with the Affordable Care Act. We all
know what an open process that it was developed under and how wide open
and inclusive that that was.
Let's talk some basic economics with this.
If you tax something more, you get less of it. That's simple
economics. Apparently, somehow there is a desire to get less medical
innovation. If we go to the medical innovators--the people with the
latest devices, the newest devices, the best devices that are getting
Americans healthier, that are providing a better quality of life for
people from infants to senior adults--and then tax them more, we are
discouraging them from future innovation and from creating the next
products that create the next big medical wave on it.
Currently, the best medical innovation in the world is happening in
the United States of America. We want to keep it that way. We talk a
lot about: Why are we losing manufacturing jobs? Why are manufacturing
jobs going around the world? I'll tell you why we're losing
manufacturing jobs. It's because, every time you turn around when
you're in a manufacturing segment, you've got a Federal regulator in
your building who is checking out something else. Whether it's your
paperwork or your process or your people, they are constantly checking
everything else. We also have this very high corporate tax structure.
We have the highest in the industrial world. Now we're taking it to the
medical device folks and making it even higher and making it even
harder.
What we need to do is have the best medical innovation in the world
here, but we don't do that by punishing those companies for doing it
here. If we want companies to go overseas and to do the best innovation
in the world somewhere else, then we should continue to raise taxes on
them. This solves that. This keeps it here. It keeps the companies here
and keeps them from relocating and offshoring. It keeps premiums from
going up. As the medical device cost goes up--guess what?--insurance
premiums go up as well, as well as dental costs for dental devices.
This is just another example of picking winners and losers and
finding an industry that is successful and saying, Let's tax them more
so we can move that money somewhere else. I'll tell you what. Let's
just have the best medical innovation in the world continue to be here.
Let's take care of that medical device tax and clear it out as of
today.
Mr. POLIS. My colleague from Oklahoma said, if you tax something, you
get less of it. Under this bill, we tax work, and we tax middle class
families taking a second job or getting a promotion at work. This bill
will force families to stay on the government payroll. It will force
people to continue to get their benefits because, if they try to work
harder, you're increasing their taxes.
Yes, if you tax something, you get less of it. This bill will result
in people working less, having less of an incentive to work, less of an
incentive to lift yourself up and to get off the government subsidies,
less of an incentive to take a second job, less of an incentive to get
a promotion. Why would we put squarely the burden of paying for this on
people who just want to work harder to get ahead?
If you tax something, you get less of it. This bill in its current
form results in less work, fewer jobs, fewer chances for middle class
families to stay in the middle class, fewer chances for aspiring middle
class families to reach the middle class.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing
consistently that somehow a tax that isn't a tax is now considered a
tax, so the notion of recapturing overpayments from health care
subsidies should not be considered a tax. It should be considered being
honest and fair. So let me say it one more time: that requiring people
to return money not correctly given to them is not a tax increase; it
is a matter of honesty and integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Mulvaney).
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I think something has gone overlooked here today, which
is that this is a bill that has bipartisan support. So often back home,
the folks want us to do things that have bipartisan support. We've seen
several Members from across the aisle speak in favor of this bill and
of this rule today; but I think something else is going overlooked,
which is that the President should support this. This should be a bill
that the President of the United States supports. After all, he was the
one who said when he was campaigning--and I'm quoting now from
candidate Barack Obama:
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making
less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase--
not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital
gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
{time} 1320
By the way, Mr. Chairman, it's very rare that we speak that boldly in
politics. Oftentimes, we give ourselves space to walk things back. But
that is about as unequivocal a statement as you can get.
I imagine that since that statement was made in 2008, it's by
accident that
[[Page H3596]]
we have, by my count, at least 13 taxes that violate that pledge. We
have a new tax on cigarettes, a tax on non-qualified HSA distributions,
a tax on insured and self-insured health plans, a tax on tanning
services, a tax on brand name pharmaceuticals, and, of course, this tax
on certain medical devices. My guess is that was done by mistake, and
we need to fix that so that the President can keep his promises.
So I encourage my friends across the aisle, as well as my own
colleagues, to vote for the rule and to vote for the bill to help the
President out, to help the President keep his promises so that we do
not raise taxes on anybody in this country who makes less than
$250,000.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his remarks by saying
don't raise taxes on people making under $250,000. This bill increases
taxes on people making $40,000, $70,000, even as much as $90,000.
That's what it is--it's a huge middle class tax increase.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no''
on ordering the previous question so we can consider Mr. Connolly's
amendment that would give our constituents a chance to see whose side
their representative is on.
Since the Republican majority took office, they have repeatedly
focused on chipping away at the protections afforded by Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security, and the Affordable Care Act. Yet many of
these same Members are happy to claim these benefits for themselves and
their families, even as they vote to deny access to these benefits for
the very people who put them in office. The American people deserve
better.
We're saying to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: if
you're going to force your constituents to give up the right to access
affordable insurance or retirement security, then you should do the
same.
Last year, I introduced a resolution that would require all Members
of Congress to publicly disclose whether they participate in the
Federal Employees Health Benefits program. The reasoning was simple: if
Republicans wish to take away quality affordable health care from
Americans, then they can no longer hide their benefits from the
taxpayers that subsidize their own care.
The taxpayers are our employers, and they deserve to know which
Members are keeping taxpayer subsidized health benefits for themselves
and their families while they vote to deny those same health care
benefits and rights to all American families.
For all their talk of transparency and accountability, my resolution
was met with silence from the other side of the aisle. Today, they have
a chance to try again and say to their constituents: I won't take away
your benefits unless I'm willing to give up mine as well. How many will
take that promise? Everyone should. But I fear that their party's
political promises will trump the promises they should make to help
their constituents.
I will vote to stand on the side of the American people, and I
encourage every one of my colleagues in this Chamber to join me and
vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 436, the
Health Care Cost Reduction Act.
Over the past 18 months, the House has been focused on legislation
that will help set the table for job creation. This recession has
proven more stubborn than previous ones in part because it hits solid,
middle class jobs the hardest. The medical technology industry,
however, is one area where America remains a global leader in
manufacturing. There are more than 35,000 medical technology industry
jobs in Ohio alone, well paying jobs too. Unfortunately, the
President's health care law wants to punish this industry's success.
His overhaul of the health care industry created a 2.3 percent tax on
medical device sales in the U.S., which will be implemented just 6
months from now. As a small business owner myself, I understand this
tax will have a huge negative impact on this industry, killing American
jobs, slowing medical innovation, and harming America's global
competitiveness. That is because this tax is on revenues, not profits.
Some in the Halls of Congress and in this administration who have
never worked in the private sector may not realize it, but that is an
important distinction. Placing the tax on the revenue side makes it
much more costly for small device makers to pay for it because many of
them have high revenue levels, but much smaller profit margins. You're
taxing them based on how much business they do, not on how much money
they make, an idea only career politicians could dream up and attempt
to implement.
Over 75 percent of medical device makers are small businesses with
fewer than 50 employees. As such, it has been estimated that this tax
will lead to somewhere between 15,000 and 50,000 lost jobs. I will not
stand idly by while this tax threatens jobs across the country and my
home State of Ohio. That is why I stand in strong support of the Health
Care Cost Reduction Act, which would repeal this tax. And I thank
Representative Paulsen for introducing it. We simply cannot be
competitively global when we tax our manufacturers and our small
businesses at a higher rate than our foreign competitors tax theirs.
I call on my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to practice some
economic common sense and join me in voting to repeal this tax.
Mr. POLIS. Why should Members of Congress get special benefits
because they're Members of Congress that they vote to deny to their
constituents? Thankfully, if we defeat the previous question, Mr.
Connolly will bring forward an amendment that will address this issue.
With that, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague, Mr. Polis.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question.
If we defeat the previous question, we will move immediately to
consideration of an amendment that will ensure that Members of Congress
do not shield themselves from changes in health care benefits that
would reduce the level of care for our constituents. In fact, we might
even call this the ``what's good for the goose'' amendment.
In fact, the simple commonsense amendment would add a new section at
the end of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act to prohibit any
proposed repeal of benefits in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or
the Affordable Care Act from taking effect until it has certified that
a majority of Members in this body and the Senate are no longer
eligible, whether through automatic or voluntary withdrawal, to receive
the very same benefits being repealed.
My colleagues will recall that during the health care reform debate,
we responded to false claims about Members of Congress having gold-
plated health care by removing ourselves from the Federal Employees
Health Benefits program. Members will soon use their own State-based
exchanges to purchase insurance just like any other family in their
community.
We wanted our constituents to have as much confidence as we do that
the exchanges will deliver the care that's promised. In keeping with
that spirit, my simple amendment would ensure Members of Congress stand
with their residents in living with any changes in benefits we might
legislate.
Mr. Speaker, we can offer our residents comfort of mind knowing that
Members of Congress will share in those same benefits or reduced
benefits by adopting this simple commonsense amendment, proving that
what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I urge defeat of the previous question.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, Indiana is a global leader in medical device innovation
in the United States, providing tens of thousands of high-wage jobs to
Hoosiers. There are over 300 medical device manufacturers in the State,
many of them small businesses, all working on cutting-edge innovation.
[[Page H3597]]
Mr. Speaker, we need to preserve what is working in America. The
medical device industry is working. In fact, it's helping to save
manufacturing in this country, period. One of the biggest threats to
the medical device industry is the tax punishing policies put forth by
the last Congress and the President of the United States, commonly
known as ObamaCare. It will send these manufacturing jobs to other
countries so the cost of the tax can be made up.
{time} 1330
In addition to sending jobs out of the country, this tax, if not
repealed, will only drive up the cost of health care by shifting the
costs onto consumers.
Medical device jobs provide an average of $60,000 in Indiana alone,
which is 56 percent higher than the State average. The economic impact
of Indiana's medical device industry eclipses $10 billion, and job
growth has increased nearly 40 percent in the last few years. Similar
numbers can be applied to the State and across this Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ROKITA. Although the tax is not scheduled to take effect until
next January, we are already feeling its choking boot on the necks of
hardworking Americans and sick people. Indiana medical device companies
have already laid off good Americans, thanks to this tax, which is just
one more example of this failed Presidency.
The national unemployment rate increased again last month. We cannot
afford to move forward with this ill-conceived tax on American
innovation, on American companies who add value to this Nation and its
economy.
I encourage all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote ``yes'' on the
rule and for final passage of H.R. 436.
Mr. POLIS. I have no additional speakers on this huge Republican
middle class tax increase. I would like to ask my colleague if he has
any remaining speakers. I am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Illinois is hurting. Unemployment has been above 8
percent for the past 3 years. The medical technology industry is one of
the only success stories in the State, employing thousands and still
growing.
The district I represent is home to many of these medical technology
companies. These are quality jobs with employees earning, on average,
10 percent more than their counterparts in similar manufacturing
fields.
We must act now without hesitation. Illinois alone could lose
anywhere from 1,200 to 1,300 good-paying jobs that support American
families. That's why I cosponsored H.R. 436, rise in support now, and
will continue to support all efforts to repeal the medical device tax.
Mr. Speaker, the highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a
free market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Illinois
has suffered enough. We can't stand idly by and watch more burdensome
taxes prevent honest, hardworking American from getting the quality
jobs they deserve.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if my colleague has any remaining
speakers, and I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 2\1/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina has 6\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans are still out of
work, here's yet another bill on the House floor that does nothing to
create jobs or get our economy back on track.
This House has already passed repeals of the Affordable Care Act
several times, and here we have another bill that takes three bills and
lumps them together with a controversial payment mechanism that's a
huge tax increase on the middle class, and it drives Congress further
from consensus and sound governance.
Again, we're spending another legislative day repealing parts of the
Affordable Care Act that the President has said he would veto with no
opportunity for Members of either party to offer amendments or
substitutes.
Instead of seeking a bipartisan agreement on reducing health care
costs or even doing anything to further the repeal of the medical
device tax, the Republicans have made it impossible for many to support
this bill by combining a number of unrelated bills with a huge middle
class tax increase. This is not the transparent one-bill-at-a-time
House that the American people deserve.
My colleagues are once again passing on an opportunity for bipartisan
reform in favor of simply scoring political points.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can make sure that Members of
Congress don't receive special benefits that we would deny to our
constituents.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, so we can avoid this enormous
Republican middle class tax increase, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
remaining time.
My assumption is my friends to the left truly believe if you say it
often enough, it might become true. Even if it doesn't become true, if
you say it often enough, perhaps someone watching will assume that the
words being spoken are somehow true.
We've heard it several times in the last hour, things that have been
said over and over again because we are obviously once again in an
election year. After hearing the arguments made by the other side
regarding the previous question, there is no doubt that we are in an
election year.
To clarify, any future changes in benefits to Social Security or
Medicare would also and always apply to Members of this body. There are
no exceptions, Mr. Speaker, no, not one exception whatsoever. There are
no carve-outs in the law giving special treatment to Members of
Congress under Social Security or Medicare.
But if you say it often enough, perhaps someone, somewhere watching
somewhere in this Nation will come to the conclusion that it must be
right. Let me say it one more time.
Members of Congress will comply with the law as it is on Social
Security and Medicare.
Secondly, we have heard consistently over and over again--and this is
another part of that alternate universe that doesn't exist unless you
want someone to believe something that is simply not true--that somehow
recapturing overpayments of health care subsidies is now considered a
tax. I would say that at a time when we face a $16 trillion debt, we
cannot afford to not recapture all the money owed to the Federal
Government.
My friends on the left want people to believe that if you recapture
the dollars that were given inappropriately that somehow, some way this
becomes a tax increase. Let me say it just in case folks listening
didn't understand the words that I was speaking.
Requiring people to return money not correctly given to them, this is
not a tax, and it certainly is not a tax increase. It is simply a
matter of honesty and integrity.
Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the health care bill that took $500
billion from Medicare. We're talking about the health care bill that
takes $500 billion out of the pockets of everyday, average middle class
Americans in the form of tax increases. There is one tax increase on
those folks who own property, $123 billion through a new 3.8 percent
tax. Today we find ourselves in the position of repealing a $29 billion
medical device tax because the people who need the medical devices will
end up paying that tax.
I think we are in a position today, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that
over 423,000 Americans who are employed in this country are able to
continue to work. I believe that we are in a position, Mr. Speaker, to
ensure that the
[[Page H3598]]
health care of millions of Americans continues to be a critical part of
the discussion.
Mr. Speaker, we are in a place to make sure that new taxes, $29
billion of new taxes, don't continue to destroy American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not only to vote for the rule but
to vote for the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 679 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of section 2, add the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the
amendment printed in section 3 shall be in order as though
printed as the last amendment in the report of the Committee
on Rules if offered by Representative Connolly of Virginia or
a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Members who repeal federal benefits for their constituents
must forfeit such benefits for themselves.
Sec.__ (a) In General.--Any proposed repeal of benefits in
Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, or of any benefit
provided under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Public Law 111 148), shall not take effect until the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies to
the Congress that a majority of the Members of the House of
Representatives and a majority of Members of the Senate have,
as of the date that is 30 days after the date of the passage
of the repeal in the respective House, voluntarily and
permanently withdrawn from any participation, and waived all
rights to participate, as such a Member in that benefit. (b)
MEMBER DEFINED.--In this section, the term ``Member of the
House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a
Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . . When
the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of
the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to
ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then
controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or
yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 179, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
YEAS--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
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
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
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
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 (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--179
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
[[Page H3599]]
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
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
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bilirakis
Cardoza
Coble
Filner
Kucinich
Lewis (CA)
Marino
Paul
Shuler
Slaughter
{time} 1404
Messrs. COHEN, CICILLINE, DICKS and LYNCH changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CRAWFORD and PETERSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 359, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)
____________________