[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 521-534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INSTRUCTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO REPORT LEGISLATION REPLACING THE JOB-
                        KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 26, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 9) instructing certain committees to report 
legislation replacing the job-killing health care law, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 9

       Resolved, That the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means, shall each report to the House legislation proposing 
     changes to existing law within each committee's jurisdiction 
     with provisions that--
       (1) foster economic growth and private sector job creation 
     by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations;
       (2) lower health care premiums through increased 
     competition and choice;
       (3) preserve a patient's ability to keep his or her health 
     plan if he or she likes it;
       (4) provide people with pre-existing conditions access to 
     affordable health coverage;
       (5) reform the medical liability system to reduce 
     unnecessary and wasteful health care spending;
       (6) increase the number of insured Americans;
       (7) protect the doctor-patient relationship;
       (8) provide the States greater flexibility to administer 
     Medicaid programs;
       (9) expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility 
     for health care coverage and costs;
       (10) prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide 
     conscience protections for health care providers;
       (11) eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful 
     spending; or,
       (12) do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement 
     programs or increase the tax burden on Americans.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
26, the resolution is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Rules or their designees. The amendment printed in part B of House 
Report 112-2, if offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) or 
his designee, shall be considered read, and shall be separately 
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today we begin the process of implementing health care 
reform. I underscore that. Implementing health care reform is what we 
begin today.
  This resolution, H. Res. 9, initiates the second step of a two-part 
process, which, as we all know with the 245-189 vote last night, saw 
repeal of the health care bill.
  Having taken that action to wipe the slate clean, we're now moving on 
to the far more challenging task of crafting real solutions for the 
American people to ensure that we can drive down the costs of health 
insurance and health care.
  This resolution instructs the four committees of jurisdiction to 
draft legislation that brings about meaningful health care reforms. 
Furthermore, this resolution lays out 12 clear guidelines that define 
what real reform is. Some of these guidelines are simply commonsense 
principles, such as the need for reform that doesn't hurt job creation 
or the need to eliminate duplicative wasteful spending.
  But if there is one overarching principle for true reform, it's that 
we cannot pick winners and losers. Real reform must be accessible to 
every American.
  If a family is forced to give up a health plan that is working for 
them, can we call that reform? If a small business must lay off 
employees to comply with new mandates, can we call that reform? If a 
doctor is forced to close her family practice because the cost of 
malpractice insurance is prohibitive, can we call that reform? If 
government bureaucrats make decisions that should be left to doctors 
and patients, can we call that reform, Madam Speaker? Obviously not.
  Our goal is to increase access to quality health care for every 
single American, including those with preexisting conditions. H. Res. 
9, that we're going to be considering here today, puts us on the path 
to do just that.
  As I said at the outset, this is a tremendous challenge. Achieving 
the goal of meaningful health care reform, which we all share, will 
demand an open and collaborative process. The four committees of 
jurisdiction have a great deal of work ahead of them. This is a process 
in which we all must contribute--Democrats and Republicans alike.
  We have good ideas that are coming from both sides of the aisle, and 
I believe that they will be considered through this deliberative 
process. These ideas must be shared, analyzed, and debated. If we all 
participate in this open and transparent process, I believe that we can 
address the health care challenges that we face in an effective and 
meaningful way.
  Ultimately, we all hope to arrive at the same place. We all share the 
same goal, that is, access to quality care for all. That's what House 
Republicans want to achieve, and that's what my Democratic colleagues 
want to achieve as well. And that's what President Obama wants to 
achieve. We all have our own views on how we get there.

                              {time}  0920

  In this body alone we have 435 views on the best way to reform our 
health care system. We owe the American people nothing short of a 
rigorous and thorough debate. But if we conduct that debate in good 
faith, Madam Speaker, grounded in the recognition that we all hope to 
achieve the same outcome, I believe that we, in a bipartisan way, 
Democrats and Republicans together, can come up with real solutions.
  Now, we saw the day before yesterday that the President said that he 
is willing and eager to work with Republicans on the issue of health 
care. That's a sentiment that I, and I know my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle, share wholeheartedly. This resolution, H. Res. 9, puts us 
on a path towards doing just that. It will begin this critically 
important process.
  So I hope very much that we will have strong, bipartisan support for 
this resolution. I will say that we have an amendment that will be 
coming forward, a Democratic amendment that the Rules Committee has 
made in order, I am happy to say, that will add to that list that our 
friend Mr. Matheson has provided. And I will also say that contrary to 
the argument that has been put out there that we don't have solutions, 
there is a wide range of proposals that exist. And we look forward to 
having this committee process vigorously pursue just that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this resolution 
and very strong opposition to the very closed process in which we are 
discussing this resolution. Once again, I am deeply disappointed that 
instead of working to create jobs and strengthen the economy, the new 
Republican majority continues to focus on reopening old wounds and 
fighting old battles. The resolution before us today is allegedly the 
replace component of the Republicans' repeal and replace strategy. I 
say allegedly, Madam Speaker, because this resolution is not a serious 
legislative effort. It is a series of talking points. It is a press 
release.
  What this resolution does is ask the committees of jurisdiction to 
hopefully, maybe someday, if they would be so kind, to report 
legislation to the House that meets certain vague goals. Instead of 
repeal and replace, this is repeal and relax. Trust the Republicans to 
do the right thing. No thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Yesterday, this House voted, without a single hearing or markup, 
without a single amendment, to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its 
entirety. The Members who voted for that bill voted to return to the 
days when insurance companies could discriminate against people based 
upon preexisting conditions. They voted to eliminate the ban on annual 
and lifetime limits on care.

[[Page 522]]

They voted to eliminate the ability for young people to stay on their 
parents' insurance plans up to the age of 26. They voted to reopen the 
doughnut hole in Medicare. Basically, they voted for a tax increase on 
senior citizens who need prescription drugs. They voted to eliminate 
tax credits for small businesses who want to do the right thing and 
provide health insurance for their workers. All of that, Madam Speaker, 
would have the force of law. All of that was done with real legislative 
language. But not the resolution before us today.
  Instead of real language that would provide real benefits to real 
Americans, this resolution is simply a collection of empty promises. 
And the ironic thing is that most of the provisions included in the 
resolution were actually addressed in the Affordable Care Act. 
According to this resolution, we should, quote, ``lower health care 
premiums through increased competition and choice.'' Well, the 
Affordable Care Act already does that. Of course, many of us argued for 
a public option, which would have lowered premiums even further with 
increased competition and choice, but my Republican friends didn't want 
to have anything to do with that.
  The resolution before us today says we should ``preserve a patient's 
ability to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it.'' Well, 
the Affordable Care Act already does that. Increase the number of 
insured Americans? Well, we did that by 30 million people. Protect the 
doctor-patient relationship? We did that. And so on and so on.
  On the critical issue of people with preexisting conditions, however, 
it's interesting to see the language that my Republican friends use in 
this press release that they call a resolution. They say they support, 
and I quote, ``provide people with preexisting conditions access to 
affordable health coverage.'' Well, that sounds nice. But what we did 
in the Affordable Care Act was to actually ban insurance companies from 
discriminating against those people. I will be very interested to see 
how my Republican friends handle that critical issue and how much 
influence the big insurance lobby has around here now that they're in 
charge. And the doughnut hole? The resolution is absolutely silent on 
the doughnut hole.
  Madam Speaker, health care is of vital importance to every single 
American. It is a big deal. And to treat health insurance reform as 
just another opportunity for happy talk and wishful thinking is not the 
way to do business in the people's House.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I do so to say to my friend that I appreciate his very conciliatory 
remarks. Everyone has acknowledged that this measure is flawed. The 
President said in his press conference right after the election it was 
flawed. We have had the courts already throw the mandate out. We need 
to deal with the problem even before this measure is being implemented. 
So it seems to me to be absolutely essential that we proceed with this 
work.
  With that, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member from 
our Rules Committee, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I have been a Member of this body for 2 weeks and 2 
days, and I could not be prouder to be on the House floor today in 
support of the chairman's resolution. For the entire last year in my 
district we have been focused on one thing and one thing only, since 
March of 2010, and that is the repeal of the President's health care 
bill.
  You know, before March of 2010 my district cared about health care 
reform. We talked about tort reform, we talked about putting patients 
back in charge of decisions. We talked about ending the tax preference 
that businesses get so that we can purchase insurance on our own and 
own those policies as we do our other insurance policies. But the 
moment this bill was signed into law, the moment the President's bill 
was signed into law that discussion stopped and the repeal discussion 
began. And with the repeal yesterday, we now begin anew the discussion 
of how properly to reform the system. And I am anxious to have that 
discussion.
  You know, we learned a lot in our time in the minority. One of those 
things we learned is that bringing simple, straightforward resolutions 
to the floor is better for the process. It's better for the American 
people. The Speaker has made that commitment. We continue that 
commitment today with these instructions to go back to the drawing 
board and bring things forward one at a time.
  Now, I sat through 10 hours of hearings in the Rules Committee, where 
folks came forward and said go ahead and repeal the bill, but save this 
one provision. Let's have this one provision stay. Go ahead and repeal 
the bill, but keep this other one provision. We now have that 
opportunity. We have now repealed the bill here in the House, and we 
have the opportunity to bring those provisions forward one by one.
  And I will tell you what, I am not going to like all those 
provisions. And some of those provisions are going to pass the House. 
And that's the way it ought to be. You shouldn't have a one-size-fits-
all, take-it-or-leave-it kind of system. You ought to be able to have 
that discussion on both sides of the aisle. And I have no doubt that 
provisions are going to come forth from our committees that I am going 
to vote ``no'' on, but my colleagues on the left and on the right are 
both going to vote ``yes'' on, and it's going to pass. And that's the 
way the process ought to be, one provision at a time, one idea at a 
time. Tort reform, insurance reform, putting patients back in charge of 
those decisions, putting doctors back in charge of those relationships.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I think our objection is not with the idea of having a 
serious debate on these issues. There are areas where we can come 
together and hopefully make the bill even better. Our objection is the 
fact that my friends on the other side voted to repeal everything, 
voted to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against 
people with preexisting conditions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  They voted to take away the benefit from senior citizens that we put 
in there to help try to close the doughnut hole in the prescription 
drug bill. And what do they do in terms of replacing it? They come not 
with an alternative; they come with a press release. That's not serious 
legislating. That's politics as usual.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I am just amazed. I listened to the 
gentleman from Georgia who just spoke, and he said that in his district 
all of the focus is on health care and health care repeal. Well, I 
don't know, when I go home all I hear in my district is jobs and the 
economy. People are concerned about the economy. They want us to create 
jobs, they want us to focus mostly on that issue, not on repeal of 
health care.

                              {time}  0930

  The other problem I have with the gentleman from Georgia's comments 
is he seems to think that because the House passed this repeal 
yesterday that the health reform is repealed. Well, let me tell 
everyone it's not, and this is just a ruse. This bill, this health 
reform wasn't repealed. The Senate isn't even going to take it up. The 
President has said that he would never sign a repeal bill.
  So the Republicans are just wasting their time, rather than focusing 
on what we should be focusing on, the jobs and the economy. They keep 
talking about this false repeal that is never going to happen.
  Now, I also wanted to say something about what Mr. Dreier said 
before. He talked about increasing access, increased choices. That's 
not what goes

[[Page 523]]

on if this bill was ever repealed. The choice is now for people who 
have preexisting conditions, they can't get insurance. They have to pay 
more if they try to get it, or the kids that are on the policies that 
would be taken off if we had the repeal, or the people that would again 
face lifetime caps.
  You don't have choices under the old system because you were denied 
care through the insurance companies' discrimination. The only way you 
have choices and access is under the health reform that this House and 
this country have put into law where you are guaranteed you get 
insurance, even if you have a preexisting condition. You don't have to 
worry about lifetime caps. You can put your kids on the policies.
  So don't talk to me about choices and access. People don't have 
choices and access with those discriminatory policies that would be put 
back in place by the insurance companies. As they continue to raise 
premiums, more and more people will not have access to health care and 
have access to health insurance. The only way you have access and 
choices is if we keep the health reform in place.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very, 
very good friend and California colleague, the dean of our delegation, 
Mr. Lewis.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I think the entire public knows that America has had 
in place for a long time one of the finest health care delivery systems 
in the world. It's the envy of many.
  That is not to say that it's perfect. That's not to say that we don't 
have major challenges like preexisting conditions and like questions of 
portability. But, indeed, if the people who put in place a health care 
plan last year had had their way, they absolutely would have taken the 
next step; that is, to have a centralized, government-run health care 
system. That's the pattern of their future.
  At this moment, Great Britain, which had such a thing in place for 
some time, is attempting to back off of their system and have more 
relationships between physicians and their patients. Indeed, they are 
doing that because their system does not work.
  It's very important that we not allow the former majority to take 
their next step; that is, to have government-run health care. With 
that, yesterday, we passed a repeal that will take us to conference 
with the Senate, and, in turn, today we are beginning the process of 
reexamining where we have been to make certain that we put in place 
health care that is positive for all Americans, not health care that's 
run by the IRS.
  Madam Speaker, our health care system is the envy of much of the 
world. That does not mean it is perfect.
  There is no question we must resolve major challenges such as pre-
existing conditions, portability and cost. But we can deal with these 
by breaking down barriers between States, liability reform and tax 
incentives. We certainly do not need IRS-enforced mandates.
  Despite the loud and clear protests of the American people, the 
Democrat leadership of the House and Senate rammed through a job-
destroying health care act last year. It created a large and costly new 
government bureaucracy that gets between doctors and patients. The law 
includes hundreds of new burdensome taxes, regulations, and mandates on 
businesses and individuals.
  There is no doubt in my mind that supporters of this massive bill 
would have passed a government-run single payer system if they could 
have gotten away with it. What they did pass was a first step towards 
total government run healthcare. The same kind of healthcare system 
that Great Britain is trying to abandon, because it doesn't work.
  We must stop America from going down the path of a government-run, 
single-payer healthcare system.
  Yesterday the House acted on our promise to repeal Obamacare, and 
today we must vote to start the process of replacing it with common 
sense, affordable solutions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Madam Speaker, well, we could have a bill on the floor today that 
expands fair trade for American companies, but we don't. We could have 
a bill on the floor today that finds ways to stop sending a billion 
dollars to the Middle East to buy oil every day and instead create jobs 
producing energy in America, but we don't. We could have a bill on the 
floor today talking about ways to regenerate our real estate market and 
get people buying and selling houses again, but we don't.
  What we have is an empty promise that someday, somehow, the new 
majority will come to the floor with a bill that will fix the health 
care problem. Quoting from Speaker John Boehner, he said on June 18, 
2002, ``Instead of focusing on new health care mandates that will 
increase costs on employers and swell the ranks of the uninsured, 
Senate Democrats should focus on providing access to health insurance 
for the 39 million of Americans who remain without health coverage. 
That should be our first priority.''
  So at a time when Republicans had a majority in this House, a 
President in the White House, and for most of the time a majority in 
the Senate, their first priority, which was to deal with the health 
care problem, they didn't do. That's the standard against which we 
should measure today's promise. It doesn't leave much room for much 
optimism.
  I would say, instead of focusing on yet another empty promise, let's 
focus on putting Americans back to work.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, everyone has acknowledged that the legislation that 
has passed is flawed. Everyone has acknowledged that. The President of 
the United States, when he said that the 1099 issue imposing mandates 
on small businesses needed to be rectified in his first news conference 
after the election, recognized that there were problems.
  We had, the day before yesterday, the distinguished assistant 
minority leader, the former majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, say that he 
believes that Republicans and Democrats should work together to improve 
this bill. We have already had a Federal court determine that it is 
unconstitutional to impose this mandate. Madam Speaker, we need to work 
together to resolve the very, very great challenges that we have ahead 
of us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, with last year's important health 
insurance reform law, we provided real guarantees to American families 
against insurance monopoly abuses. Today, Republicans tell these 
families, ``Forget the binding guarantees. We have 12 platitudes for 
you.''
  This isn't a Republican prescription--this is a placebo. And for the 
American middle class, it's a very bitter pill indeed.
  Yesterday, House Republicans, in a remarkable measure, with one vote, 
decided to increase the national debt, reduce the solvency of the 
Medicare Trust Fund, raise insurance premiums, and charge seniors more 
for their health care.
  During the last 12 years that these Republicans were in charge, 6 of 
them with near total domination of the government here in Washington 
under the Bush-Cheney administration, they failed to enact even one of 
these 12 platitudes in this flimsy 2-page excuse of a bill. Twelve 
health care platitudes up now, missing in action for 12 years.
  Who wouldn't be for some of them? They are broad platitudes that 
propose something that they apparently kept hidden under a bushel for 
the last 16 years and now will unveil. Well, I think it will just be 
the same old tired, rejected, retread Republican proposals to give more 
income tax breaks to those at the top.
  If you believe that they have got something new to offer to genuinely 
reform our health care system in a way that will help middle-class 
Americans instead of health insurance monopolies, I think you will want 
to buy some of that Republican ice cream that helps you lose weight. 
Our families don't need Republican platitudes; they need real help.

[[Page 524]]

  I will have to say I think the tea party types are right about one 
thing. There are dangers from soaring debt, dangers they forgot for a 
decade. There are dangers from Big Government. But, you know, that's 
not the only threat our families face. They face threats from big banks 
and from big insurance monopolies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Our middle-class families are threatened not only from 
the challenges of government, but from the big pharmaceutical 
monopolies that charge our people more than anyplace in the world, from 
the giant insurance monopolies. And sometimes, sometimes our families 
need government to come down on our side because otherwise those giant 
economic forces will take advantage of our families by writing out the 
very protection that the sick and injured need the most, protection 
that they write into the fine print of an insurance policy that no 
ordinary person can understand, where they are told that they are not 
covered anymore, that they have a preexisting condition, that you have 
reached your policy limits and cannot get the care that your doctor 
says is vital to sustain your life, that this policy just doesn't cover 
sick people or that it can be rescinded.
  I say we need to provide people genuine protection. That's what we 
did last year. That's what they want to eliminate this year. Let's be 
on the side of the people, not the 12 Republican platitudes to benefit 
insurance monopolies.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of the hardworking 
members of this brand-new class that has come in carrying this strong 
message, the gentleman from Columbus, Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. STIVERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I voted for the repeal of the health care bill 
yesterday because I think doing otherwise would have been supporting 
the status quo, and that's unacceptable. I believe there are some good 
ideas that were in the original health care bill that can be used and 
improved; but some of those ideas are in H. Res. 9 today that instruct 
the committees on next steps on health care.
  However, there is one idea that I think we need to add to that list. 
I think we need to add the allowing of young folks to stay on their 
parents' insurance through H. Res. 9. In this tough economy, many 
students are unable to find jobs right out of school. As a member of 
the State senate, I sponsored a bill that would allow those up to age 
30 to stay on their parents' plan, and I just heard from a constituent 
that his 23-year-old son Justin is back on his parents' insurance.
  Moving forward, I'm committed to working with my colleagues in a 
bipartisan manner to support reforms we agree on, like allowing young 
adults to stay on their parents' plan. This was included in the 
Republican alternative last year, and it should be included in the 
replacement bill this year.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments in recognizing the fact that the provision that allows parents 
to keep their children on their insurance until they are 26 is a good 
idea. But he voted yesterday, along with all the Republicans, to repeal 
that, to take that away. And this press release that they're now saying 
is a bill on the House floor here doesn't even address that issue.
  So I wish the gentleman would have actually voted with his 
convictions yesterday and voted against repeal, because what he did, 
if, in fact, this bill becomes law, will deny parents to be able to 
keep theirs kids on their insurance until they are 26.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
Republicans' cynical attempt to replace the health care reform law.
  Yesterday's decision to repeal the Affordable Care Act was truly 
damaging to the American people, but today's decision to tout the 
central reforms of the Affordable Care Act as Republican ideas is 
simply baffling. If the provisions in H. Res. 9 were really the 
Republicans' priorities, they would leave the Affordable Care Act 
intact because all of these provisions exist in the current law.
  If we all agree on the importance of keeping young adults on their 
parents' insurance, prohibiting insurance companies from dropping 
coverage for the sick and strengthening Medicare, then this spectacle 
is a colossal waste of time that we don't have. If Republicans really 
want to guarantee these consumer protections to the American people, 
they would not stage partisan antics with this kind of resolution.
  Even when Republicans had control of the entire government for 6 
years, they did nothing to reform our Nation's health care system. And 
during that time, premiums skyrocketed, the number of uninsured 
Americans grew to 47 million, and those with insurance saw their 
benefits decimated. Of course, it would have been great to have the 
Republicans as willing partners during the last 2 years as we worked 
hard to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 
Unfortunately, they insisted on being the Party of No even as we 
incorporated so many of their party's ideas into the law.
  Rather than roll back the hard-fought consumer protections and 
freedoms that unshackled Americans from the whims of private insurance 
companies, as former Republican Senate Majority Leader Brill Frist 
said, Republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the 
health care system.
  Not to mention, every potential minute spent in committee focusing on 
redundant legislation is another minute that we are not helping 
American families and businesses emerge from this recession. Democrats 
have pledged to measure all legislation by the proposal's success at 
creating jobs, strengthening the middle class and bringing down the 
deficit.
  Unfortunately, the Republican majority's hasty vote to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act fails on all such accounts. The American people 
deserved and got real reform. This vague resolution stating so-called 
Republican principles on health care reform is like giving the American 
people a wish sandwich. There's nothing between the bread, but we wish 
there was.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my 
very good friend that the fact of the matter is the Republicans sent 
association health plans to make sure that small businesses could drive 
the cost of health insurance down to the Senate, and our friends in the 
other body in the other party killed that measure. We put into place 
for seniors access to affordable prescription drugs. And so we have 
worked diligently to make this happen.
  With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Fort 
Myers, Florida (Mr. Mack).
  Mr. MACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday was a great day for democracy and freedom in 
this country. Yesterday, the Republican-led Congress voted to repeal a 
health care law that was passed by the Democrats that would mandate, 
that would force people to buy something even if they didn't want to. 
It's unconstitutional, it's un-American, and it is not what this 
country stands for.
  Now we are hearing a lot of our colleagues on the other side talk 
about how we want to strip away this and we want to strip away that and 
we are playing games and this resolution is a game. Well, let me remind 
you that it was the President of the United States in his State of the 
Union that talked about tort reform, which was not included in 
ObamaCare. We intend to include tort reform in this Congress. We also 
believe that association health plans are very important to ensure that 
more people have access to health care, something that your side of the 
aisle failed to do.
  There are real ways to do commonsense reforms. It is not by having 
the

[[Page 525]]

government mandate what you have to buy as a citizen of this country. 
It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to remember to address 
their comments to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for maintaining decorum in 
the House. We appreciate it.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, we are seeing today that after 75 or so 
hours of markup, hundreds of hours of hearings, 16 months of long 
debate, thousands upon thousands of meetings and town halls, the 
Republicans come to Washington and don't know what they want to do in 
health care yet. My constituents should understand, and the Speaker 
should understand, that this resolution says, go back and figure out 
what we want to do.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that last year during the 
health care debate, the Republicans had a chance to offer an 
alternative. They didn't. Now they come to Washington and say, oh, 
let's have the committees go try to figure this all out. Yesterday they 
were the Party of No, and today they are the party of ``we don't know 
how to go.''
  Who are these Republicans? After months and months and months of the 
national debate, you can go into any coffee shop, any church basement, 
just about any card game in this country and people have solid ideas 
about what they think about health care. But not the Republicans. 
They've got a resolution today that says, hey, committees, go try to 
figure this stuff out, it's complicated.
  And by the way, I don't know, Madam Speaker, if I read it correctly, 
but I don't think there are any deadlines. I don't think there are any 
deadlines. I will eat this rostrum if they come back with legislation 
that actually accomplishes the things that they just repealed 
yesterday. It's not going to happen.
  And this is the fundamental problem that I believe the majority party 
now has: they have the campaign slogans all down. I just heard the 
gentleman from Florida do one: ``unconstitutional.'' They have the 
campaign slogans locked. And I have to give them credit, they were 
successful with them. They came here, we're against, we're against, 
we're against. Well, now here it is. Unlike past Congresses that come 
in all geared up for the things they want to do, they're all geared up 
with a resolution saying, hey, go figure out what it is that we should 
do.
  The American people deserve a lot better than this. They deserve 
comprehensive health care that saves them money. That's what was 
repealed yesterday.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my 
friend from New York, it is very interesting that the President of the 
United States the day before yesterday said that he was willing and 
eager to work with Republicans to ensure that we rectify this flawed 
bill. The distinguished assistant minority, the former majority whip, 
Mr. Clyburn, said in a program earlier this week that he looked forward 
to working with Republicans in a bipartisan way to address this.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from 
Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, yesterday the House voted to repeal the 
misguided health care law of 2010, which is seriously flawed, both in 
its structure and its practical implementation. I keep hearing 
discussion about the Affordable Care Act. If one believes the 
Affordable Care Act will not add to the deficit, I think that one is 
apt to believe just about anything. But today we have the opportunity 
to direct the committees to produce practical and effective reforms.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and 
commit to working together to enact meaningful reforms that will lower 
health care costs, expand access to affordable insurance coverage, and 
foster economic growth and jobs.
  The current law is simply unwise and unsustainable. I believe we must 
replace the misguided policies of the current law with reforms that 
will address rising health care costs. Specifically, I support medical 
liability reforms to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. I 
believe Congress must provide Americans with more options for 
affordable health coverage, such as low-cost catastrophic plans for 
younger individuals, patient-driven health care savings accounts, 
cross-state purchasing and effective high-risk pools or reinsurance 
models as a backstop.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and let's get 
on with this serious debate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. I just want to respond to the distinguished chairman. The 
President did not say anything about this dastardly flawed bill. He 
said we should ``implement and improve.'' You say ``repeal and 
replace.'' You put that to a vote of the American people. Implement and 
improve is the way we build important legislation in this country.

                              {time}  0950

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to respond.
  Madam Speaker, let me say to my friend that the President did say 
that he is willing and eager to work with Republicans to rectify the 
problems that are here, and right after the election, he said that he 
wanted to correct the 1099 issue, recognizing it is a flawed measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am actually disappointed that I am 
standing on the floor of the House of Representatives today yet again 
defending and protecting the rights of the American people to health 
care.
  It is such a shame that yesterday and the day before for 7 hours our 
Members on the other side of the aisle spent their time deciding for 
the American people to take away the ability of parents to provide 
health care for their young people up to age 26.
  They spent 7 hours, other than finding jobs, trying to make sure that 
small businesses who are providing health care don't get a tax credit 
anymore for the health care that they are providing for their 
employees.
  They spent 7 hours trying to strip away the ability of our seniors to 
make sure that they don't have to reach into their own pockets, deeper 
pockets, not deep anymore, to pay for prescription drugs.
  Yesterday and the day before they spent 7 hours debating whether it 
is a good idea for insurance companies to be able to deny people health 
care for preexisting conditions when they know that at least 129 
million of us, 65 percent or so of us, actually have preexisting 
medical conditions.
  So it is really disappointing that here we are yet again with the 
Republicans saying we took it all away in one day, and now we are going 
to think about some of it that we might replace again.
  Well, we have created a health care law for the American people that 
is about affordability and accessibility. And I know that the Democrats 
are going to stand on the side with the President, implementing the 
law. And thank goodness for the American people. They should know that 
the Republicans didn't do anything yesterday other than putting a whole 
bunch of stuff on a piece of paper that has no chance of going 
anywhere. The paper is not even worth the ink that is printed on it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as a native of the Show-Me State, I am 
very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from St. Elizabeth, 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of this 
resolution, a bill that would direct committees to craft new health 
care legislation and which would help steer our country back in the 
right direction. A serious fix for what ails health care in America 
will entail more than tweaking the law; it means replacing the health 
care bill with real reform.

[[Page 526]]

  Missouri is the Show-Me State, and last August, 71 percent of 
Missourians went to the polls and said ``no.'' They rejected this law.
  As I go about my district and talk to my employers, they tell me that 
instead of premiums going down, they have actually gone up 25-40 
percent. And instead of improving access to care, we actually have 
doctors retiring in record numbers.
  True reform would be passing significant lawsuit reform so doctors 
can faithfully perform their jobs of taking care of their patients. I 
also support increasing access to insurance by allowing small 
businesses to pool together to get the best plan for their employees.
  All along Republicans have offered a commonsense approach to 
improving our health care system and in a way that controls cost and 
provides the quality of care that Americans deserve. Today's vote is an 
important step in realizing that goal.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 15\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield to one of the 
other new Members who comes with a very strong message here. She is a 
nurse, and she is from Gallatin, Tennessee. I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of middle Tennessee who 
spoke loud and clear this last year that they do not want the Federal 
Government dictating their health care. The plan that was signed into 
law by the President was supposed to increase access to health care and 
lower costs for American families. However, in the months since the 
bill passed, it has been shown to do neither. We now know that the 
health care bill not only increases premiums for families but hinders 
job creation and is filled with unintended consequences that not only 
diminish the quality of our health care system but also do great damage 
to our economy, and increase our deficit.
  This new Congress was sent here to follow a more responsible path. 
Through commonsense, market-based solutions, we can replace a flawed 
health care bill to have the best health care system in the world.
  I am eager to take part in drafting the new Republican plan and 
focusing on rolling back the individual mandate, eliminating the 
onerous demands on small businesses, and actually lowering the cost for 
families and increasing access to quality, personalized health care.
  I also look forward to a thoughtful discussion that includes 
solutions that went ignored before, like tort reform, increasing 
competition, and tax breaks instead of tax hikes.
  As a nurse for over 40 years, my top priority will be making sure our 
plan honors the doctor-patient relationship that is so sacred in 
medicine because there is no place for a government bureaucrat in an 
individual's health care decision.
  As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I am excited to work 
with Chairman Dave Camp and my fellow committee members on a new way 
forward to responsible health care reform. Let's do the work that the 
American people sent us here to do.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my friend if he has any 
further speakers on his side?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I have further speakers, but there is a time 
discrepancy; so I will let you catch up.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me just say that I don't have other 
speakers here yet. I have others on their way over to the floor. I 
understand the disparity that exists in the timing, and I could talk 
for all that period of time, but I don't want the gentleman to suffer 
through that. So I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, as I am sitting here listening to this, 
I am thinking this must be something like Alice in Wonderland. This is 
the most bizarre debate I have heard in a long, long time.
  We need jobs. We need to be focusing on the American economy. This 
particular resolution has no sense of reality. I have heard debates 
here and discussions on the floor about association health plans. I 
know about association health plans. I was the insurance commissioner 
for 8 years in California, having to deal with these non-insurance 
programs that left hundreds, indeed thousands of people, holding the 
bag when the association health plans went belly up. It doesn't make 
any sense.
  California has had tort reform for 30 years. We have in the law today 
in America a protection for every individual in America from the 
onerous hands of the insurance companies that have continued over the 
years to deny benefits, to make the doctor decisions, and to literally 
put people's lives at risk--it's called the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
and our Republican colleagues want to repeal that. We have a law that 
is in place. It should be implemented.
  The cost issues that have been discussed here on the floor are really 
a discussion about what has taken place in the past. The law has yet to 
be implemented with regard to cost containment, the oversight of the 
insurance companies. All of those things are in the days ahead, and a 
market system is available with the exchanges. You want to talk about 
market, that is how you get there, with exchanges.
  Replace, repeal--how bizarre is that? Americans have a protection. 
Yesterday, our Republican colleagues voted to remove their protections. 
They gave to the insurance companies once again the power to regulate 
their lives. We cannot allow that to happen. This step today is just 
Alice in Wonderland.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H. Res. 9.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield 1 minute to my hardworking 
colleague from Lincoln, Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, health care reform, the right type of reform, is 
important to me and important to every American. The right type of 
reform will actually reduce costs and improve health care outcomes 
while we protect vulnerable persons. However, the current health care 
law, as we all know, is a complicated mess that is going to shift costs 
to more unsustainable government spending and actually reduce health 
care liberties.
  America deserves better.
  Following yesterday's vote in support of the repeal of this law, I 
believe it is important to craft a new commonsense policy that provides 
new insurance models for families, farmers, and small business owners. 
Yet, as to any model that we craft, the replacement must continue to 
build upon a culture of health and wellness, allow newly insured 
persons to keep their current coverage and also retain protections for 
preexisting conditions. This will be important.
  So now the hard work begins; but this time we have the opportunity to 
get it right.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise as the incoming co-chair of the Congressional 
Women's Caucus to talk to you a little bit about the impact that 
repealing this health care law will have on women.
  As you all may be aware, women are twice as likely to be dependent 
upon their spouses for health care, and they are less likely than men 
to have employer-sponsored insurance. For single

[[Page 527]]

female heads of household, this has a devastating impact on the entire 
family when there is no health insurance. Of course, all of us have 
heard stories from our districts about the devastating impact the 
repeal of this law will have on women, and I heard such a story just 
yesterday:
  Meet Nicole Lipski. She is 25 years old, is working part time, and is 
going to school part time; but, because of the health care law, was 
able to remain on her dad's insurance. Lucky for her, because just last 
week she had an infected pancreas and had to have her gallbladder 
removed in emergency surgery, which cost $13,000 that, fortunately, was 
covered by her parents' insurance.
  You know, this law outlaws gender rating as insurance companies, of 
course, charge women higher premiums than men for coverage. It also has 
a disparate impact on women with respect to preexisting conditions--
when you consider that being a victim of domestic violence is 
considered to be a preexisting condition.
  Now, you don't have to be a Harvard economist to know that this law 
is not a job killer, but we do have a Harvard economist to back us up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. MOORE. David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard, 
released a new study on January 7, finding that repealing the health 
care law would destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually, and many of 
these jobs will be women's jobs--CNAs, LPNs, x ray techs, RNs, and the 
cleaning woman who cleans up the emergency room.
  This law is a game changer and a lifesaver for women's health and 
employment opportunities for women.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Chairman Dreier, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, last night House Republicans took a major step in 
keeping our pledge to America by passing the repeal of ObamaCare. Now 
we must work to replace this budget-busting law with sensible, market-
based policies that actually lower costs for families and small 
businesses and expand access to affordable care.
  Small businesses are the job creators that hold the key to our 
economic recovery. They cannot afford the hundreds of billions of 
dollars in new taxes in the ObamaCare law and the new employer mandate 
as well. Our small businesses need certainty in the Tax Code and 
certainty in the regulations coming out of Washington. ObamaCare only 
makes matters worse.
  I look forward to an open and transparent debate in this Congress on 
alternative, affordable solutions. That's what the American people 
want, and that's what my constituents desire. I would also challenge my 
friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the American people 
and to join our efforts to work towards better solutions to our 
Nation's health care challenges.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that the good news is that the only thing 
that occurred last evening was simply a vote, because the law of the 
land is still the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I hope 
that the President's words are not twisted, because I agree with him: 
we are all willing to work together to do the right thing, which is to 
amend a bill.
  I don't understand the understanding of my friends on the other side 
of the aisle. Repealing the law of the land has nothing to do with 
questioning some of the provisions. Frankly, they're not even listening 
to a distinguished doctor, Senator Frist, the former majority leader, 
who said this bill--our bill--is the law of the land, and it is the 
fundamental platform upon which all future efforts to make that system 
better for that patient and that family will be based.
  What is there not to understand?
  Amend the bill. Don't repeal it.
  In fact, Senator Frist said if the bill were on the floor, he would 
have voted for it. I spoke to some students the other day, and they 
asked about doctors. This bill has in it scholarships for medical 
professionals, the bill that we have.
  In fact, the issue, of course, is one that you cannot dispute: this 
bill saves lives, so much so that the Republican majority leader ran to 
the media to promise seniors that they wouldn't lose the $250 that our 
bill, the patient protection bill, guaranteed them so that they would 
have some cover, some cushion, for their prescription drugs.
  So, my friends, I know we are doing the right thing. We are all 
willing to amend, but how ridiculous it is that you would repeal the 
law of the land or attempt to do so. I know the President still has his 
veto pen--because this bill will save lives.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of our new 
Members, the gentleman from Oklahoma City (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, the repeated diatribe from Members on the other side 
of the aisle that somehow they are the only individuals in this Chamber 
who care about the health of American families demonstrates again the 
deep-seated partisanship that we must work to defeat.
  We all want great health care in America. We hear the American people 
loud and clear. They don't like ObamaCare, but they do want something 
to be done.
  We must have real national tort reform to reduce the costs of 
defensive medicine.
  We must encourage medical innovation to deal with the FDA approval 
process that covers any new discovery in paperwork, costing $1 billion 
a drug just to get it through the FDA process.
  We must open up more options for insurance carriers, allowing someone 
who is frustrated with the service or the cost or quality of his 
carrier to fire them and to get a new insurance provider.
  We must reject price fixing as a cost-cutting solution.
  We must allow every American to choose their own doctors, even pay 
their doctors directly if they choose to do that.
  We must give senior Americans more choices in physicians who accept 
Medicare patients.
  We must provide States with greater flexibility; and we must deal 
with portability, high risk, and preexisting conditions.
  Republicans have friends and family who are dealing with the same 
medical issues that Democrats deal with. Suffering, disease, and pain 
have no respect for political affiliation. We just believe that, if you 
are sick and hurting, you should contact your doctor, not Washington, 
DC, to see what to do next.
  Let's surprise America. Let's work together, and let's get something 
done. Let's show them that, even with a divided House and Senate, we 
can reject the gravitational pull of politics, that we can put aside 
our differences, and that we can work together for the good of those 
who are most vulnerable.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  I just want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke. We hear these 
distortions over and over and over again. We heard them during the 
campaign, distortions that were perpetrated by my friends on the other 
side of the aisle and by their allies in the insurance industry, and 
that, somehow, what we passed was a bill that wouldn't allow you to 
keep your own health insurance. That's just wrong.
  What we passed was a bill that actually provides competition and 
insures tens of millions more Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).

                              {time}  1010

  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, repeal and replace? What about protect 
and improve? What about improving the bill that is there right now 
rather than repealing and replacing?

[[Page 528]]

  You know, the fact is the Republican Caucus is talking about 
replacing a bill, and yet whether it's preexisting conditions or 
filling in the doughnut hole, I've heard several of them say, ``Oh, we 
want to keep that.'' But yet they don't want to protect and improve. 
They just want to repeal. Why? To protect the insurance industry. I 
can't see any other reason why they are doing this.
  The Affordable Care Act is a good bill; and can it be better? Of 
course it can be better. But that's not what we're talking about doing 
today. We're talking about taking away benefits that Americans have in 
their hand. The Republican Caucus is snatching away people who want to 
get their children on their health care insurance who are under 26 
years of age; snatching away free preventative care for seniors; 
snatching out of the hands of families whose children are trying to be 
able to get care who may have a preexisting condition; snatching out of 
the hands of seniors who are filling in the doughnut hole. They are 
taking away a benefit Americans have right now. This is wrong and it's 
a shame.
  The fact is the Democratic Caucus when we had the White House and 
both Houses of Congress, within 2 years we brought to the American 
people a health care bill. When the Republican Caucus has the House for 
6 years, between 2000 and 2006, they don't do anything other than do a 
big fat giveaway to PhRMA.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 15 seconds, Madam Speaker, just to say as 
I had said to my friend earlier, it's interesting that they continue to 
say that we did nothing. Associated health plans, which Democrats and 
Republicans like, designed to drive down the cost for small businesses 
to provide health insurance, was submitted from this Republican House 
to the other body. The Democrats, in fact, killed that measure. So 
attempts were made to put into place real reform.
  With that, back by popular demand, the Rules Committee member from 
Lawrenceville, Georgia, for 2 minutes, Mr. Woodall.
  Mr. WOODALL. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I return to the well because I wonder if folks have 
the same small business people in their district that I have in my 
district. I wonder if folks are doing the same listening in their 
district that I'm doing in my district. We are here today to respond to 
exactly what folks have been asking for.
  Now to give credit where credit is due, last year before the last 
Congress expired, Democrats and Republicans came together to extend for 
1 year, and I would have liked to have seen it extended longer, but to 
extend for 1 year the tax cuts that our small business men and women 
were demanding. But the second part of the indecision that was there in 
the small business community, of the anxiety that was there, the 
uncertainty that was there, is what's going to happen with my health 
care cost. What's going to happen with the health care plan? Now we 
have not solved that. We have not solved that anxiety. We have not 
solved that indecision, because we've only gotten one-half of it done. 
We've gotten it passed in the House, but we've still got to take it to 
the Senate and we've still got to take it to the White House.
  Now again, in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, I told 
folks throughout my campaign that I thought the President identified 
exactly the right two health care challenges, rising costs and access, 
and then came up with exactly the wrong solutions to those problems. 
Now we talk about what's going to happen to folks when the doughnut 
hole change goes away. Well, did we have a chance last year? And I'm 
new to Congress. Did we have a chance in the last Congress to vote on 
that standalone doughnut hole closure? I don't believe we did. Did we 
have a chance in the last Congress to vote on a standalone preexisting 
conditions solution? I don't believe we did. Did we have a chance in 
the last Congress to talk about kids under the age of 26 and what they 
can do? We did not. But what we do, we have this resolution today that 
is going to give us, for the first time, the opportunity as a nation to 
vote on those provisions one by one, because the only option Congress 
had last time under Democratic leadership to vote for a doughnut hole 
solution, to vote for preexisting condition solutions, to vote for 
insurance for kids under the age of 26, was to do it with the 
unconstitutional mandate, a trillion dollars in new spending, and 
hundreds of new bureaucracies.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  I would remind the gentleman, because he's on the Rules Committee 
with me, that we could have had a chance to vote on all those things 
individually and in fact he did have a chance to vote as to whether or 
not we could vote on them individually on the floor, but he and the 
other Republicans on the Rules Committee voted each and every one of 
those protections down. They voted against protecting people against 
preexisting conditions. They voted against closing the doughnut hole. 
They voted against allowing people under 26 to be able to stay on their 
parents' health insurance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. They voted against everything.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time had expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to our 
Rules Committee colleague in the name of comity and civil discourse to 
respond.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I would just say to my friend that I absolutely voted 
no on every single one of those Rules Committee amendments in the name 
of repealing the bill yesterday, and now today I have returned to speak 
in favor of this resolution so that you can work with the committee 
leadership to bring each and every one of those provisions to this 
floor for a vote again for the very first time. For the very first 
time. I'm glad to support you in having that opportunity and I'm 
pleased to be here in support of this resolution today.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must ask Members to bear in mind 
the principle that proper courtesy in the process of yielding and 
reclaiming time in debate--and especially in asking another to yield--
helps to foster the spirit of mutual comity that elevates our 
deliberations above mere argument.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire, Madam Speaker, how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very, very good friend from Massachusetts.
  Madam Speaker, what troubles me with this debate, and I would 
particularly address myself to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, is that we took two votes yesterday. One was to provide coverage 
for ourselves; the next really to deny it to our constituents. That I 
find troubling, because we all have the right for guaranteed coverage 
regardless of preexisting conditions. We have a choice of easy-to-
compare health insurance plans. We have coverage for early retirees. 
Women have equal premium coverage. We have access to affordable care; 
low-cost preventive service. All of these things for ourselves but then 
voted to deny it to our constituents. I find that troubling.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, what is before the House today is not a 
serious legislative effort. It's a series of sound bites that mean 
nothing. Committees don't have to do anything.

[[Page 529]]

Speaker Boehner is quoted in The Hill basically saying that he's not 
going to hold any of these committees accountable. They can do it if 
they want to; whatever. If they don't, so be it. What we are dealing 
with here today really is kind of a political ploy, not a serious 
legislative effort to replace anything.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have gotten up over and 
over and over again and said, we're really with you on preexisting 
conditions, we're really with you on the doughnut hole, we're with you 
on allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until they're 
26. But yet they're really not. Because if they were, they wouldn't 
have voted yesterday to repeal all those protections. And if they were 
really with us, then we would be talking about today coming to the 
House floor with a series of initiatives that would actually continue 
to protect those benefits for consumers. But they voted to repeal all 
of that.

                              {time}  1020

  I want to know, how could anybody in this House, how could anybody, 
in light of the protections that have been put in place, go back to an 
individual who is now able to get health insurance because we 
prohibited insurance companies from discriminating against them for a 
preexisting condition, how can you go to them and say, well, we're 
going to change our mind; we're not going to do that anymore?
  How do you go to senior citizens who are struggling with that 
doughnut hole--and we've begun to close it--how do you go to them and 
say we're going to raise your taxes? How do you do that?
  How do you go to a parent whose child can remain on their health 
insurance because we've extended it to allow them to stay on it until 
they're 26 and say, well, that doesn't matter anymore? It just doesn't 
make sense.
  That's not what people voted for in the last election. They didn't 
vote for you to repeal all of those things. What they voted against was 
this distortion of a health care bill that you put out there, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, that was very well funded by 
the most expensive advertising campaign funded by the insurance 
companies in the history of our country, this distortion out there. 
Everybody was against that distortion. That is not the reality.
  As the months have gone by and as the reality has become clear to 
people, as they have seen the benefits and the protections, as people 
have been able to wrest control of their health care from the insurance 
industry, as consumers realize they have more and more rights, as there 
are more and more protections that are built into law to protect people 
of all ages, people say, well, we don't want you to change that; we 
want that to be saved.
  I will just say one thing. When my friends say, well, we can just do 
a little bit of this and a little bit of that, you really can't, 
because it's kind of like a domino effect. Everything has an impact.
  So this is a serious debate. And if there is some indignation on this 
side of the aisle, it is because we know that this is a big deal, and 
real people who have real challenges affording their health care and 
dealing with the complexities of the health care system and the 
inequities of the health care system are now getting some relief, and 
they will be hurt by what you are doing.
  So let's be honest here. What happened yesterday was my friends on 
the other side of the aisle went on record as saying, We're against 
everything.
  Today, we're going to pass a resolution, I guess, that doesn't do 
anything, doesn't even require committees to do anything, but it's just 
for all these nice, feel-good sound bites. That's not a serious 
legislative effort. That's why people are cynical.
  We can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, there was a very powerful and resounding message that 
came last November 2, and that is the imperative for us to create jobs 
and get this economy growing.
  The American people are hurting. In my State of California, we have a 
12.5 percent unemployment rate. Part of the area I represent has a 15.5 
percent unemployment rate in the Inland Empire in southern California. 
It is essential that we focus our attention on creating jobs, and I 
believe the step that we are taking today is going to be very, very 
important as we pursue that goal.
  Now, why is that? When we look at what passed last year, was signed 
last March 23 by the President, it was a measure that imposes mandates 
on small businesses, jeopardizing their ability to hire new workers. 
It's a measure that imposes dictates on doctors, a regulatory structure 
which undermines their potential to hire new employees. It is a measure 
which, in many ways, jeopardizes our potential to grow the economy 
because it is a dramatic expansion of the entitlement programs which 
Democrats and Republicans alike say need to be addressed if we're going 
to create jobs and get our economy back on track.
  One of the things that I think is important to note is that people 
have said that repeal of the health care bill in fact is going to cost 
$230 billion based on those CBO numbers that came out. Well, only in 
Washington, D.C., can one cut a $2.7 trillion expenditure and have it 
labeled as a cost.
  Why is it a cost? It's a cost because the measure that was signed 
last March 23 imposes a three-quarter of $1 trillion tax increase on 
working Americans. Now, what does that do to create jobs and get our 
economy growing? Obviously, it undermines our shared priority of 
creating jobs and getting our economy back on track.
  We know that with the $14 trillion national debt that we have and 
deficits down the road we need to do what we can to rein in that 
spending, tackling entitlements and dealing with issues like the one 
that we're facing today.
  Now, having said that, we all know that Democrats and Republicans 
alike want to ensure that every single American has access to quality, 
affordable health insurance so that they can have access to quality 
health care. And I underscore the word ``quality,'' because if one 
looks at the important research and development that takes place in the 
United States of America, I believe that the measure that was signed 
last March 23 and that we voted in this House to repeal yesterday, that 
that measure undermines the very important pursuit of research and 
development to deal with many of the diseases that are out there.
  So, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that we all say we want every 
American to have access to quality, affordable health care, and 
everyone has acknowledged that that bill that was signed last March 23 
is in fact flawed. In his news conference right after the election, the 
President of the United States said that he believed that we need to 
address the so-called 1099 provisions that impose, again, an onerous 
mandate on small businesses, undermining their ability to create jobs--
exactly what I was saying earlier.
  I quoted the distinguished assistant minority leader, the former 
majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, who on a program earlier this week said 
Republicans and Democrats need to work together to rectify some of the 
problems that exist with this measure.
  And, as I said, it was 2 days ago that the President of the United 
States wrote his editorial in The Wall Street Journal in which he 
talked about the need to reduce the regulatory burden that is imposed 
on the private sector so we can get our economy going and create jobs. 
And he also said on that same day that he is willing and eager, Madam 
Speaker--willing and eager--to work with Republicans to rectify some of 
the problems that exist in this measure.
  Now, I heard my friend Mr. Matheson this morning, on National Public 
Radio, state that there was not a plan out there, and that's the reason 
that, having voted against the bill, he did not vote for repeal, 
because there's not a plan out there. I heard that at 7:35 this morning 
on WAMU. Mr. Matheson made that statement. But the fact of the matter 
is, unlike the plan that was signed into law March 23 of last year

[[Page 530]]

that did not include the kind of bipartisan participation that we 
believe is essential, I've got to say that we are planning to proceed 
with this direction to the four committees that will allow virtually 
every Member of this House to be involved.
  We have 12 items. And I'm happy to say that under this rule we have 
made in order Mr. Matheson's amendment that we will be considering in 
just a few minutes that will add a 13th item to deal with the so-called 
``doc fix.'' So that, again, underscores our desire to work in a 
bipartisan way to address some of the concerns that are there.
  Now, what is it that we say needs to be done? And, frankly, the 
President of the United States has indicated some of these he supports.
  We need to make sure that people do have a chance to purchase 
insurance across State lines, which is now, under McCarran-Ferguson, 
denied.
  We need to make sure that we put into place associated health plans--
again, a provision that passed the Republican House but was killed by 
Democrats in the Senate when we last were in the majority.
  We need to do everything that we can to allow for pooling to deal 
with preexisting conditions.
  We need to make sure that we expand medical savings accounts that 
provide incentives for people to put dollars aside to plan for their 
health care needs.
  And one of the things that the President of the United States said in 
his State of the Union message 1 year ago right here in this Chamber, 
we need to deal with meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that we can 
have attention focused on patients and doctors and not on trial 
lawyers.
  So I would say to my friend from Utah, those are five items that are 
part of our plan that I believe can enjoy strong bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1030

  And so, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 9 so 
that we can proceed with a bipartisan consideration of this very 
important goal that we share of creating jobs, getting our economy back 
on track, and ensuring that every single American has access to 
quality, affordable health insurance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution. The House Republican majority has brought this resolution 
to the House floor claiming that they will take action to replace the 
health reform bill that they voted to repeal yesterday--yet again, with 
no specifics. But the Republican record on tackling the issues with our 
health care system is clear. Between the years 2000 and 2006, health 
insurance premiums doubled--went up 100 percent--and the profits of the 
major health insurance companies quadrupled. What did the Congress do 
during those years to stop those skyrocketing premiums? Nothing.
  In contrast, the health reform bill signed by President Obama finally 
provides the chance to rein in those exorbitant premiums and will 
reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the next 20 years. It 
has already put in place important consumer protections, reduces 
prescription drug costs to seniors by closing the Medicare Part D donut 
hole, and provides tax credits for small business owners who provide 
insurance coverage. And Washington Republicans just want the American 
people to trust that they will come up with a plan--without a single 
detail, without a timeline, without any track record of addressing this 
crisis in our Nation.
  There are certainly areas where we can improve this historic reform 
legislation. In fact, the House voted in the last Congress to repeal 
the 1099 provision on small businesses--House Republicans opposed that 
effort. But the American people don't want to go backwards by repealing 
these new rights, and doing so without a specific plan to replace it is 
simply irresponsible. It's time to stop playing shell games and start 
working to move America forward.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues vote nay on this resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House 
Resolution 9, a measure that directs a number of House committees to 
begin the process of drafting and reporting to the House individual 
bills to improve our Nation's health care system.
  As you know, the House voted yesterday to repeal the health care 
reform law that Congress approved last year and which has deeply 
divided our country. The one thing made clear from that debate is there 
are a number of areas where all sides agree that we should look first 
to begin reforming our Nation's health care system. These areas 
include:
  Preserving the rights of patients and families to keep their health 
plan if they like it;
  Ensuring that people with pre-existing medical conditions have access 
to affordable health care coverage;
  Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage for patients 
who are sick;
  Allowing young adults to remain on the health insurance policies of 
their parents;
  Reforming our nation's medical liability system to lower health care 
costs by reducing the burden of medical liability policies and 
eliminating wasteful health care spending;
  Protecting doctor--patient relationships;
  Lowering health care premiums through increased competition and 
choice and by making health care policies available across state lines;
  Providing incentives to employers to provide health care coverage, 
rather than fines and penalties on those who do not.
  The legislation we consider today directs our committees to look at 
these issues bill by bill so the House can debate each issue one by 
one, giving all the members of the House opportunity to provide their 
input.
  Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the nation is so divided over the 
health care bill enacted last year is that the House did not have the 
opportunity for a full and open debate on this important issue. We 
voted to repeal last year's legislation to give us as a nation the 
opportunity to start over and to do it right this time.
  We should start the process again by working to enact the areas above 
on which we agree and through the repeal effort to undo the problems we 
see with last year's effort. These problem areas include:
  Reversing the more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts that threaten 
the availability of health care for our Nation's seniors;
  Eliminating the Federal mandates that individuals must purchase 
health insurance, and the penalties imposed upon those who do not;
  Eliminating the Federal mandates on businesses that do not provide 
employees with health insurance, and the penalties imposed upon those 
who do not;
  Eliminating the more than $700 billion in fees and taxes which 
threaten to stifle our economy and the creation of new jobs at a time 
when our Nation and our State of Florida struggle to get people back to 
work.
  Madam Speaker, in addition to these concerns is the overall concern 
about the short-term and long-term cost of the current health care law. 
Much has been made of predictions by the non-partisan Congressional 
Budget Office that repeal of this legislation would actually increase 
the Federal deficit. But CBO's former Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin 
wrote in The New Your Times just two days prior to it being signed into 
law that ``In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary 
games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The 
health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, Federal deficits 
by $562 billion.''
  He goes on to say, ``Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To 
operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses 
would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But 
this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the 
Congressional Budget Office's tabulation.''
  It is no wonder that this legislation is so costly because it creates 
160 boards, bureaucracies and commissions and this 2,700 page 
legislation will require more than 10,000 pages of new Federal 
regulations to implement fully.
  It is this cost to the American taxpayer, this cost to American 
businesses, and the uncertainty this legislation creates throughout so 
many sectors of our economy and the health care industry that we seek 
to correct through this two-pronged effort this week.
  Madam Speaker, we all can agree that our Nation can do a better job 
at providing health care coverage and services to the American people. 
Many agree that we can also do a better job at bringing about these 
changes through a more open and deliberate legislative process.
  In the end, our goal is to provide a more patient centered health 
care system in which we preserve the vitally important doctor-patient 
relationship rather than a government centered health care system in 
which the government injects itself into the system, mandates certain 
provisions, penalizes individuals and businesses, and threatens to get 
in the middle of doctor-patient decisions.
  We as a nation can improve the quality and delivery of health care 
for the American people and that effort begins in earnest this week 
with the adoption of this resolution.
  Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 9, 
instructing the

[[Page 531]]

committees of jurisdiction to report legislation to replace the job-
killing health care law with a more patient-centered set of reforms. 
This replacement resolution is the first step toward fixing the recent 
job-killing health care law's serious problems: more than $500 billion 
in cuts to Medicare, and $150 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage; 
crippling taxes and mandates on small business that cost Americans 
jobs; and overreaching Federal policies that place bureaucrats between 
patients and their doctor. As a physician, I see firsthand the need to 
improve our country's health care system. What was signed into law last 
year did include some good ideas, such as: allowing dependent children 
to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26; eliminating 
lifetime caps on coverage; and covering individuals with pre-existing 
conditions. However, these policies were coupled with unsustainable 
spending that saddles Americans with debt, and compromises their access 
to quality health care. The American people deserve better, which is 
why we need to go back to the drawing board and develop solutions that 
provide stability and security for those with health care, options for 
those without, and rein in spiraling costs for everyone. I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on this Resolution, so that we can get Americans 
back to work and give them the health care system they deserve.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution.
  The certain result of what the Republican leadership in the House is 
proposing to do will be to saddle millions of Americans with higher 
health insurance costs, less coverage, less competition, and higher 
costs on small businesses and employers across the country.
  This resolution is both unnecessary and a grave error in public 
policy.
  It is unnecessary because, by the resolution's very terms, the 
Affordable Care Act is responsive to each and every one of the 
objectives outlined in the resolution for responsible health 
legislation.
  For example: We are instructed to write changes to existing law that 
will ``foster economic growth and private sector job creation.'' In the 
wake of enactment of the Affordable Care Act, health is among the 
fastest growing employment sectors in the United States, with a third 
of the job growth in the entire country last year--over 340,000 jobs in 
health care and social assistance.
  The Affordable Care Act is a jobs creation law and repeal is a jobs 
loss bill.
  The resolution calls for changes in law that ``lower health care 
premiums through increased competition and choice.'' This is exactly 
what consumers will get from the health exchanges in the Affordable 
Care Act--more competition and choice than they have today.
  The resolution calls for laws that will ``increase the number of 
insured Americans.'' The Affordable Care Act already does that--by some 
32 million Americans.
  Consumers can keep their health plans--just as called for in the 
resolution.
  The law encourages reform of the medical liability system--just as 
called for in the resolution.
  The resolution calls for those with pre-existing conditions to have 
access to affordable health coverage. The Affordable Care Act prohibits 
insurance coverage from being cut off for pre-existing conditions.
  That is why the Affordable Care Act already meets all the public 
policy goals outlined in this resolution.
  This resolution is also a grave error in public policy.
  It is important to appreciate what has been has excluded from the 
instructions to our committees for changes in the health laws.
  As I stated have stated earlier in the debate on repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act, under the directions to us in this resolution, 
there will be:
  No prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million Americans 
with pre-existing conditions;
  No prohibition on insurance companies cancelling your coverage when 
you get sick;
  No prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits;
  No required coverage for young adults on their parents' policies;
  No assistance to seniors struggling to afford the cost of drugs in 
the donut hole;
  No free annual check-ups and preventive care in Medicare;
  No tax credits for families and small businesses to pay for health 
insurance.
  All of these reforms are in the law today. None of these reforms will 
survive if this resolution passes and the committees of jurisdiction 
follow this terribly flawed blueprint.
  I strongly oppose this resolution and urge its defeat.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 9 and 
the promise of providing health care solutions that bring American's 
access to quality affordable health care of their choice. This 
resolution shows that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to 
the future of health care in this Nation. Allowing the appropriate 
committees to provide solutions for our Nation's health care problems 
is the first step to that commitment.
  I look forward to exploring and expanding high risk pools to create 
universal access to those with pre-existing conditions; real and 
meaningful tort reform so doctors do not have to practice defensive 
medicine; the creation of small business health plans that generate 
larger insurance pools and drive down health care costs. We should be 
rewarding innovation and allowing States more flexibility to create 
efficient and successful ways in dealing with their uninsured 
populations; allowing for greater portability for individuals to 
purchase health care across State lines; encouraging the Nation as a 
whole to live healthier lives. Lastly, it is absolutely essential to 
give every American the same tax advantage that Unions and corporations 
enjoy in the purchase of health insurance.
  There is no shortage of great ideas on how to reform our health care 
delivery system, and most of them steer clear of creating new 
entitlement programs that will bankrupt our country. In the wake of 
record debt and deficits now is the time to work together for common 
sense solutions that provide individuals the access to quality health 
care without threatening the doctor patient relationship. I am a proud 
cosponsor of the Resolution we are discussing on the floor today and I 
look forward to voting for it later today.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
House Resolution 9, which instructs authorizing committees to develop 
legislation replacing existing healthcare laws. While I applaud the 
majority's intention to finally present their own comprehensive 
solutions to the health care crisis in this country, I note that they 
don't need a resolution by the entire House to do so. Committees can 
develop legislation on their own at any time. Moreover, I reject the 
idea that the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act must be 
``replaced.'' The PPACA represents a century of effort by people of all 
political persuasions to give people the peace of mind that comes from 
knowing they have access to affordable care. No law is ever perfect. 
Certainly, all legislation can all be improved and I welcome the 
opportunity to further the progress made by the 111th Congress on 
health care reform.
  Furthermore, current law meets most, if not all, of the goals 
identified in today's resolution. Since health care reform passed, the 
economy has grown, more than a million jobs have been created and 
thousands of small businesses have used tax credits to begin offering 
employees coverage for the first time. In order to foster competition 
and choice, the Department of Health and Human Services recently 
established a website where people can compare policies and when the 
exchanges launch in 2014, individuals and small businesses will select 
from a wide range of carriers competing for their business. Patients 
now have the right to choose their own primary care physician and women 
don't have to ask permission to see an obstetrician. Insurance carriers 
cannot arbitrarily deny care and patients have a robust right to repeal 
when company bureaucrats override doctors. Children cannot be denied 
coverage for pre-existing conditions and soon all Americans will enjoy 
that protection.
  When PPACA is fully implemented, 32 million people will have coverage 
who never had it before, millions more will be able to afford coverage 
more easily, and seniors will not pay so dearly for prescription drugs. 
All of these actions can be done while extending Medicare solvency by 
twelve years by reducing waste, fraud and abuse and while slashing the 
deficit by $1.4 trillion over the next twenty years.
  The Republican plan introduced in the House last session would cover 
just 3 million more Americans by 2019--leaving 51 million Americans 
uninsured in 2019. That plan reduced the deficit by $68 billion over 
the next 10 years--far less than the law we passed--and offered none of 
the cost savings and consumer protections that make health care reform 
work for all Americans. I sincerely hope Republicans offer more 
substantial solutions this session.
  Finally, one goal of today's resolution that I must take issue with 
is the provision regarding abortion. Nothing in the PPACA allows for 
taxpayer funded abortions and I would strenuously object to any new 
laws that further restricted a woman's right to choose or allow medical 
professionals to deny legitimate services based on their own religious 
beliefs. There is no reason why the healthcare options for women--
participating in insurance exchanges should be any different than they 
are for women who can afford coverage on their own.

[[Page 532]]


  Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson

  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in part B of House Report 112-2 offered 
     by Mr. Matheson:
       In paragraph (11) of the resolved clause, strike ``or,''.
       In paragraph (12) of the resolved clause, strike the period 
     and insert ``; or''.
       Add after paragraph (12) of the resolved clause the 
     following:
       (13) enact a permanent fix to the flawed Medicare 
     sustainable growth rate formula used to determine physician 
     payments under title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
     preserve health care for the nation's seniors and to provide 
     a stable environment for physicians.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MATHESON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to H. Res. 9.
  Although I do not support a wholesale repeal of the legislation, I do 
believe that there are some bipartisan improvements that can be made to 
the existing law, and I think now is the time for all of us in Congress 
to roll up our sleeves and work together.
  The goal of this amendment is pretty straightforward. It is set up to 
maintain adequate health care service, to stabilize the business 
practice of doctors, and to take into account the long-term economic 
health of this country.
  We all agree that the doctor-patient relationship is a fundamental 
part of quality health care, but we have found that we have a flawed 
formula when it comes to setting reimbursement levels. And every year 
it threatens the ability of doctors to care for their patients, and it 
threatens the ability of patients to see their doctors.
  Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and stakeholders 
throughout the health care community, physicians, senior citizens--they 
all recognize that we have a flawed policy.
  How many times in the past have we come together in a bipartisan way 
over the years in the House of Representatives to provide a temporary 
patch to this problem without fixing the underlying problem?
  In 2010 alone, Congress took five different votes to delay a 
scheduled cut without stepping up and dealing with a permanent fix to 
the problem. By an overwhelming vote just a few weeks ago, Congress 
supported a 1-year delay to a looming 25-percent cut in physician 
payments.
  My amendment is very straightforward and clear. It adds an additional 
instruction to the committees of jurisdiction over health care 
legislation to replace the flawed sustainable growth rate formula used 
to set Medicare payments for doctors. And it requires that Congress 
adopt a permanent fix to what has previously been an ongoing problem.
  It's the right thing to do on behalf of doctors and patients. It's 
the right fiscal policy as we look for ways to make health care funding 
more sustainable and more predictable. And as we begin the year looking 
towards improvements in this extremely complex and yet highly personal 
and important issue of health care, I think that adopting this 
amendment would be a good step to move in that direction.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment in a bipartisan 
way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition to the Matheson amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. I claim time in opposition to the amendment to say that I 
support the amendment, Madam Speaker.
  I believe that as you look at the list of 12 items that we have in H. 
Res. 9, they are not to be limited at all. And I think that by virtue 
of our making the Matheson amendment in order to deal with the so-
called doc fix issue, we have made it very clear that we are already 
beginning at this juncture to work in a bipartisan way in our quest to 
create jobs, get our economy back on track, and ensure that every 
single American has access to quality affordable health care.
  And so this is, again, the beginning of a very important process. And 
I'm very pleased that Mr. Matheson has been able to play a role in 
fashioning H. Res. 9.
  And Madam Speaker, I hope very much that with the President of the 
United States saying that he is willing and eager to work with 
Republicans to rectify the problems that exist with the passed health 
care bill and the fact that Mr. Clyburn, the assistant minority leader, 
has said that he wants to work in a bipartisan way to deal with these 
issues, will lead to strong bipartisan support for Mr. Matheson's 
amendment and for the underlying resolution.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATHESON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Matheson's 
amendment.
  I do want to point out, though, that the Democrats, when we were in 
the majority, many times tried to pass a permanent fix and did not 
receive support, I believe, from many Republicans--except I think in 
one case we did have Dr. Burgess from Texas' support.
  Back in November of 2009, we passed a permanent fix, a doctors' fix. 
But because we could not get any Republican support--any real 
Republican support--we had to continue to rely on short-term fixes. We 
did however, as you know, at the end of the last session pass a 1-year 
fix, which is in effect now.
  But I do think that this is a very commendable response that Mr. 
Matheson has, and I certainly intend to support it.
  But the difficulty is that the many years when the Republicans were 
in the majority, they had the opportunity to pass a permanent fix and 
to deal with this issue, and they always kicked the can down the road 
and then did not cooperate with us on a bipartisan basis when we were 
in the majority to try to achieve a permanent fix.
  I certainly intend to work with the Republicans to do that, but they 
are the reason we don't have it now.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I was mistakenly under the impression that 
the gentleman from Utah had exhausted his 5 minutes, so I would like to 
reclaim the remaining time that I have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman may reclaim 
the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATHESON. I have no further speakers. I again want to thank you 
for the opportunity to have this amendment considered, and I urge 
support of all of my colleagues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as we know under the structure, I have 
claimed time in opposition to the amendment, but I will state once 
again that I am supportive of the Matheson amendment. I urge my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to come together and vote 
for adding what would be item number 13, which will be the beginning of 
wide-ranging reform to ensure that every single American has access to 
quality health insurance so that we can again get our economy back on 
track and focus on job creation and growth.
  With that, I again urge support of the Matheson amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 26, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment and on the resolution.

[[Page 533]]

  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Matheson).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
question of adopting the resolution if that question arises without 
intervention of a motion to recommit.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 428, 
nays 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 15]

                               YEAS--428

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Conyers
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Costa
     Giffords
     Payne
     Ruppersberger
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1100

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 15, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on the 
Matheson amendment to H. Res. 9, which would instruct the committee of 
jurisdiction to include a permanent fix to the Medicare physician 
payment formula in legislation to replace the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act. I intended to vote ``yes'' on the Matheson 
amendment.
  I have always been a strong supporter of having the most optimal 
Medicare reimbursement rate for our nation's physicians. This is 
because the level of Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians does 
have a significant impact on the quality and level of health care 
physicians will provide to our nation's senior citizens and disabled.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253, 
nays 175, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--253

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter

[[Page 534]]


     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Giffords
     Johnson (IL)
     Payne
     Ruppersberger
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1108

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to 
vote on H. Res. 9 and wished to express my intentions had I been able 
to vote.
  I had been in the middle of an Agriculture Committee Public Forum 
with Secretary Vilsack when the first votes were called. I went down on 
the floor with my notes, as I was the next in line to ask the Secretary 
questions, and while I was reviewing my notes and questions mistakenly 
missed the second vote in the series.
  Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 16, to pass H. Res. 9, 
Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-
killing health care law, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, I intended to 
vote ``no.''

                          ____________________