[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7095-H7100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 184, PROTECT MEDICAL INNOVATION ACT
OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6311, INCREASING
ACCESS TO LOWER PREMIUM PLANS AND EXPANDING HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ACT
OF 2018
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1011 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1011
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 184) 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. The amendment printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution 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) one hour 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6311) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition of qualified
health plan for purposes of the health insurance premium tax
credit and to allow individuals purchasing health insurance
in the individual market to purchase a lower premium copper
plan. 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, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-83 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) one hour 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1011 provides for the
consideration of two bills aimed at removing some of the most
burdensome aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and, as a result, moving
toward lowering healthcare costs for the millions of Americans who are
confronted daily with rising premiums, rising deductibles, and rising
drug prices.
With each bill, we take one step closer to ultimately eliminating the
Affordable Care Act's government-run approach to healthcare and return
to a market-driven solution that puts patients first.
The first bill in today's rule, H.R. 184, the Protect Medical
Innovation Act of 2017, would repeal the excise tax on medical devices
imposed on American companies by the previously mentioned Affordable
Care Act.
The second bill in today's rule, H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to
Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health
[[Page H7096]]
Savings Accounts Act of 2018, expands the availability and the use of
health savings accounts to allow individuals and their families to save
their own money and budget for the healthcare needs they have that
otherwise would not be part of their budget.
Today's resolution provides for a closed rule for H.R. 184, the
Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2017. This is the standard practice
for a tax-related measure on the House floor. The rule provides for 1
hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the
ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule
does provide the minority with the customary motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The second part of today's resolution provides for a closed rule for
H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding
Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018. The rule provides for 1 hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The customary
motion to recommit with or without instructions is provided to the
minority.
This week, Republicans in the House continue our efforts to increase
more healthcare options while driving down premiums in the individual
market. According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, premiums
on the exchange are 105 percent higher, on average, in calendar year
2017, compared to premiums in the individual market in calendar year
2013, which was the last year before the Affordable Care Act took
effect.
It is important that we continue to address the negative impact that
the Affordable Care Act has had on the individual market and to help
Americans across the country be more in charge of their healthcare
purchases.
Thus far, the Republican Congress has been successful in nullifying
the individual mandate, repealing the Independent Payment Advisory
Board, and delaying many of the harmful taxes on American businesses
and American consumers. I am also encouraged by the actions of the
administration in permitting more low-cost limited duration insurance
plans and allowing access to association health plans for more small
businesses.
These are choices that are provided to the American people so that
they, the American people, can be in the driver's seat, not the other
way around with the ACA's government-approved one-size-fits-all
healthcare model.
With that in mind, two bills we are considering this week seek to
expand and improve health savings accounts. Under the current rule,
H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plan and Expanding
Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018, will enhance the benefit of tax-
preferred health accounts so that individuals can better plan and save
for their healthcare needs, and, also, these individuals will see lower
premiums on their healthcare plans.
For the last several Congresses, I have argued to improve the utility
of health savings accounts, and so I am pleased to see that these
important policies are being advanced through the House this week.
In addition to offering health insurance, many employers often
arrange to reimburse their employees and their dependants some of their
medical expenses that are not covered by health insurance. Health
flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements are
two of the more common arrangements offered by employers.
I have heard the frustration of employees, many of whom are my
constituents in north Texas, over forfeiting the remaining amounts in
their flexible spending account at the end of each plan year. We can
all agree that the healthcare needs and purchases vary from year to
year, where one year a person may have more medical expenses than the
next or the other way around.
One of the provisions in H.R. 6311 eliminates the arbitrary ``use it
or lose it'' rule and allows flexible spending account balances to be
carried over to the next plan year within a reasonable annual flexible
spending account contribution limit.
Another provision allows working seniors that are covered under an
HSA-eligible high deductible health plan and enrolled in Medicare part
A to continue to contribute to their health savings account. Just
because someone becomes eligible for Medicare because of age, they
should not be prohibited from continuing to contribute to a health
savings account.
Under current law, there are annual health savings account
contribution limits. In 2018, the limit for an individual was $3,450.
For families, that amount was $6,900. While these limits are updated
annually for inflation, they are significantly less than the combined
limit on annual out-of-pocket deductible expenses.
H.R. 6311 would allow individuals to increase their contributions to
equal to the combined annual limit on the out-of-pocket and deductible
expenses under their HSA-qualified insurance plan. That would be $6,550
for an individual and $13,300 for a family this year.
The Affordable Care Act limits the option of individuals enrolled in
bronze and so-called copper, or catastrophic, plans to make HSA
contributions. Also, only those under 30 or those that qualify for a
hardship exemption are actually able to purchase the so-called copper
health plan. That is a 50 percent actuarial value health plan.
So, today, I am pleased that a bill that I introduced with
Representative Roskam, H.R. 6314, the Health Savings Act of 2018, to
expand the eligibility and the access to health savings accounts by
allowing plans categorized as catastrophic and bronze plans in the
individual and small group markets to qualify for HSA contributions.
That is included in this bill.
Lastly, I appreciate working with the Ways and Means Health
Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam on H.R. 6311. One of the key
provisions of the bill is to provide an off-ramp from ObamaCare's
rising premiums and limited choices by allowing the premium tax credit
to be used for qualified plans offered outside of the law's exchanges
and healthcare.gov.
In addition, it expands access to the lowest premium plans available,
so-called copper or catastrophic plans, for all individuals purchasing
coverage in the individual market and allows the premium tax credit to
be used to offset the cost of such plans.
{time} 1230
I recognize not everyone will choose to have a health savings
account, but they should have the option because HSAs represent a
powerful tool to lower prices and improve access to quality care for
everyone, and those are goals that we can all share.
Now, it is well documented that many of the provisions contained
within the Affordable Care Act have negative consequences on patients,
both in access to care and in affordability. One of the provisions that
has been universally criticized is that, on a large, bipartisan nature,
its repeal was called for almost immediately after the passage of the
Affordable Care Act. This is the tax on medical device manufacturers,
or more commonly referred to as the medical device tax.
It seems illogical that within a piece of legislation that was
purported to make medical care available, more accessible to all
Americans, the Federal Government would want to tax the very providers
of medical innovation that create devices to improve the delivery of
healthcare, but, nevertheless, that is exactly what happened when
ObamaCare passed in 2010, and it was done as a means to pay for the
astronomical price tag that accompanied the Affordable Care Act.
This tax burden is unfair, and it actually increases costs that
consumers pay at their doctors' offices. The tax has also been cited by
dozens of medical device manufacturers who have or are considering
moving their operations overseas so that they can continue to innovate
without the heavy burden of this tax stifling their growth. This tax
slows the creation of new techniques and devices, which will make the
delivery of medicine more efficient, and it puts at risk the jobs that
were created by the creation of such devices.
For anyone who thinks that we are merely talking about the largest
and most expensive pieces of technology found within a hospital--
basically, your MRI, CAT scans, and some surgical equipment--let's be
clear that
[[Page H7097]]
this tax covers every piece of medical equipment, from those large
machines to the smallest of items, including syringes used to deliver
lifesaving antibiotics and vaccines. It continues to negatively impact
a number of constituents in my district and, I am certain, in districts
around the country, and it does continue to create a burden on a number
of companies.
The medical device tax has led to the elimination of thousands of
good-paying jobs, and repealing it would be the first step to bringing
those jobs back and stem the loss of future jobs within this vital
industry that is helping to mitigate rising costs of healthcare due to
the burdensome provisions within the Affordable Care Act.
This is a tax on business, a tax on consumers, and a tax on
innovation. To date, 33,000 jobs have been lost in the medical device
industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and it is
projected that over 130,000 additional jobs are on the chopping block.
Why would anyone be surprised about this? Excise taxes--and that is
what this is, an excise tax--are meant to lead to a reduction in the
consumption of the goods being taxed. We place an excise tax on
cigarettes. We want to discourage people from smoking. We make it
burdensome to afford a smoking habit.
Did we really intend, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act by
congressional Democrats in 2010, to make it more burdensome to use more
efficient medical devices?
H.R. 184 has bipartisan, bicameral support, with currently 277
cosponsors. Republican leadership in the House has heard this request
and heard the calls from many Members within this body and is moving
this bill in a responsible way to put Americans back to work and lower
healthcare costs for all.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30
minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this rule, but I would urge my
colleague from Texas to be mindful that this ain't going nowhere, so we
really are, when all is said and done, wasting our time. This is not
likely to be taken up by the Senate in August, and why we are not doing
other things, I simply cannot understand.
The Protect Medical Innovation Act and the Increasing Access to Lower
Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act are worth
considering. The gentleman from Texas certainly is an expert in this
area and is most sincere. It is regrettable that the legislation,
ultimately, that will pass the House of Representatives ain't going
nowhere.
Taken together, these measures do nothing to ameliorate the
Republican attempt to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, do nothing to
curb rising drug costs, and do nothing to curtail skyrocketing premium
hikes. Instead, H.R. 6311 continues the Republican majority's
destructive path of undermining and destabilizing our health insurance
markets.
This package of six bills will likely lead to fewer choices and
competition for moderate- and low-income families who do not have the
disposable income to pay premium costs up front.
In bringing up the second measure, H.R. 184, my friends across the
aisle seem intent on ignoring the pressing issues facing our country,
like passing sensible legislation that will address the country's
ongoing gun violence epidemic, passing legislation that will protect
our election infrastructure from hostile foreign hacking, or passing
legislation that will help reunite the more than 2,500 separated
children with their families. Rather, the Republican majority wants to
waste valuable legislative time in repealing a tax that won't even be
active until 2020.
This is the last week before we go on a 5-week recess and we are
doing nothing. Even worse, these bills are not offset and, taken
together with tomorrow's bills, will add up to $90 billion to our
deficit. They are not paid for. And I challenge my colleague on the
floor handling this rule to tell me where the pay-fors are and, if
there are none, why are they not paid for--$90 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the epidemic of gun violence
that plagues our communities must be addressed in a comprehensive
manner and without further delay. Unfortunately, our Nation has
witnessed far too many senseless deaths caused each day by firearms,
and that continues to rise.
Under a Republican majority, many commonsense reforms, such as the
assault weapons ban--and somebody please tell me why anyone other than
the military and law enforcement needs an assault weapon; I just, for
the life of me, cannot understand it--were allowed to expire. I might
add, flood insurance is getting ready to expire. We are not taking that
measure up.
Providing nearly unfettered access to a variety of firearms does not
make any sense. Someone said to me, well, there are 103 kinds of
automatic weapons; and I say ban them all because they don't have any
business in the hands of people in the streets at all.
While we need to preserve the rights of responsible gun owners--and I
am one of them; I believe in the Second Amendment--we must focus more
of our attention and efforts on keeping weapons out of the hands of
dangerous individuals instead of attacking and undermining the
healthcare for millions of hardworking Americans.
While the present administration works to further the majority's aim
of dismantling the most popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act,
like keeping children on their parents' health insurance until the age
of 26 and protecting people with preexisting conditions, these bills
continue to balloon Federal spending and deficits.
While we were promised increased revenue from the GOP tax cuts of
2017, with the GOP falling back on tired talking points like tax cuts
paying for themselves, we now have the Congressional Budget Office
projecting over $1 trillion in budget deficits in 2020, even before
legislation like this passes.
Whatever happened to the conservative Republicans? Where did the
fiscal conservative Republicans go, who are blowing up the deficit in
this country? The amount of fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated by my
friends across the aisle is shocking and will be a great detriment to
all Americans in the future.
Moreover, these pieces of legislation do nothing to holistically
solve the most pressing concerns hardworking Americans have with
healthcare: ever-increasing premiums, unstable health markets, and
exploding drug costs. In fact, in the last year and a half, the
majority has gone out of their way to destabilize health markets as
much as they can.
Instead of encouraging Americans to enroll in health insurance, the
Department of Health and Human Services has created an advertising
campaign explicitly undermining the individual insurance markets
created under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have cut the
Department's budget for those grassroots organizations whose sole
purpose is to assist folks in signing up for health insurance. How much
of the budget did they cut? 92 percent.
In addition to this, HHS has threatened States that try to lower
premiums, and the Trump administration has even canceled cost-sharing
reduction payments to insurers, which the CBO projects will leave 1
million more people uninsured, raise premiums by 20 to 25 percent over
the next 2 years, and increase the Federal deficit by $200 billion.
Listen, people, when we started this business of the Affordable Care
Act--as much as my friends on the other side who have the prerogative,
in the majority, to be in disagreement with this measure as well as any
others and to offer this thing that ain't going nowhere here today--the
simple fact of the matter is, some few years back, we had 42 million
Americans who were uninsured. We now have more than 42 million
Americans uninsured, and that is wrong.
I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, all of us, 535--the Senate
and the House--and the six delegates, ought to be locked up up here
until we come up with a sensible solution for the American people with
reference to a crisis.
It was said yesterday by the chair of this committee that the plan
that is going to be offered--that we did offer and then they voted
against--would be the best healthcare plan in the world. Well, it ain't
the best healthcare plan
[[Page H7098]]
in the world. The best healthcare plans in the world are in Denmark,
Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, and a whole bunch of other places other
than America.
And while the Trump administration has pushed junk healthcare plans,
even the organizations that originally lobbied the administration for
access to these plans now say they no longer want to use them.
All in all, as a result of these policies, as I have indicated, 4
million fewer Americans have health insurance than when Donald John
Trump took office, and healthcare costs continue to rise unabated.
I need not remind my colleagues that people in the United States pay
far more for healthcare than in any other industrialized nation on
Earth, and, in most cases, they get far less. We spend over 18 percent
of our gross domestic product on healthcare, compared to most other
countries, which spend less than 10 percent, with much of the disparity
occurring thanks to higher drug prices and administrative overhead.
{time} 1245
Despite the money we pour into our healthcare, the United States has
the shortest life expectancy and highest infant mortality of any modern
industrialized nation--let me repeat that--the shortest life
expectancy, and the highest infant mortality of any modern
industrialized nation.
We have far fewer physicians--and we had better do something about
that; not in this measure, not in the Affordable Healthcare Act. We had
better get busy trying to figure out how to provide more physicians,
more nurses, more research for a variety of measures that are oncoming
that our Nation is going to be confronted with.
We have fewer hospital beds and, in perhaps what is the most
depressing statistic of all of U.S. healthcare, the United States is
one of only 13 countries in the world where the rate of maternal
mortality, defined as the death of a mother in the year after she gives
birth, is now worse than it was 25 years ago.
And here we are, continuing to jaw jack about something that ain't
going nowhere, and we have situations in our country that all of us
know something about, all of us care about. There is no Republican in
the House or Democrat in the House that doesn't care about their
constituents and their healthcare. And at the very same time, what we
are winding up doing is arguing with each other and nothing is getting
done, and that is just dead wrong for this country.
Black women, in particular, are three times more likely to die from
health-related issues to their pregnancy. How can we seemingly pay for
more healthcare now than at any point in our Nation's history and, yet,
at the same time, be getting worse care than we were decades ago?
We have a fundamentally broken system. The majority doesn't seem to
have any way of fixing it, and I am not even sure that they want to fix
it. Indeed, they seem to be going out of their way making it somehow
worse.
Now I hear all of the voices out there. I had a constituent call the
other day to tell me that I wasn't as liberal as his people were,
liberal, and that I didn't understand this whole healthcare system.
And I told him: Listen, man, in 1992, when I ran for office, I ran on
the premise of universal healthcare for every American, period. And
when we did the Affordable Healthcare Act, it ultimately got called the
ObamaCare Act.
I have said in the Rules Committee repeatedly, it probably should
have been called the Hastings/ObamaCare Act, or perhaps we would have
done what Dr. Burgess asked us to do and it would be called the Burgess
Healthcare Act.
I don't care what it is called. It needs to be called something that
is going to help every American, and not just a handful, and certainly
not the richest people in this country who don't even need any
healthcare. They have been at the socialized healthcare business for
all of their lives and, therefore, people like Donald John Trump don't
need to worry about this kind of thing.
It is those people that are vulnerable. It is those people on
Medicaid in Florida and other States that didn't expand Medicaid,
900,000 of them in my State, that are left to the mercies of the
system.
And what do they do? All of us know what they do. When they have
healthcare, they go to the hospital, to the emergency room, generally
speaking, they are treated, and then those taxpayers in those
respective jurisdictions wind up paying for it.
So why don't we get our act together and try to do something about it
now?
I have proudly advocated for multiple pieces of legislation that will
improve and strengthen the Medicare system, including H.R. 676, the
Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which will provide all
individuals residing in the United States and the United States
territories, with affordable healthcare, including that which is
medically most necessary, such as primary and preventative care,
dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care,
long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision
care. Underscore preventative care. And if we did more in that arena,
we wouldn't have as much of a problem as we do today.
Medicare for All will save taxpayers hundreds of dollars a month.
Now, I firmly believe that we must focus priorities in the interest of
the American people to ensure that our citizens have continued access
to healthcare services.
So when we come back here in September, when we finish all of our
fighting in November, and we have somebody that is going to get
elected, 435 of us will return here and be sworn in in January. Let's
all make a commitment that we are going to work together, together, to
get all of the resources, the tremendous minds, the incredible staffs
that work here in this institution together, and try to make sure that
we do the right thing by the American people and pass a measure that
will cause everyone to have affordable care.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman is quite correct in identifying the other body as
sometimes an obstacle to good public policy, for it was 1 year ago that
the other body blocked a health care reform that this body had passed
the previous May.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the House's attention to an article
in today's Wall Street Journal. The title of the article is ``TrumpCare
beats ObamaCare.'' And I just want to quote a little bit from this
article.
To set the stage, in December, with the repeal of the individual
mandate, and quoting here: ``But while many people didn't realize it at
the time, it turns out that Mr. Trump has been helping to improve an
important source of insurance coverage since virtually the moment he
took office.''
Continuing to quote here: ``By prioritizing economic growth and
reducing the tax and regulatory burdens on U.S. business, Mr. Trump has
helped create an economy with more job openings than ever before. As if
by magic, the invisible hand of a freer marketplace is now generating
new benefits as employers compete to fill all those open positions.''
Continuing to quote here: ``For the first time in six years, the
share of U.S. workers offered health insurance through their employer
has risen, a sign a tighter labor market is prompting businesses to
offer more generous benefits.''
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply submit that the activities of the Trump
administration have, indeed, improved the healthcare landscape in this
country. That is something we should acknowledge and embrace.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to
prevent any legislation from being considered that would reduce the
guaranteed benefits for individuals enrolled in either Medicare or
Medicaid programs.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat
[[Page H7099]]
the previous question so that we may protect these critical programs
for this generation and the next.
Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared now to advise my colleague from
Texas that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close when,
and if, he is.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this place, the people's House, should be
about approaching our congressional responsibilities and daily
activities in a manner that is fair and respectful to all Americans; in
a manner where the appropriate committee of jurisdiction holds hearings
and markups; in a manner where experts in the field are respected and
consulted; in a manner where Members of both political parties have the
ability to offer amendments and debate the contents of bills that come
to the House floor.
Unfortunately, in this historically closed-off, Republican run House,
that is not the case. And let me make it very clear. Even though in the
Ways and Means and the Appropriations Committee, as a matter of
practice, we allow for closed rules, we now have, with these three
rules that are likely to be finished today, we have 95 closed rules.
This is 2018, and not in the history of the people's House has the
process been as closed.
When the Speaker of the House of Representatives began this session,
he indicated that it would be the most open session that we would have.
And yet, it is not the case.
I spoke earlier about immigration, and I saw this morning where the
majority leader has determined, even though having promised his own
conference that he would have a vote on immigration, he ain't gonna do
it.
Now, something is wrong with this process and it needs to be
corrected, and we can correct it going forward. We will make 100, and
then we will be historically referenced as the most closed Congress in
the history of the United States of America.
What we see are my friends across the aisle, bending over backwards
to reward a very specific and elite constituency. Week after week, the
powerful gun lobby is rewarded as Republican leadership refuses to
bring up even the most commonsense gun violence prevention legislation.
The next week, like today, the powerful medical insurance lobby
chalks up a win as this Republican-led Congress votes in favor of
special interests over the interests of hardworking Americans.
Some other people that make out like bandits that we never talk about
are the insurance companies. I could spend a whole hour talking about
how they are benefiting while we are about the business of tying each
other in knots with verbiage rather than with substantive legislation.
Mr. Speaker, while there is no quick fix to any of these measures,
not to gun violence, opioid addiction, the immigration problems, and
ongoing foreign cyber attacks on our election system's infrastructure,
we simply must engage in the complicated and difficult process of
improving our country's current policies.
I, as well as my colleagues on this side of the aisle, stand ready to
work with Members of Congress to bring commonsense legislation to the
floor that will benefit all Americans and not just the rarified few.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a
``no'' vote on the previous question. This measure we are debating here
today ain't going nowhere, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman from Florida is making a point about open rules, and I
do feel obligated to point out in the 111th Congress--that was the
Congress that was the first 2 years of President Obama's
administration--in the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the
majority had zero open rules. That is zero open rules in the 2 years in
which we saw the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the passage of
Dodd-Frank; the House-passed Waxman/Markey, which was a cap-and-trade
global warming bill, so significant pieces of legislation passed the
floor of this House, all under closed rules.
But, Mr. Speaker, today's rule brings forward two pieces of
legislation that will have a meaningful impact on Americans' healthcare
costs, including the premiums and the prices they pay for medicines.
{time} 1300
H.R. 184, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2017, which will
repeal the Affordable Care Act's ill-conceived medical device tax, and
H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding
Health Savings Account Act of 2018, which will provide greater freedom
for Americans to use their own money to pay for medical expenses out of
their health savings accounts, both of these build on the House's work
over the past 2 years to make healthcare a more patient-centered
market.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank Representatives Paulsen and
Roskam for their work on these measures. I urge my colleagues to
support today's rule and move the debate forward on this legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1011 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``Restrictions on Consideration of Legislation That Would
Cut Medicare or Medicaid.
13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report which includes any provision described
in paragraph (b).
(b) A provision referred to in paragraph (a) is a provision
which, if enacted into law, would result in either of the
following:
(1) a reduction of guaranteed benefits for individuals
entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under the Medicare
program under title XVIII of 18 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.); or
(2) a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals
enrolled in, or eligible to receive medical assistance
through, a State Medicaid plan or waiver under title XIX of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 5 et seq.).
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition
of any point of order under paragraph (a) or this paragraph
(except a point of order against an amendment pursuant to
paragraph (a)), the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the measure, order, conference
report, or rule as applicable. The question of consideration
shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating
the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but
shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except
one that the House adjourn.''
____
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 Democratic minority 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.''
The Republican majority may 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
[[Page H7100]]
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. BURGESS. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________