[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3822-3831]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1190 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1190

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of March 21, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate 
only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1190.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1190 authorizes the Speaker to 
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through 
the calendar day of Sunday, March 21, 2010.
  This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the 
Speaker may entertain motions to suspend rules only on Monday, Tuesday, 
or Wednesday of each week. The rule also provides that the Speaker 
shall consult with the minority leader on the designation of any matter 
considered for suspension. In order for suspensions to be considered on 
other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these 
motions.
  And I want to remind my colleagues that any legislation passed under 
suspension of the rules still must receive at least a two-thirds vote. 
This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we 
recess for the upcoming district work period.
  A list of suspension bills will be provided by the majority leader at 
the appropriate time. We expect a number of important bills to be 
considered. Additionally, we expect the Rules Committee to meet again 
to make several other rules in order.
  Before I reserve my time, let me just state the obvious. We are 
waiting for

[[Page 3823]]

the health care bill to ripen and be ready for floor consideration. 
While we wait, there is business that this House must attend to, and 
this rule helps us do that.
  But let me be clear. We will vote on the health care bill in the next 
few days. We will do so with a publicly released CBO score that shows 
the health care bill does not increase the deficit; in fact, it reduces 
the deficit. And we will do so while allowing 72 hours for anyone who 
wants to read and analyze the bill before we vote on it, and we will do 
so knowing that we will insure 32 million people, 32 million people who 
currently lack health insurance today.
  Madam Speaker, this rule simply allows the House to conduct business 
until that health care bill is ready to come to the floor for a final 
vote, a vote which I am confident will prevail.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, we are on the cusp of voting on legislation to permit 
a Federal Government takeover of one-sixth of the Nation's economy.
  This is the most significant piece of legislation in our generation. 
The American people get that, and they do not want this bill. They want 
health reform that makes sense and that will make health care more 
affordable and accessible.
  When the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, floated 
the proposed Slaughter solution last week, the outcry was immediate. 
You would think that my colleagues would take their title of 
``Representative'' seriously and want to listen to the American people 
and have an open process. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question today, so that we can amend this rule 
to allow the House to consider H. Res. 1188.
  This resolution, sponsored by Mr. Griffith, will ensure an up-or-down 
vote on the Senate's health care takeover by preventing the Speaker 
from using the Slaughter solution to ram the Senate health care bill 
through the House, bypassing regular order. The American people do not 
want the Senate bill, and neither do most Members in this Chamber.
  The American people deserve an open process and an up-or-down vote. 
Voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will be on the record 
opposing the Slaughter solution and voting to allow for consideration 
of a remedy aimed at protecting against this attempt to ram through the 
Democrat plan to socialize medicine.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just state for the record that 
this has been an incredibly open process. And when I contrast it to the 
way my friends on the other side of the aisle handled a similar bill 
related to health care, and that was the prescription drug bill, I 
don't know what they are complaining about.
  When they brought up the prescription drug bill, this is what it 
looked like, and it was given to the Rules Committee less than an hour 
before we were asked to vote on it, and then it was rushed to the floor 
a total of 27 hours between the time it was brought to the Rules 
Committee and the time Members were asked to vote on this bill. 
Contrast that to what we have done on this health insurance reform 
effort.
  President Obama began with a health care summit at the beginning of 
2009. Republicans and Democrats were invited and participated. Over the 
past year and a half, the House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 
83 hours of committee markups. We heard from 181 witnesses, both 
Democrat and Republican. Two hundred thirty-nine amendments were 
considered, 121 amendments were adopted. You know, this is the big lie 
that we are hearing from the other side that somehow this has been a 
closed process. The Rules Committee will convene on the health 
insurance reform bill with C-SPAN cameras present.
  So this has been an incredibly open process. And I want to commend 
the Speaker of the House and the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for 
this open process, in contrast to the way they did their prescription 
drug bill, and just shoved it before the Rules Committee without anyone 
being able to read it. So I think that this has been an open process, 
and we stand by it.
  But do you want to talk about process? Let's talk about the process 
by some of the big insurance companies in this country that routinely 
deny people coverage for the most silly reasons. They do it because 
they can.
  In some States, Madam Speaker, believe it or not, insurance companies 
consider domestic violence as a preexisting condition. I mean, does 
anybody here think that is acceptable? And the gentlelady's home State 
of North Carolina, they are one of the States that still allow domestic 
violence against women to be used as an excuse to deny somebody health 
insurance. That is unconscionable, and the bill that we are talking 
about will fix that.
  They were in charge for a lot of years, too many years, if you ask 
me. They drove this economy into a ditch. And during all that time, 
they did nothing, nothing, to deal with the rising cost of health 
insurance that families and small businesses face each and every day. 
They did nothing about the insurance companies denying people insurance 
because of preexisting conditions. They did nothing to deal with this 
issue that domestic violence in some States, including the State of 
North Carolina, can be used as a preexisting condition to deny somebody 
health care.
  So we need to do what is right for the American people, and enough of 
the misinformation and enough of the lies and enough of the 
distortions. We need to do what the people want, and that is, fix this 
health insurance industry that we have in this country that, quite 
frankly, has denied millions and millions of people in this country 
insurance.
  And even those who have insurance have found out as they have been 
wheeled to the operating room that their insurance didn't cover what 
they thought.
  The time is now for reform, and we are going to do that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague across the aisle talks about 
what the State of North Carolina does and does not do.
  This insurance should be a State issue; it should not be a Federal 
issue. Maybe changes need to be made in the State of North Carolina, 
but that is up to the State of North Carolina. This is a Federal 
Government takeover, which is inappropriate.
  Let me talk about the AARP and what they do about preexisting 
conditions, because our colleagues have put a special carve-out in this 
bill for the AARP. They deny access with preexisting conditions by 
imposing waiting periods on Medigap plans. They have a tremendous turn-
down on preexisting conditions. Medicare turns down more people, twice 
as many people as the insurance companies do, and they want to put us 
all in Medicare-type plans. My colleague is a little disingenuous when 
he brings up selective situations like this.
  I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished colleague from California, the ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and of 
course congratulate her on her fine management of this extraordinarily 
important rule because of what we are going to be doing when we deal 
with the previous question.
  Now, before I get to that, I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I 
might, with my good friend from Worcester, and say that we have had 
this constant drumbeat of us versus them, class warfare. The Democrats 
are for the people; the Republicans are only for the insurance 
companies. I mean, we continue

[[Page 3824]]

to hear that over and over and over again. So what I would like to do, 
Madam Speaker, is to disabuse my friend and others on the other side of 
the aisle and many people in the media who continue to put forth this 
argument by saying or making the charge that we have tried to do 
nothing to deal with this issue out there, and that is crazy. And, 
Madam Speaker, I would like to go through a few of the things that we 
have done that have been designed to bring the cost of health insurance 
down to make sure, to make sure that more Americans have access to 
quality health insurance.
  Let's begin by something that I introduced, and I am happy to say we 
have put into law. I introduced it 23 years ago in 1987, the first bill 
to call for the establishment of medical savings accounts, which 
incentivize Americans to put more dollars aside to save for direct 
health care costs or health insurance costs.
  The second thing that we have done, I am very proud of the work 
product of Medicare part D by ensuring that more seniors have access to 
affordable prescription drugs.
  But, Madam Speaker, what I would like to do is talk about a couple of 
things that we have worked on and when we were in the majority that we 
passed through this House, but, unfortunately, were blocked by my 
friends on the other side of the aisle in the other body. Those two 
things are, number one, associated health plans.
  Now, President Obama has said that he believes that the notion of 
allowing small businesses to come together to pool so that they can 
have the benefit of lower insurance rates is something that he finds 
somewhat appealing; and yet, when we passed that in this House, sent it 
to the other body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose, 
unfortunately, to block that measure.
  And what is it that has happened? Well, we have seen an increase in 
the number of people who don't have health insurance in this country 
because of the fact that Democrats in the other body chose to block our 
establishment of associated health plans so that small businesses out 
there can come together.
  And the second issue, which, again, the President stood here in his 
address to the joint session of Congress, Madam Speaker, and talked 
about and he believed was important for us to utilize, and that is real 
lawsuit abuse reform.
  Now, unfortunately, one of the reasons that we see this dramatic 
increase in health care costs is that--what has happened? Many 
doctors--and listen to this: Many doctors have to engage in what is 
described as defensive medicine. They have to constantly prescribe all 
kinds of tests which are unnecessary, but they do it for one reason, 
Madam Speaker, and that is they do it because they are afraid of being 
sued.
  Now, Madam Speaker, in the last Republican Congress, in our attempt 
to bring the cost of health insurance down we passed out of this House 
real lawsuit abuse reform legislation. It was blocked in the other body 
by our Democratic colleagues.
  So this notion that was put forward by my friend from Worcester that 
we somehow have done absolutely nothing to deal with the plight of 
those Americans who don't have access to quality health insurance is 
preposterous.
  Now, Madam Speaker, we have heard about this issue of transparency, 
and disclosure, and accountability, and I listened to my friend from 
Worcester argue that we have had this great deal of transparency. Then 
I ask you, Madam Speaker, why is it that the American people are saying 
that we should start over and we should in fact have a process that is 
transparent and open?

                              {time}  1045

  Never before, never before in the history of the Republic have we 
seen the process that is being contemplated used on such a massive 
issue and on the signature issue of an administration. We all know that 
this is the signature issue that has been put forth, argued for more 
than a year; and now what we've had is the Speaker and the majority 
leader and the distinguished chairwoman of the House Committee on Rules 
say that it is acceptable for us to completely deny accountability, to 
avoid accountability, and to prevent Members from actually being 
responsible for the votes that they cast.
  Well, Madam Speaker, the American people get it. No matter how 
diligently they work overtime in the back rooms in this Capitol to 
block any opportunity for transparency, the American people are able to 
see through what it is that they're doing. It's one of the great 
benefits of the new technology that exists today and the fact that 
there are Democrats as well as Republicans who are decrying this.
  I joke with my friend from the Grandfather community that sometimes I 
watch some of the programs on television that may be a little left of 
center. And I'm proud to do that. I watch them with regularity. And I 
have listened to a number of their commentators who would in no way be 
considered supporters of the Republican vision that is out there 
actually say that it is wrong. It is wrong for Democrats to go down 
this road of self-executing this massive, massive bill. They're arguing 
for transparency and disclosure and accountability, and I believe that 
it makes a great deal of sense.
  When we defeat the previous question--I hope, Madam Speaker, we will 
be able to do that--we will take the initiative that has been launched 
by our newest Republican colleague, Parker Griffith, who has come 
forward and offered a proposal to say that if we're going to debate 
this health care bill, we should have an up-or-down vote and we should 
have extended debate, because the process that's being contemplated 
right now, Madam Speaker, would not allow one single minute of debate 
on the floor of the people's House to debate the health care bill. The 
only thing that we would debate is 30 minutes on either side on the 
special rule that would come to the House floor.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. And when we do that, we will bring up and allow a 
vote on the Griffith proposal that will ensure that we will have an up-
or-down vote on the health care issue and the kind of free-flowing 
debate that the American people deserve.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Give me a break. That somehow Republican ideas have 
helped anybody in this country dealing with the high cost of insurance, 
it's ridiculous. In California alone, 8 million people last year went 
without health insurance. That's about 25 percent of all Californians 
under the age of 65; 25 percent in California, where they have some of 
the strongest malpractice laws in place.
  I mean, this is crazy. The fact is that people are struggling to pay 
for their health insurance. And people who pay for it ought to be able 
to get the insurance that they think they're going to get. We have a 
situation now where it's not just we have to worry about the uninsured; 
we have to worry about people with insurance who all of a sudden find 
themselves sick or a loved one sick and find for crazy reasons that 
they are somehow going to be denied coverage. This is the United States 
of America. We could do better. We can have the best for everybody. Why 
not?
  At this point I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for 
yielding me some time. The beauty of sports--you know, we're entering 
into March Madness; we just witnessed the Olympics. When you get to 
sports, there's a scorecard. All the talk and all the bravado really 
doesn't matter. You kind of look at what the score is. And we had a 
Republican President, we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate 
for 6 years. And on the question of providing insurance to tens of 
millions of Americans who didn't have it, they did zero. On the 
question of reining in insurance companies in terms of excess costs, 
they did zero. In terms of dealing with the practices of insurance 
companies taking away coverage on a preexisting condition, because they 
say pregnancy is a preexisting condition or

[[Page 3825]]

acne or domestic violence, the Republican President and the majority in 
the House and the Senate for 6 years did zero.
  Now we have a Democratic President and a Democratic House and a 
Democratic Senate. In less than 16 months, we have provided health care 
to over 10 million children, even against the tobacco lobby and all of 
our Republican colleagues, many of whom voted against it. We prevailed. 
We in this House voted to take away the antitrust exemptions from 
insurance companies. Within just a few hours, some 72 hours from almost 
this moment, we are going to provide over 32 million of our fellow 
citizens with health insurance coverage through a health care reform 
proposal. We're going to rein in the worst practices of insurance 
companies. We're going to eliminate lifetime caps and yearly caps. 
We're going to make sure that children with preexisting conditions 
can't be denied coverage, and then down the road, adults.
  So we are moving to look now at the scorecard. All of the talk is 
wonderful. I heard my colleague say, Well, they've done this and they 
tried to do this. Whatever the Republican President and majority did 
over those 6 years is overwhelmed by what was left undone. And we have 
begun this work. We're going to finish this work. And we're going to 
make sure that in this country we join the rest of the industrialized 
world in providing insurance for all of our citizens. We began this 
fight, and we're prepared to vote about it in just some 72 hours, all 
of this talk notwithstanding.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to say that, again, our colleagues across the aisle 
are in the business of picking winners and losers. They do love one 
insurance company. They love the AARP, which in 2008, from their 
financial statements, had royalty fees of $414 million. Pure profit on 
their bottom line. I raised this issue with Mr. Rangel when he was at 
the Rules Committee before, because I am very concerned about the way 
AARP is being represented to the people. Their profits have skyrocketed 
in recent years, jumping 31 percent just from 2007 to 2008. So we find, 
again, that they want to pick the winners and losers instead of 
allowing individuals in this country to make their decisions on what 
they should be doing.
  I'd like now to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank Ms. Foxx for yielding. I want to ask 
three questions of my Democratic colleagues: Are you so arrogant that 
you know what's best for the American people? Are you so ignorant to be 
oblivious to the wishes of the American people? Three-fourths of 
America does not want this bill. Are you so incompetent that you ignore 
the Constitution; that you have to use tricks and deception to ram down 
the throats of the American people something that they absolutely do 
not want?
  I hope and pray and I call upon the American people to speak louder, 
and I hope and pray that our Democratic colleagues will listen to the 
American people, listen to their constituents, and stop this government 
takeover of health care. I hope you will listen to President Obama when 
he says that the American people deserve an up-or-down vote.
  I hope that I can encourage my Democratic colleagues to defeat this 
previous question so that Democrats and Republicans can work together, 
so that we can find some commonsense solutions to literally lower the 
cost of health care, so government doesn't take over the health care 
system that's going to drive a million people out of work, that's going 
to run the cost of everybody's health insurance up, if they have 
private insurance. It's going to destroy the private health insurance 
system. As a medical doctor, I'm not a proponent of the health 
insurance system. But please listen to the American people. Let's 
defeat this PQ and let's work together to find some commonsense 
solutions. This is in the best interest of America.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia and all Members 
are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I think the gentleman from Georgia nicely summed up the 
tone of the opposition. They'd rather engage in name-calling than at 
finding solutions. Grand Old Party, indeed.
  Let me tell you what I think incompetence and ignorance is, Madam 
Speaker. That's allowing 46 million Americans to go without health 
insurance. It's putting profits over patients. It's allowing insurance 
companies to discriminate for preexisting conditions. We can do better. 
This is the United States of America. We can do better for our people.
  At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague. You know, it's fascinating to have 
been engaged in this discussion for the better part of a year now as we 
talk about the things that we know the American people are demanding. 
They want us to act. They want us to act now in a comprehensive way to 
solve some of the problems facing the delivery of health care in this 
country.
  We know because we've seen polls, just as our colleagues on the other 
side have seen, that when you ask the American people do they want 
competition and choice in their health care insurance system, they say, 
by margins approaching 75 or 80 percent, Yes, we do. Do they want an 
end to the insurance practices of ending prejudice, discrimination 
because of preexisting conditions; by overwhelming margins, they say, 
Yes, we do. When we say, Do you want protection against having your 
insurance canceled just because you happen to get sick, they say, by 
overwhelming margins, Yes, we do. When you work through all of the 
elements of the legislation we're considering and will approve this 
weekend, the American people overwhelmingly say, Yes, we want that.
  I know our colleagues like to throw out these national poll numbers 
now and say, Well, these polls show that--now it's about 50-50--but the 
American people really don't want this. Well, there's one poll recently 
that asked those people who said they were against President Obama's 
reform plan, the congressional plan, they said, How many of you who say 
you're against it are against because it doesn't go far enough? And 
nearly 40 percent of those said, That's why we're against it. And 
that's kind of what I've been hearing in my district. Just like the 
shop owner I spoke to over Christmas who said, You know, I'm against 
what you're doing. I said, Really, why is that? She said, Because I 
have diabetes and I can't wait until 2014 to get the help I need. Is 
she against reform? Not on your life. Not on her life either. She wants 
reform. She wants it faster and she wants more of it.
  And that's what I'm hearing all over in my community. I don't know 
what is going on in some of our Republicans' communities, but what I 
hear by overwhelming margins, people say, Do it. Do it now. We are 
desperate.
  And you know what's interesting? As we've gone through this debate, 
and my friend Mr. Dreier was down here just a few minutes ago talking 
about how much they did when they were in control of Congress, well, 
they say they were for having insurance companies being able to sell 
insurance across State lines. Did they do anything when they had 
control of the Congress for 12 years? Did they make that possible? No. 
They say they're for ending preexisting conditions. Did they do 
anything about that? No. How about the rescission issue? Did they do 
anything about that? No. Yes, they passed the prescription drug plan. 
For some people, that's working out very well. For those who are in the 
doughnut hole, that middle portion where they pay 100 percent of the 
cost, it's not working out very well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Did they do anything about that? Yes, they did. They 
passed the bill, but they didn't pay for it. And now the CBO says 
that's going to add $8 trillion to our debt.

[[Page 3826]]



                              {time}  1100

  So while the Republicans say they've been concerned about solving 
America's health care problems, they really haven't done anything about 
it. And the one thing that sticks with me throughout this entire 
debate, 1 year long, nobody on the Republican side has ever said in any 
discussion that they had any interest in insuring the uninsured. Those 
47 million people, many of whom are going bankrupt, some of whom are 
dying, 18,000 a year are dying, almost a million a year are going 
bankrupt, did they say anything about insuring the uninsured? Not a 
word.
  So we're committed to providing the health care system America needs, 
wants, and demands. We're going to do it this weekend. And as I said 
before, this will be the proudest vote I ever cast on the floor of the 
House of Representatives.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Kentucky, 
even his own President has said that Americans will not have 
competition and choice in terms of what they are able to keep. He said 
that people will not be able to keep the insurance plans they like 
under this plan. So I wanted to make a correction of that.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from South 
Carolina and the next Governor of South Carolina, Mr. Barrett.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so the rule can be amended and the House can consider H. Res. 1188. If 
passed, this bill will ensure a straightforward up-or-down vote on the 
Senate-passed health care bill.
  From the moment this bill was introduced, Madam Speaker, this 
government takeover of health care has been on life support, kept alive 
only by closed-door processes and sweetheart deals. Over the past 
several months, I have spent a tremendous amount of time in South 
Carolina talking to folks about health care, and, quite frankly, the 
American people are tired of the games, the gimmicks, and they've been 
tired of us trying to muscle this bill through the legislative process. 
It's time we pull the plug on all these secretive schemes, Madam 
Speaker.
  The cure is real and true transparency. The American people deserve 
an honest debate and an open vote by Congress on this legislation. 
Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Madam Speaker, let's give the American people a true up-or-
down vote on this legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, can I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to make something clear, and that is the President has said 
over and over and over again that if you like what you have in terms of 
your insurance, you can keep it. No matter what my friends on the other 
side say, no matter how much they don't like the fact that people can 
keep their own insurance--and the President has assured that over and 
over again--no matter what you say, the facts are the facts, and that 
is a fact.
  The other facts are: what will health insurance reform do starting 
the first day it becomes law? On day one, on day one annual caps on 
coverage would be eliminated. On day one, rescissions, the practice of 
dumping people even if they have paid their premiums, would be 
eliminated. On day one, preexisting conditions, exclusions for children 
would be eliminated, and, over time, all preexisting condition 
exclusions would be eliminated. On day one, parents would be allowed to 
carry their children on their health insurance policy until their 26th 
birthday. On day one, a down payment toward completely closing the 
doughnut hole for seniors would be met with a $250 rebate for those in 
Medicare part D.
  This is all what will happen on day one when we pass it. These things 
here are important to the American people. These are the things that 
when they were in charge, they didn't have time to do. We had to do tax 
cuts for people who were wealthy. We had to give corporations more tax 
cuts and more subsidies. Well, the time has come for us to care about 
the American people and do something for the American people, and this 
is it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. McGOVERN. On your time, I will.
  Ms. FOXX. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman obviously did 
not pay attention to what the President said at the Republican retreat, 
because he said he had made a mistake in saying that people could keep 
their insurance plans if they liked them, that a few stray cats and 
dogs had gotten into the Senate bill. And what I wanted to ask my 
colleague is: Can he guarantee the American people that, in the Senate 
bill that they are going to vote on under a trick being used by the 
Rules Committee, that the American people will be able to keep their 
insurance plan if they like it? Because the President has said that 
isn't the case, and I think it's really important that we get that said 
here.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my friend across the 
aisle earlier saying that all lies and distortion must stop, and I am 
glad that he has finally agreed with us on that proposition. It is 
important, because, for one thing, people have been misled about what 
this bill does and doesn't do. I heard one of my friends across the 
aisle yesterday saying, Gee, great news. I've got 25 names of religious 
leaders who are pro-life who have now taken a look, and they've said 
this is okay.
  As a pro-life person, I don't believe this changes existing law. They 
look at page 119, and they see under subparagraph capital B, little I: 
Abortions for which public funding is prohibited. The services 
described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of 
Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human 
Services is not permitted, and based on the law as in effect as of the 
date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
  So they look at that and say, Oh, okay, that doesn't change existing 
law. That's great. And they don't look over to page 124 that says, 
Under this bill you have to provide insurance policies that will 
actually cover--it says here--there is at least one plan that provides 
coverage of services described in clause little I of subparagraph B. 
That's the one that says you can't use Federal funds to pay for 
abortion. And a few pages over it says you have to provide these 
policies that will fund abortions from the paragraph we said we won't 
fund. That's the kind of gamesmanship that's in here, and people will 
suffer as a result. That's just a small example.
  Now we hear over and over that you guys are killing people by not 
letting them have this plan that we've got for them. Well, we heard the 
President say in 2007, Gee, the first step will be--this bill is 
actually what we're talking about passing here. That will be the first 
step, and then there will be the transition basically into full 
socialized medicine.
  He said Canada had to start with this kind of bill and then go to the 
full socialized medicine. Well, let's look at what they did. Here you 
find out that if you want to die quicker from cancer than any other 
country, don't come to the United States because you'll live longer 
here. Folks, that's just not right.
  I have a bill that does the things that we're talking about, and Newt 
Gingrich told me back in June, Man, that will revolutionize the 
discussion of health care. I've been trying since June to get that 
scored, and I can't get it scored. I'm shut out. Oh, yeah, they're 
objective. They'll snap their fingers. They'll get you a CBO score the 
next day, but not for this Republican, even with the support of all the 
people they said I needed to get it scored. Let's get fair for a 
change.

[[Page 3827]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, gamesmanship my foot. There is no 
Federal money in this bill for abortion. The Hyde amendment applies to 
this bill. That's the law of the land. To get up here and to try to----
  No, I will not yield on that. There is enough misinformation being 
said on this floor. I will not yield.
  And, Madam Speaker, in terms of scores, let me read the CBO score 
today from how it appeared in Roll Call. ```An analysis of the 
Democratic health care overhaul by the Congressional Budget Office 
shows it would cost $940 billion over a decade and expand insurance to 
32 million people. The package also will slice the deficit by $130 
billion in the first decade and a whopping $1.2 trillion in the 
second,' a House Democratic leadership aide said Thursday. `The CBO 
report, which will soon be published, will show that the plan cuts the 
growth of Medicare costs by 1.4 percent per year while eliminating the 
doughnut hole. Those cuts would extend the solvency of Medicare for at 
least an additional 9 years.'''
  If you want to talk about scores, that's one of the scores here. This 
bill will not only insure 32 million people, it will cut our deficit, 
which is something that everybody says they want to do. So let's stick 
to what's real here.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I think the thing that my colleague across 
the aisle fails to mention when he talks about the deficit is that, in 
order to do that, they raise taxes, and that's something they always 
leave out. They're never real about that.
  I yield an additional 30 seconds to my colleague from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my colleague saying there is no money in 
here for abortion because the Henry Hyde amendment doesn't allow it. He 
is correct with regard to the appropriations through Labor and HHS. 
That's all the Hyde amendment applies to. It doesn't apply to the 
trillions of dollars that are appropriated in this bill around Labor-
HHS. That is money the Hyde amendment doesn't apply to. My colleague 
asked us to get real. That's as real as you get. There's money that 
goes around the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Again, just to reiterate that there are no Federal funds in this bill 
to cover abortion, there was an amendment in the Senate by Senator 
Nelson which made that clear. It is crystal clear. There should be no 
debate about it, and anybody here on the floor who is saying that 
somehow it does is just plain wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for 
yielding.
  You know, here we're talking, and this is about the only opportunity 
we're going to have for real debate on this because Speaker Pelosi and 
her liberal lieutenants have decided that they're going to try to ram 
this down the throats of the American people without even having an 
actual vote on the House floor, which, of course, violates Article I, 
section 7 of the Constitution. There are a tremendous number of 
constitutional questions about the bill, but they keep talking about 
how good their bill is.
  Let's just look at their credibility on this issue. Of course when 
Speaker Pelosi got the gavel in 2006 and became Speaker, she said, The 
Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical 
Congress in history. Well, let's review the record. Of course, just a 
few weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi says, But we have to pass the bill so 
that you can find out what is in it. They don't even know what's in the 
bill. They won't even release the CBO score. There are rumors flying 
around. There are all these backdoor secret negotiations. They said all 
of this would be on C-SPAN. The President said it eight times. They're 
meeting behind closed doors this very minute cutting more sweetheart 
deals, and no C-SPAN cameras. They threw the public out of those 
hearings. They broke that pledge multiple times.
  Now let's look at the latest on this Slaughter rule. Speaker Pelosi 
just said this the other day, But I like it because people don't have 
to vote on the Senate bill.
  Now, do they really think the people of this country are stupid? Of 
course the people know what's going on. The people are watching this 
closely, and the people will not be fooled by this abomination of the 
process. But if their bill really was so good, why are they doing all 
of this behind closed doors?
  They broke every promise they made along the way, but yet they want 
you to believe, Don't worry. It's still going to work out the way we 
want it. If you like what you have, you can keep it. We've seen 
multiple times where the President has said that, and that turned out 
not to be accurate. We know now--and it has been confirmed--that you 
will lose health care you have that you like under their bill. We have 
seen on abortion language, they keep saying even to this minute, Don't 
worry; no taxpayer funding for abortion.
  Now, are you going to believe folks that broke every promise or are 
you going to believe the Catholic bishops and National Right to Life 
who confirm there is taxpayer funding for abortion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has 
expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I will finish it up with this. Are you going to believe the people 
who have broken every other promise they have made about the bill or 
are you going to believe the Catholic bishops and National Right to 
Life who said this would be a career-defining pro-abortion vote? That 
was National Right to Life. Do you believe them or do you believe the 
folks who broke every other promise and are meeting behind closed doors 
right now, cutting more sweetheart deals that they don't want anybody 
to see?
  If their bill was so good, why are they trying to pass it without an 
actual vote? Because they know the American people are sick and tired 
of this proposal to have a government takeover of health care, and they 
don't want it. The public will be heard on this issue. We need to 
defeat this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I don't know how to respond to that 
tirade. Let me just say this. The reason why this bill is good is 
because it insures 32 million people right now in this country who 
don't have insurance. The reason why this bill is good is it's going to 
ultimately contain the costs that average families and small businesses 
have to deal with right now with the rising cost of health care. The 
reason why this bill is good is it prohibits insurance companies from 
discriminating against people with preexisting conditions.
  We have heard story after story where people were denied insurance 
because their preexisting condition was acne. I mean, we have heard 
stories where insurance companies have cut people off from insurance 
because their weight was wrong on the application. I mean, we have 
heard stories where women have been denied insurance because their 
preexisting condition was they were a victim of domestic violence. I 
mean, give me a break. We are supposed to be the greatest deliberative 
body in this country. We should be talking about how we solve these 
problems, not all these rhetorical flourishes that are just 
misinformation, blatant misinformation.

                              {time}  1115

  Enough. Let's get down to what matters, and that is doing something 
for the American people.
  I know it may not be convenient for your elections in November. I 
know, you know, you're all trying to figure out how do you deny 
President Obama any victory. How do we obstruct the process? You here 
in this House, your friends over in the Senate who used the filibuster 
over and over and over again.
  People are sick of that. People want us to help deal with this issue 
that,

[[Page 3828]]

quite frankly, is becoming an issue that they can not handle because 
the costs are going up and up and up. Small businesses aren't hiring 
people because their health insurance costs are going up. Average 
families are going bankrupt when someone gets sick. So let's do the 
right thing.
  I reserve my time.


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that our colleagues 
across the aisle talk about the problems with the filibuster in the 
Senate. But that is exactly why bills could not get passed that 
Republicans in the House passed but couldn't get them passed in the 
Senate because Democrats filibustered.
  And about misinformation, there probably has never been a bill that 
has been more misrepresented to the American people than what is going 
on here in terms of this bill. And I do think the American people 
understand the truth, and they're going to act on the truth later on 
this year. They're doing it now. They're telling them, don't vote on 
it. But they feel obliged to do it.
  I want to say that while my colleague across the aisle keeps ranting 
and raving about corporate profits for insurance companies, he doesn't 
say a word about the corporate profits for the Big Pharma companies. 
And yet, these are, they are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Big 
Pharma companies.
  Of all the single industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA sent $26.2 
million on lobbying last year. That's nearly three times as much as the 
insurance lobby, which spent only $8.9 million.
  And let's talk about profits. Drugmakers' combined profit margin last 
year--this is from an article of The Examiner from March 17, 2010, 
yesterday--profit margin was 22.2 percent, compared with the insurers' 
4.4 percent. Drugmaker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, exceeds that 
of the 10 largest insurers combined. And I can go on and on. Madam 
Speaker, I'd like to put this article in the Record.
  And the reason they don't talk about Big Pharma and the drug industry 
is because Big Pharma helped write this bill, because it protects them. 
They know that they are going to get a windfall out of this bill, and 
they, again, our colleagues across the aisle, are wholly owned 
subsidiaries of them.
  Madam Speaker, our colleague, my colleague from Louisiana, brought up 
a very, very important point that I think needs to be mentioned again 
and again. What Chairwoman Slaughter has proposed, and what will be 
done here, is to use a rule providing for consideration of both the 
Senate and reconciliation bills to deem the Senate bill passed, 
avoiding the political problem that stems from taking a true up-or-down 
vote on the horribly unpopular legislation.
  If this legislation is doing so much good for the American people, 
then our colleagues should be proud to be voting for this in an up-or-
down vote. They keep saying it, but you know, saying it doesn't make it 
so.
  Even though, again, Speaker Pelosi said on page 23 of her ``New 
Directions for America'' document issued in the 109th Congress that 
``Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. 
No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' Then on page 
24 she states that ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure 
that allows open, full and fair debate, and Members should have at 
least 24 hours''--later expanded to 72 hours--``to examine the bill 
text prior to floor consideration.''
  Yet, as Mr. Scalise has said, all we've seen are broken promises. And 
now, Speaker Pelosi is advocating parliamentary trickery to avoid an 
up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill. And he quoted her as 
saying, ``This is a great way to do it because it avoids an up-or-down 
vote.''
  This is not what the American people sent us here for. They didn't 
send us here to undermine the rule of law and to do things with tricks. 
They know this is the wrong thing to do. That's why they have been 
jamming the phones and telling our colleagues, vote ``no.''

                   [From the Examiner, Mar. 17, 2010]

          Dems Tap Drug Maker Millions for PhRMA-Friendly Bill

                         (By Timothy P. Carney)

       As they whip for the health care bill, Democratic leaders 
     pack a mean one-two punch of populist rhetoric and the hefty 
     financial backing of the drug industry.
       In the heated yearlong health fight, President Obama has 
     often accused his opponents of willful misrepresentation, 
     even as he and his allies have endlessly repeated the biggest 
     whopper of all--that the bill would rein in the special 
     interests.
       The Obama team regularly dismisses opponents as industry 
     lackeys. The Democratic National Committee blasted out e-
     mails this week warning that ``for every member of Congress, 
     there are eight anti-reform lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill'' 
     and ``Congress is under attack from insurance lobbyists.''
       But drug industry lobbyists, according to Politico, spent 
     the weekend ``huddled with Democratic staffers'' who needed 
     the drug lobby to ``sign off'' on proposals before moving 
     ahead. Meanwhile, we learn that the drug lobby is buying 
     millions of dollars of ads in 43 districts where a Democratic 
     candidate stands to suffer for supporting the bill. The 
     doctors' lobby and the hospitals' lobby are also on board 
     with the Senate bill.
       So the battle at this point is not reformers versus 
     industry, as Obama would have you believe. Rather, it is a 
     battle between most of the health care industry and the 
     insurance companies.
       (And the insurers are not opposed to the whole package. On 
     the bill's central planks--limits on price discrimination, 
     outlawing exclusions for pre-existing conditions, a mandate 
     that employers insure their workers and a mandate that 
     everyone hold insurance--insurers are on board. They object 
     mostly that the penalty is too small for violating the 
     individual mandate.)
       Pharmaceuticals are a far more entrenched special interest 
     than the insurers.
       Of all the single-industry lobbies in Washington, the 
     largest is the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers 
     of America. PhRMA spent $26.2 million on lobbying last year--
     that's nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, 
     America's Health Insurance Plans, which spent $8.9 million.
       If you include individual companies' lobbying 
     pharmaceuticals blow away the competition, beating all other 
     industries by 50 percent, according to data at the Center for 
     Responsive Politics.
       Given this Big Pharma clout, it's unsurprising that the 
     bill Obama's whipping for--Senate bill--has nearly everything 
     the drug companies wanted; prohibiting reimportation of 
     drugs, preserving Medicare's overpayment for drugs, lengthy 
     exclusivity for biotech drugs, a mandate that states 
     subsidize drugs under Medicaid, hundreds of billions in 
     subsidies for drugs, and more.
       PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin, who was vilified by Obama on the 
     campaign trail, worked out much of this sweetheart deal in a 
     West Wing meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm 
     Emanuel. Tauzin visited the White House at least 11 times. He 
     left his imprint so deeply on the current bill that it should 
     probably be called BillyCare rather than ObamaCare.
       Recall that pharmaceutical executives and political action 
     committees dug deep trying to save the flailing candidacy of 
     Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts--a race that was 
     explicitly a referendum on health care. She took in more than 
     10 times as much drug company cash as Republican Scott Brown.
       This week, PhRMA, through a front group called Americans 
     for Stable Quality Care, is rolling out millions of dollars 
     in advertisements for the Democrats' jury-rigged package 
     consisting of the BillyCare bill and some as-yet-undetermined 
     ``budget reconciliation'' measure. The ads reportedly will 
     target wavering Democrats.
       But supporters of BillyCare will continue to attack 
     opponents as shills for insurance companies, demonizing, as 
     Obama puts it, ``those who profit from the status quo.''
       Let's look at those profits. Drug makers' combined profit 
     margin last year was 22.2 percent, compared with insurers' 
     4.4 percent. Drug maker Merck's net income, $12.9 billion, 
     exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined.
       Pfizer, which netted $8.64 billion last year, gave its CEO, 
     Jeff Kindler, a 12.5 percent salary increase, bringing his 
     compensation to $14.9 million. Pfizer, in a federal filing, 
     attributed the raise partly to Kindler's work ``developing 
     and advancing U.S. and global public policies that serve the 
     overall interests of our Company,'' including his 
     ``constructive participation in the U.S. legislative 
     process.'' Kindler contributed the maximum to Obama's 
     election, and Obama raised more money from the drug industry 
     than any candidate in history.
       On this bill, Republicans side with insurers, and Democrats 
     mostly side with the richer and more powerful drug makers. 
     The difference: Republicans didn't cut a backroom deal with 
     the insurers. Obama will still play the populist card, even 
     as the drug lobby is his ace in the hole.


[[Page 3829]]


  Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just yield myself 30 seconds to 
remind my colleagues that there's a cost to doing nothing. There's a 
cost to embracing the status quo, as my Republican colleagues have 
suggested. For middle-income families alone, the number of uninsured 
people in this income group would increase by 7.3 million people. 
That's in the middle-income categories. Is that the direction we want 
to go? To force millions and millions of more people into the ranks of 
the uninsured, which will ultimately add to our deficit and to our 
debt? I don't think so.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this rule, and for his unequivocal call for being 
realistic about some of the outrageous things that we've heard on the 
floor.
  I just heard my friend from Texas talk about demonizing the Canadian 
system and calling it socialized medicine. It's really kind of ironic. 
First of all, Canada has basically Medicare for all. It is a 
government-funded insurance program, but Canadians pick who they want 
to be their doctor, just like Americans who are on Medicare pick their 
doctor. And I would say, frankly, that most Americans would be happy 
with the overall outcome of the Canadian health care system. They pay 
less, they get sick less often. When they do get sick, they get well 
faster, and they live longer than Americans.
  The sad truth is that our nonsystem of health care, which is very 
good for veterans, it's pretty good for senior citizens, but for other 
Americans, particularly the uninsured now approaching 50 million, it's 
a problem. And increasingly, if we don't do something, the increasing 
premiums that we're seeing for private insurance, higher copays, higher 
deductibles, and coverage that is getting skinnier and skinnier puts us 
on a path that is disastrous for American families.
  I hope that we'll be able to come forward, move past some of the 
outrageous rhetoric and the falsehoods, to look at the facts. Americans 
have, if they can afford it, some of the best health care in the world.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. For those who can afford it, they have some of the 
best health care in the world. But Americans, overall, by any objective 
measure of performance, like life expectancy, or how soon babies die, 
we don't perform very well.
  And increasingly, the pressure on small business to deal with the 
failing system, what's happening on families who are having more and 
more insurance bureaucrats trying to prevent them from getting 
coverage, is a prescription for disaster. That's why this year there 
will be more than 1,000 people that I represent who will go bankrupt 
from medical costs, and most of them have insurance.
  Madam Speaker, that doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. And if 
we're able to move forward with this health care reform, it will no 
longer happen in the United States.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I think it is so important for us to move 
forward and not be derailed in our efforts to reform what is important 
policy in this country. Health care, obviously, is something that needs 
to be provided in terms of insurance to our working families out there. 
We know the impact of delay and the impact of no reforms. Status quo 
simply does not cut it. We cannot afford to allow our families to 
continue with such gross injustice.
  Obviously, the increase projected, $1,800 per year for family plans, 
is a train wreck waiting to happen. Today the average of some $13,000 
for family plans would grow in the next decade to some $31,000. Which 
small business out there could afford to pay that or even a fraction of 
that for its employees?
  We know that what we're trying to maintain here is an employee-based 
health care insurance system. Well, the employer-based system needs 
some sort of relief. We need to know that there are assurances for 
containing those costs, for making certain that into the future we'll 
have a safety net for our working families and for our business 
community. In the measure we're advancing there is assistance for small 
businesses. It's providing them the opportunity to make this sharing 
affordable.
  We know that the benefits that come with reducing the deficit with 
our bill, having been scored by CBO, is looking at $130 billion for the 
first 10 years and some $1.2 trillion into the next 10 years. This is 
progress. This is a step in the right direction.
  We also know of the reforms where those who are denied, for whatever 
bias--for gender, for preexisting conditions, for acne, almost a 
laughable concept, but used to deny people. Toddlers who are denied 
because of overweight, individuals who have perhaps been violated, 
sexually violated, or domestic violence, have been denied. These 
reforms are essential, and let's do them now.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to my colleague 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, you know, it's often said around this place 
that nobody cares about process. It's only the substance of the policy. 
But the process lends itself to the substance. And bad process equals 
bad policy, especially when it's done over and over again.
  Now we've seen over the past couple of years a shrinking of the 
ability of the minority party to actually come to the floor, offer the 
amendments it would like to offer, actually have an impact on the 
policy debate. Now, that's process. But it has an impact on the policy.
  Over time, if a majority simply asserts its rights under the House 
rules to minimize debate or to have a vote without having a vote, to 
deem something through, if you do that kind of thing continually, 
you're going to get a bad product. And I would suggest that the health 
care reform bill that we will vote on, maybe, or we will deem later 
this weekend, is a bad product, and it's partly because of a flawed 
process.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. You want to 
talk about process? Over the past year and a half the House held nearly 
100 hours of hearings. In 83 hours of committee markups we heard from 
181 witnesses, both Democrat and Republican. Two hundred thirty-nine 
amendments were considered, and 121 were adopted. I think that's a 
pretty good process.
  I reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm the final speaker, so I would yield 
to the gentlelady to give her closing, and I'll reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to say that what my colleague from 
Massachusetts just said about all those hours of hearings, it was a 
totally different bill. No hearings have been held on this bill; a 
totally different bill. That isn't the way we work around here.
  What they're asking people not to vote on is a bill that came from 
the Senate. It isn't the House bill. So let's, again, get real here and 
let's talk about what we should be talking about.
  You know, my colleagues across the aisle were against the Senate bill 
before they were for the bill, and I would like to quote my 
distinguished colleague who is the Chair of the Rules Committee when 
she said on December 23, 2009, ``Under the Senate bill, millions of 
Americans will be forced into private insurance plans which will be 
subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to 
reform health care, but will be a windfall for insurance companies.'' 
She went on to then say ``The Senate has ended up with a bill that 
isn't worthy of its support. Supporters of the weak Senate bill say, 
just pass it. Any bill is better than no bill. I strongly disagree.''

                              {time}  1130

  Now that very same person has done everything possible to get this 
bill

[[Page 3830]]

passed in this House so that it will become law. It is no wonder that 
the majority is considering procedural tricks and sleight of hand, 
because the bill that they are proposing to pass doesn't provide true 
health care reform. And the process doesn't pass the sniff test.
  Republicans will never accept the status quo for health care. We can 
do better. We need to have a bill that will lower the cost of health 
care in America. But you do not lower the cost of health care by 
creating new government-run programs. We can lower the cost by putting 
patients, average, everyday Americans in charge of their health care, 
not insurance companies and not the government. Lower costs will result 
from putting patients in charge of their health care through 
innovations like expanded health savings accounts and by making sure 
that trial lawyers are not driving up the cost of health care with a 
blizzard of frivolous lawsuits.
  We should be revitalizing America's economy and promoting economic 
freedom. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
Republican plan will reduce the deficit by $68 billion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that 
there won't be a vote on health care in the next few days. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. My friends on the other side of the 
aisle are very good at making things up.
  Let me be clear: This House will vote to move the Senate bill 
forward. The process will work. The President will have a bill to sign 
and the Senate will have a set of corrections and improvements to the 
bill, much of what we have done here in this Congress. We will have 
corrections and improvements to the bill that President Obama will sign 
into law. This idea that the House will not vote on the health care 
bill is simply not true. It is I guess a good smoke screen, but it is 
simply not true.
  Madam Speaker, our friends are using this previous question to hide 
the fact that they simply do not want to improve the health care 
system, that they prefer to leave 32 million people uninsured. Because 
that is what will happen if we do nothing. And that they are happy to 
have skyrocketing insurance premiums and health care costs drive our 
country into further economic distress.
  No one in this Chamber, no Member of Congress has to worry about 
their health insurance. Why can't the American people have the same 
plan and the same choices and the same assurances as us? Why do my 
Republican friends think that somehow we should have some sort of 
special privilege? You know, if it is good enough for us, the American 
people ought to have the same thing. And that is what this bill would 
do.
  For political purposes, Republicans have been against this important 
reform from the start. Remember, it was Senator Jim DeMint, a 
Republican, who said that Republicans must oppose this plan at all 
costs, and that its defeat will be President Obama's, quote, 
``Waterloo.'' The debate and votes that we are going to have are 
simple. You are either on the side of the patients or on the side of 
the big insurance companies. You are either on the side of people who 
no longer want insurance companies to discriminate against them because 
of preexisting conditions or you are on the side of the status quo and 
the special interests.
  Let me close with one example. Eight States, including North Carolina 
and the District of Columbia, do not have laws that specifically bar 
insurance companies from using domestic violence as a preexisting 
condition to deny health coverage. Now, just think about that for a 
minute. In 2010 in the United States of America a woman can be denied 
health care because she has gotten beat up by a husband or a boyfriend. 
That is wrong. That is unconscionable. That has to change. And we are 
going to change it.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Stand with the American 
people who are sick and tired of waiting for Congress to act on health 
care. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, I will vote against the Previous Question 
Motion today because I think the American people deserve a clear, up-
or-down vote on health reform. They deserve to know how their elected 
representative voted, without any parliamentary confusion or 
obfuscation. In addition to being a transparency and fairness issue, 
this may also be a constitutional issue because of the consensus that 
the House and Senate must pass identical bills before they can be sent 
to the President for signature.
  With all the publicity surrounding the so-called ``self-executing'' 
rule, this procedure will not fool anyone back home, nor should it. It 
is, however, apparently designed to fool enough members of the House 
into believing that they did not support the Senate bill, even though, 
if they support the health reform package, they voted for it as the 
major component of the health reform.
  Unless we return to regular House procedure, we will never know how 
members would have voted on the Senate bill, by itself, and/or the 
reconciliation amendment, by itself. Since the President is apparently 
planning on signing the Senate bill before the Senate can take up the 
reconciliation amendment (as the Senate parliamentarian insists), no 
one will know who in the House of Representatives, in fact, supported 
the Senate bill. In simplistic terms, the White House will not know 
whom to invite to the signing ceremony.
  All this might be a parliamentary dispute if the possibility did not 
exist that a constitutional challenge would be brought against health 
care reform legislation. All it would take is one or two federal judges 
to void this law because of a procedural failing. Supporters of reform 
will then regret taking this procedural shortcut, while opponents will 
welcome the opportunity to overturn the law and reopen the debate.
  I realize that both political parties have used self-executing rules 
dozens, even hundreds, of times. But, to my knowledge, these rules have 
never been used on an issue larger than banning smoking on airplanes, a 
$40 billion deficit-reduction measure, or raising the debt ceiling of 
the United States. None of these issues compares with the scope of 
health care reform. To my knowledge, no serious constitutional 
challenge has been mounted against these rules, but one is certain to 
be lodged against the passage of health reform.
  Voting is the most important part of our job. We must vote honestly 
and openly on the separate issues that come before us.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1190 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1188) ensuring 
     an up or down vote on certain health care legislation. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which 
     may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall 
     not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 1188.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition.

[[Page 3831]]

     Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous 
     question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, 
     Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him 
     for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution .  .  . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information foci Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 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 Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam 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.

                          ____________________