[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 166 (Saturday, November 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12598-H12622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3962, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR
AMERICA ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3961, MEDICARE
PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REFORM ACT OF 2009
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 903 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 903
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3962) to provide affordable, quality health care for all
Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in part A of the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution,
perfected by the modification printed in part B of such
report, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of
debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor; (2)
the further amendment printed in part C of the report of the
Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Stupak of
Michigan or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order except those arising under
clause 9 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question; (3) the
further amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
part D of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by
Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, which shall
be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall
be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent; and (4) one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions, which shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. During consideration of an amendment printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, the Chair may postpone the question of adoption
as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3961) to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the
Medicare SGR payment system for physicians. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. In the engrossment of H.R. 3961, the Clerk shall--
(a) add the text of H.R. 2920, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 3961;
(b) conform the title of H.R. 3961 to reflect the addition
to the engrossment of the text of H.R. 2920;
(c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(d) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 903 provides for consideration of H.R. 3962, the
Affordable Health Care for America Act, under a structured rule. The
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and provides 4
hours of debate controlled by the Committees on Energy and Commerce and
on Education and Labor.
The rule makes in order the amendment in part C of the report if
offered by Representative Stupak or a designee. The rules makes in
order the substitute amendment in part D of the report if offered by
Mr. Boehner or his designee.
H. Res. 903 also provides for consideration of H.R. 3961, the
Medicare Physician Reform Act, under a closed rule. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and upon passage of the bill, the
Clerk is directed to add at the end the text of H.R. 2920 as passed by
the House.
I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
[[Page H12599]]
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reform that will
allow millions of American women to get the health care they need.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield for a unanimous consent request to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I support health care that helps senior
women afford their medications through Medicare.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous
consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I support ending gender discrimination in
premium prices.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the
Democratic health care bill because it eliminates disparities that harm
a woman's health.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I support affordable health care
and this Democratic bill so that domestic violence may never be used
ever again as a preexisting condition.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Kilpatrick) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I support our House bill
which will let women and doctors control their health decisions.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic
bill to let our kids in their 20s get insurance and keep healthy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request
to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I support health care reform that improves
the nursing workforce and is endorsed by the American Nursing
Association.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic bill
because it will keep women and their families healthy, not just take
care of them when they are sick.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if this was a
stalling tactic by the majority party on delaying the vote on this
important bill which will kill 5.5 million jobs today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will observe that is not a correct
parliamentary inquiry. The Chair will observe, on this side of the
aisle, I don't think anybody wants to stall the bill.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve the right to
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized on his
reservation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I understand that this may be a train that is
rolling, but it appears that the majority side is interested in
stalling this bill. Would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent
that all extension and revision of remarks could be done en bloc.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would observe that such unanimous
consent has already been granted. The Chair would note that there are a
lot of Members around here that want to ask unanimous consent. The
Chair intends to recognize them and let their unanimous consents be
judged by the Chair and the House as suitable.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, continuing to observe the right to
object, how about increasing the debate time? It appears that the
majority party is attempting to expand their debate time.
I would ask unanimous consent that each side be added 1 hour of
debate time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the right to
object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would be delighted to hear the
gentleman on his reservation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
the majority party appears to be continuing to delay the process here.
It would be appropriate, if the majority party is interested in
fairness in this process, to provide for increasing debate time on both
sides of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair observes that regular order has
been demanded. As such, the gentleman must either object, or withdraw
his reservation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair hears objection. The Chair would
hope the gentleman would not object, but if he does, it will be in the
Record.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve then, if you
are not interested in obtaining my objection, continuing to reserve,
again it appears that this is a process by which the majority party is
interested once again in trying to subvert the rules and expand the
debate time on the majority side.
Mr. SESSIONS. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection was heard. The gentleman from
Texas will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SESSIONS. The question is, could the Speaker please advise us of
the time that is being consumed. Does it come off the time that would
be allowed in the rule for debate by the gentlewoman from New York?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member asking to insert remarks into the
Record may include a simple declaration of sentiment toward the
question under debate but should not embellish the request with
extended oratory.
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in support of this bill because it will make health
care affordable for women who still earn 77 percent less than men.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas on his reservation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that what is occurring is that
the facts of the case are that this has gone beyond the rules of the
House in the presentation, and I object and would ask for regular
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has objected.
The gentlewoman from New York continues to be recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Ms. Hirono) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks because the women in my district cannot wait any longer for
meaningful health care reform.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized on
his reservation.
[[Page H12600]]
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe what is occurring now is not
only opposed to the House rules but is containing further comment,
which was not allowed in the rule nor in the general provisions of the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will restate the ruling that the
Chair made earlier.
A Member asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration of
sentiment towards the question under debate but should not embellish
the request with extended oratory.
The Chair has heard nothing which contravenes that, and the Chair
makes the statement to my good friend that we will continue as we have
in allowing each Member----
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is out of order. The Chair is
busy ruling.
Mr. SESSIONS. Could the Speaker please advise me about the time that
is presently being consumed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a unanimous
consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
{time} 1100
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic
bill because it will help women with breast cancer pay for
chemotherapy.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unanimous consent request has been
entered. That is the business of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, regular order, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is it not appropriate for a Member of the House
to be able to reserve a right to object on a unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is going to inform the gentleman
that he has the right to make a timely reservation. The Chair is going
to observe that such was not made.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. An objection is no longer timely.
The gentlewoman from New York continues to be recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California
(Mrs. Capps) for a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks in support of reforms that ensure that no mother will ever
have her child's care denied because of a preexisting condition.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair wants to remind my colleagues, we are going to try and have
a fair and orderly debate.
The Chair is going to remind my colleagues that every Member has a
right to place a unanimous consent before the House. The Chair is going
to protect that right for the majority and the Chair is going to
protect that right for the minority. And if delay occurs, at this
moment it appears to the Chair that the delay occurs less on the
Chair's right than it does on the Chair's left.
The Chair will observe if the gentleman is concerned about speeding
the business of the House, the business of the House can best be
speeded by allowing the unanimous consent requests to be made.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. At the time that a unanimous consent request is
made, the Speaker has apparently determined that the statement, as soon
as it is completed, does not allow for a reservation. Is it not, under
the rules of the House, appropriate for a Member of the House to
reserve a right to object based upon a unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is going to instruct the gentleman
lightly upon the rules of the House by observing that reservations must
be made in a timely fashion.
The Chair will protect the rights of the gentleman to assert timely
objections or to proceed in an appropriate manner under the rules.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California
(Mrs. Napolitano) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of health care reform
that eliminates out-of-pocket costs for osteoporosis screenings.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms.
Kilroy) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. KILROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent----
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized on his
reservation.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Regular order, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Regular order is demanded.
The Chair is going to make this observation for the benefit of my
colleagues. After a demand for regular order, a reservation of
objection may no longer be entertained. A Member must either object or
withdraw the reservation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to object. Am I
allowed to be heard under that reservation at this juncture?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That, the Chair regrets, cannot be done
because the Chair has heard a demand for regular order, which precludes
that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I cannot reserve the right to object to the
unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not after a demand for the regular order has
been heard.
What is happening, the Chair will inform my dear friends, is we are
getting ourselves into an unnecessarily deep parliamentary morass. If
my colleagues on the Chair's left would withhold these objections, we
would not be in this snarl at this time.
Now, does the gentleman object?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object and wish to be
heard on my reservation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that out of order.
The Chair makes the observation that since a demand for the regular
order has been made, reservations may no longer be raised. Perceiving
that the gentleman from California has withdrawn his reservation, the
Chair recognizes now, again, the gentlewoman from New York, who
controls the time at this moment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have already yielded to the gentlelady
from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).
Ms. KILROY. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks
in support of the Democratic bill because----
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KILROY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
Do I not have the right to be able to continue my sentence without
objections that are trying to censure my remarks here on the floor that
I have a right to make as a Member of Congress?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. The gentlewoman will
suspend.
The gentlewoman from New York again is recognized.
[[Page H12601]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of Ms. Kilroy, have you
had time to raise your objection?
Ms. KILROY. I ask unanimous consent again to revise and extend my
remarks because this----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Ms. KILROY. I rise in support of this Democratic bill because it
won't force women into a bare bones policy, high deductible, and high-
cost plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection has been heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are asking for an extension of 1 hour on
both sides under the rule that will equally allow both sides 30
additional minutes to be heard, because it's obvious that Members of
Congress need to be heard and this rule does not provide the amount of
time necessary, and the people who are here is an example of why this
is wrong.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has not yet been
recognized for debate. The gentleman will resume his seat and we will
proceed with the business of the House.
The Chair continues to recognize the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands for a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in support of providing affordable coverage for the
39 percent of Latinos, 23 percent of African Americans, and 34 percent
of Native Americans who are not insured.
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, because it eliminates cost sharing and makes
access to health care more affordable, as a mother of four and a
grandmother of three, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my
remarks in support of the Democratic bill.
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is heard.
The Chair requests the gentlemen and gentlewomen of the House to heed
the gavel. The Chair will try to protect the rights of all and will see
that the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the rules. And
the Chair asks the Members not to make that any more difficult than
they must.
The Chair continues to recognize the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, because the Democratic bill gives women more
opportunities and offers to modernize health care, I ask unanimous
consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of the Democratic
bill.
Ms. FALLIN. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair continues to recognize the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
(Ms. Baldwin) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, because it is time to protect older women
by closing the doughnut hole, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in support of this bill.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair has a comment to make here. The Chair is going to request
the Members on both sides of the aisle to respect the rights of other
Members. Members have the right, under the rules, to ask unanimous
consent. If Members on one side of the aisle want their right
protected, the Chair observes that they should then respect the rights
of Members on the other side of the aisle. It will be the purpose of
the Chair to try and see that all Members are heard at the proper time
and fashion and to see that the rules are carried out. The Chair will
also try to see that the debate is conducted with a measure of comity
and grace and decency, and the Chair would request my friends on both
sides of the aisle to respect that.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. CULBERSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, to fulfill your proper admonition of the
House that we proceed with comity and respect and allow the voices on
both sides to be heard, my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is to
ask that we would--and we are prepared to do so with a unanimous
consent--agree to expand the debate by 1 hour to allow other Members of
the House on both sides--could we have a unanimous consent request, Mr.
Speaker, to expand the debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will observe that my friend has
not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry.
The Chair simply wants to make this observation. We can spend a long
time here on this particular wrangle or we can allow the proceedings to
go forward. Everybody will have a chance to be heard as long as the
House is presided over by this particular Member.
The Chair just requests my friends on the minority side, let's let
the discussion go forward. It isn't hurting anything, and there is no
advantage to be achieved by making all of this fuss.
Mr. CULBERSON. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, is it in order, I would like to make a
unanimous consent to expand the debate by 1 hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair observes that that can only be
done at this time by the gentlewoman from New York yielding for the
purpose of that kind of unanimous consent request.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentlelady from New York yield to expand the
debate by 1 hour? I would like to make that unanimous consent request
to expand the debate by 1 hour so that everyone can speak.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am calling for regular order. I would like to really
get on with this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair observes that the gentlewoman from
New York has not yielded for that purpose and that, therefore, the
request is not in order.
The gentlewoman from New York continues to be recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California
(Ms. Eshoo) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks on this bill which will limit age ratings that make coverage
unaffordable for older women.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentlewoman from New York continues to be recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. TSONGAS. Because women shouldn't have to buy a separate policy
for maternity care, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks in support of the Democratic bill.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct procedure in
the House of Representatives for the purpose, when a Member offers a
unanimous consent request, that the objection be heard after the
conclusion of the unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct in that the Chair
has been trying to see to it, amidst a somewhat disorderly House, that
the request for unanimous consent is uttered before the objection is
heard.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page H12602]]
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the rule not provide on a unanimous
consent request that there be no significant embellishment of remarks,
and in fact the majority party has continued to embellish their remarks
upon their UC request?
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is kind of wearing out this
ruling, but the Chair will respond again for the benefit of my good
friend by observing this:
A Member asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration of
sentiment toward the question under debate, but should not embellish
the requests with extended oratory. The Chair is going to try and
enforce that, and the Chair would suggest to all Members that we
respect each other's rights and, on this side, that Members observe the
rule and on that side that the Members permit the Members on this side
to observe the rule and to make their necessary points. The Chair will
try and enforce these rules in a fair and proper way.
The Chair observes that the proceedings will proceed more speedily if
the Members will assist the Chair in this particular way.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, because the Democratic bill covers the
preventative services that women need to stay healthy, I ask unanimous
consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of such bill.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Now the Chair would like to make an observation for the benefit of
everybody.
The whole process will proceed more speedily if we, first of all,
observe the rules and, second of all, if we afford reasonable courtesy
to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The Chair calls on
the Democrats to do that and the Republicans.
Now, the Chair simply wants to make this statement for the benefit of
Members on the minority side who may not have understood the Chair's
motives, but the Chair will hear each unanimous-consent request
individually and will hear each objection individually, and the Chair
will ask the Members to cooperate in that. The House should have an
orderly process that will reflect well on it in historical perspective.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, is there any other motion that the
minority can make other than a unanimous consent to expand the debate
and allow more Members of the House to be heard in an amicable way?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair just will adhere to the
traditional practices of the House and not respond to hypothetical
questions, and the Chair will rule on questions as they become ripe
under the rules. The Chair regrets that the Chair can go no further
than making that observation at this time.
The Chair continues to recognize the gentlewoman from New York, and
hopes that the process will be speeded by a more gracious acquiescence
of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of health care reform, as it
will guarantee coverage for maternity and well-child care.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I support health care
reform that invests in a health care workforce dedicated to meeting the
needs of all women.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if there is a request for a
unanimous consent, does that allow the person asking unanimous consent,
if there is an objection, to continue on with hyperbole?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is going to read the rule again to
the House. I think it will probably be helpful. I think this is the
fourth or fifth time the Chair has done it.
A Member asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration of
sentiment toward the question under debate, but should not embellish
the requests with extended oratory; and with the assistance of the
House, the Chair is going to do his very best to see to it that that is
observed on both sides of the aisle.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Richardson) for a unanimous-consent request.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, because I stand in support of health
care reform that helps more than half of women who cannot afford health
care today, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection has been heard.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I ask
unanimous consent for a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled that you
cannot embellish, if an objection has been heard, a unanimous-consent
request, and yet the other side continues to embellish their remarks
when an objection has been heard, and I wish you would restate what you
just said, that if an objection is heard they cannot embellish their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has heard the gentleman's
comments, and the Chair is going to make this observation. The decision
as to whether the rules are being adhered to is the decision of the
Chair. It is the right of Members to raise questions as they might
choose, and this particular occupant in the chair is going to do his
best to be fair to all parties.
The Chair is going to now make a further admonition to the House. The
Chair will advise Members that, as indicated by previous occupants of
the Chair going a long way back, although a unanimous consent request
to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple declaration of
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure, it is
improper for a Member to embellish such requests with other oratory and
that it can become an imposition on the time of the Member who yielded
for that purpose.
The Chair will entertain as many requests to make insertions by
unanimous consent as may be necessary to accommodate the Members, but
the Chair also asks the Members to cooperate by confining such remarks
to the proper form.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, being a breast cancer survivor
shouldn't disqualify a woman from getting health care coverage. I rise
in support of health care reform.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the requests over and over
for unanimous consent to speak outside the rule. You see that we have a
lineup of people over here to do the same thing on our side. The
majority has the power to extend debate either by UC, as I understand
it, and so my inquiry is:
Would it be in order to go back and forth, making unanimous consents
on each side to speak outside the rule and so we can do this in an
equitable way, which appears to be what the Speaker is trying to do?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands the concerns of the
[[Page H12603]]
gentleman. The Chair is going to make this observation:
Looking down from the Rostrum here, the Chair observes that the line
on the Speaker's right is getting shorter and that the time of the
gentlewoman from New York will shortly expire. That time will then move
to the minority side, at which time Members of the minority may want to
make the same requests that Members of the majority have made. The
Chair is going to do the level best to see to it all Members are
protected in their rights.
The question of yielding for the purpose of the unanimous consent is
up to the gentlewoman from New York. At a later time, perhaps the
Member of the minority handling the rule will want to make a unanimous
consent request along those lines. If that happens, then the House will
deal with the matter, and the Chair will preside over the decision.
The Chair observes that the House is out of order. The Chair has
tried to be considerate of the concerns of my friends on the minority
side.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Democratic bill because it eliminates higher premiums for women who are
more likely than men to have chronic diseases or to be disabled.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Now the Chair is going to make this
statement, and will ask Members on both sides of the aisle to listen.
The Chair is asking for a simple statement of unanimous consent at
this time or the person controlling the time--in this instance, my dear
friend, the gentlewoman from New York--will find that her time is
charged.
So the Chair calls upon my colleagues on the majority side to listen
to that, but the Chair reminds my colleagues on the minority side that
the same rules and behavior will probably be applied when the minority
is recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous-consent request.
(Ms. SHEA-PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I support health care reform because
more than 14 million women with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty
are uninsured.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Watson) for a unanimous-consent request.
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, single women are twice as likely to be
uninsured as married women, and they need coverage. I support the
Democratic bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my fellow New
Yorker (Ms. Velazquez) for a unanimous-consent request.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of health care reform
as it will empower millions of women, particularly of low income, with
information they need to make wise decisions for themselves and their
families.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson) for a unanimous-consent request.
(Mrs. HALVORSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. HALVORSON. Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a health care
crisis and doing nothing is not an option. I support health care
reform.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the Delegate
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for a unanimous-consent
request.
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic bill to
bend the curve that has seen health care costs rise three times faster
than wages.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous-consent request.
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support health
care reform, which will benefit women who change jobs; and I want to
add that health care insurance companies cannot deny people health care
because of preexisting conditions.
{time} 1130
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin, Ms. Gwen Moore, for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill
because domestic violence costs as much as $750 billion to our health
care system.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, because of the kind indulgence of our
friends on the other side, we have no further speakers, but we would
like to sit quietly and listen to the other side.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 28 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing
bill before us.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. FALLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition against this freedom-
killing, constitutional affront, job-killing bill, health care bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition on this record-
killing, job-killing bill that is going to cut Medicare and pile debt
on our children, our precious grandchildren and raise health care costs
and taxes on the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is going to observe, the rules are
going to be observed on both sides of the aisle.
For the benefit of my colleagues, the Chair will simply observe that
Members asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration of
sentiment towards the question under debate but should not embellish
the request with extended oratory.
The gentleman from Texas continues to be recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Bono Mack) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. BONO MACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing
bill that raises taxes on the American people.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-
killing bill because it piles on debt on my brand-new 3-month-old
grandbaby.
We agree that real healthcare reform is a necessity.
We must provide uninsured Americans with meaningful healthcare
reform.
But the trillion dollar Pelosi bill is not the answer.
[[Page H12604]]
The Pelosi bill will drive already hurting hardworking families and
seniors further into debt.
My home state of Florida is suffering with 11.2% unemployment.
This is not the right time to burden families with increased taxes.
Also, with over 162 billion dollars in harmful cuts to Medicare
Advantage, the Pelosi plan will force millions of seniors to lose their
current health coverage.
And Medicare prescription drug premiums will likely rise by 20
percent.
The trillion dollar Pelosi bill makes it tougher on seniors to get
the coverage and treatment they deserve after a lifetime of hard work
and sacrifice.
There is a disconnect between Congress and reality when we think
creating bureaucracies is the same as creating solutions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Miller) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
job-killing, deficit-exploding government takeover of our health care
system.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the State
of Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition because this
bill will take away the ability of women, the chief health officer in
85 percent of American households, for making the best decisions for
their families.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition because this bill puts
crushing debt on everyone and puts the government between a woman and
her doctor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which
raises health care costs and taxes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Mrs. Bachmann) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing
bill that will cut $500 million from Medicare and potentially collapse
the economic economy.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas
(Ms. Jenkins) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition because this bill
kills jobs, cuts Medicare, piles on debt, increases costs and raises
taxes.
While there are many reasons why I'm opposed to Speaker Pelosi's
health care bill, there is one that has been highlighted in today's
headlines.
JOBS
Americans from coast to coast are struggling to make ends meet and
many are looking for work.
Yet on the day unemployment in our nation hit 10.2 percent, the
highest level since 1983, the Democrat Party continues to move forward
with yet another job-killing bill.
According to a model used by President Obama's own economic advisors,
Speaker Pelosi's health care plan would kill another 5.5 million jobs.
That is downright criminal.
Before voting on Speaker Pelosi's plan later this weekend, I urge my
colleagues to respond to the needs of the American people by supporting
solutions to create jobs, not kill them.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is going to announce again the
rules of the House as they affect this part of our proceedings.
A Member asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration of
sentiment towards the question under debate but should not embellish
their requests with extended oratory.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming
(Mrs. Lummis) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. LUMMIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing
bill at a time when our Nation has 10.2 percent unemployment that cuts
Medicare, piles debt on our children, and raises health care costs.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to this job-killing bill that's estimated to cut 5.5 million jobs in
America. It's not going to help health care, and the bottom line is
Medicare is imperiled as a result of it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will ask for a simple statement of
unanimous consent, or the gentleman from Texas will be charged for time
just like the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this exercise of
tyranny of the majority that our Founders so feared on this job-killing
bill that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care
costs, and raises taxes on the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair observes that the gentleman from
Texas is being charged for the time now being used.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition because of
the tyranny that is being exercised by the majority to step in between
the American people and their freedom to make their own health
decisions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is charged for the
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Alexander) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. ALEXANDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition against this
government takeover of health care.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Culberson) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition on behalf of the
people of District Seven to register my strenuous opposition to this
government takeover of the health care system which will bankrupt our
children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is charged for the
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the abuse of
process in not allowing people to come to the people's House and just
make statements over 18 percent takeover of the U.S. economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is charged for the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for a unanimous consent request.
[[Page H12605]]
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this job-killing bill that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children
and grandchildren, raises health care costs, and raises taxes on the
American people.
Additionally, this bill cuts approximately $150 billion from Medicare
Advantage, leaving 4.6 million women without their choice of insurance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is charged with the
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Roskam) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that would
lead to possible jail time if you don't comply.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Coffman) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. COFFMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition as this
bill is punitive to both small businesses and seniors.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition because this bill's
main intent is government control of health care.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. When there
is 10 percent unemployment, you stop digging.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I hope I don't get a hernia, Mr. Speaker, and
say to all my colleagues, if you haven't read this thing, it's going to
cost billions and billions of dollars and hurt the economy. I would
just like to say that I hope before we vote on this thing you will read
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will be charged
with the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire upon
the time that is left on both sides, please, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 28 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 28\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, once again, to get to this
great debate, we are greatly in your debt, Mr. Speaker, to find
ourselves here this morning.
The legislation that we take up today is the culmination of a fight
for health care reform that dates back at least a century and has been
one of the greatest political struggles of our era. It shouldn't be
this way. Many years ago, every other western nation enacted broad
health care coverage for its citizens but not in the United States.
Only in this country has there been such a visceral anti-government
urge to resist something that benefits almost everyone. Only here do
efforts to bring about improved health care for all Americans crash
against entrenched interests and corporate resistance. And only here do
arguments about reforming insurance spark ideological attacks from the
far right.
One need only to have looked at the windows of the Capitol earlier
this week to see the manifestation of that anger. Thousands of
protesters showed up to threaten us into not voting in favor of this
bill. If they expected us to run for cover or vote against this bill,
they are going to be disappointed. Hearing those extreme views only
made most of us more confident that we are doing the right thing here
today by approving this bill.
Throughout the years, those same voices of opposition, whether it's
Republicans or corporate interests, have rallied against reforms. It is
worth pointing out for the record that Republicans who want to
participate in this process did. We had more than 100 hearings, heard
from 181 witnesses, Democrat and Republican, and considered hundreds of
amendments. Fully 121 were approved in the committees, including 22
from Republicans. Their input has been heard when they wanted to
participate.
In 1912, President Theodore Roosevelt split from the Republican Party
to lead a more progressive effort and champion health care for all
Americans, but he lost the next election to Woodrow Wilson and the
effort failed. Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would lead
another charge on this front as part of the New Deal platform. While
Roosevelt was able to win passage of Social Security over great and
extreme opposition, again by the same people who oppose this today, he
was able to enact Social Security in 1935, but he was not able to
extend that coverage to all Americans for health.
{time} 1145
Still later, President Harry Truman made another try for health care,
followed by President Lyndon Johnson, who was able to pass legislation
in 1965 that implemented Medicare and Medicaid. Once again, it passed
over Republican opposition that extends to this day.
President Richard Nixon followed up on President Johnson's Great
Society by seeking to expand Federal programs and favoring broad health
insurance. Sadly, those efforts were again derailed.
By the time President Clinton attempted to revisit the issue in 1993,
the debate had become so polarized and fraught with special interests
that the entire process collapsed almost before it started. I don't
need to remind most of my colleagues here about the awful vilification
of reform embodied by the ``Harry and Louise'' television ad campaign
and by mail house threats to senior citizens that going to what they
called the ``wrong doctor'' could result in a $10,000 fine and perhaps
prison time.
These ads and those mail-order ads were paid for by big contributions
from insurance companies and were led by the Republicans. And the same
forces are still fighting us. The insurance industry and the big drug
companies have partnered with the extreme right fringe to try to stop
this effort in its tracks. We saw a lot of that this past summer.
Let me say this loud and clear: Eliminating the stranglehold that big
insurance companies have on health care is one of the best parts of
this bill, and, for the first time, 85 percent of the premium dollars
have to go for health care, not for outrageous salaries and
compensation.
We are poised for victory. We stand here today on the brink of
history, with the opportunity to make good on a promise that will
forever improve the lives of nearly 36 million Americans who have no
health insurance. This is the most important vote we will ever take,
and I am proud to stand here today.
With this bill we can end the constant worry by people who don't have
insurance to cover sudden illness or an accident, who are the parents
of a child who had severe brain trauma before he reached his teenage
years and within a year or two could reach his lifetime cap on
insurance, and though he was not yet a teenager, would be forever
uninsurable in the United States of America.
We will stop telling women, as we discussed last night in the Rules
Committee, that they have to pay 48 percent more for health insurance
because, as it was explained last night, it is all right to do that
because women have different diseases. We want to have an end to that.
How many small businesses in little towns in America have had to
close up or to end coverage for employees because they could not afford
exorbitant insurance premiums? Small business has to compete with big
business and
[[Page H12606]]
gets no break on providing insurance for their employees.
And now this year we have literally thousands of organizations on our
side favoring the bill. From AARP, who would never go for any bill that
in any way would hurt senior citizens because that is their life's
work, the Consumers Union, the American Cancer Society and the American
Medical Association, they have all joined in this cause.
The reason we are here at this moment is because of the leadership of
our Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, who is a powerful leader, a compassionate
woman, and an inclusive colleague who deserves all the credit for
bringing us here to this momentous event that we face today, the most
momentous in the history of America.
Before we vote, it is also fitting that we recall the words of the
late Senator Kennedy, who spoke as far back as 1978 about the lack of
health care coverage in this country. Senator Kennedy said, ``One of
the most shameful things about modern America is that in our
unbelievably rich land, the quality of health care available to many of
our people is unbelievably poor, and the cost is unbelievably high.''
I agree with Senator Kennedy. We cannot afford not to pass this
legislation.
Now is our chance to fix our health care system, improve the lives of
millions of Americans, and make more corporations in America
competitive in a global economy.
With great heartfelt thanks to our great Speaker pro tempore this
morning, Mr. Dingell, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition on behalf of District
12 on this job-killing bill that cuts Medicare, piles debts on our
children, raises health care costs, and raises taxes on the American
people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair observes that the Chair has asked
for a simple statement of unanimous consent or the gentleman from Texas
will be charged out of his time.
The Chair repeats that, and the Chair charges the gentleman for the
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to illustrate how this bill
will stop health care reform already instituted by the States.
This may seem hard to believe, but over 200 years ago the Founding
Fathers foresaw the health care problems we have today and they
proposed a solution. We call it federalism. See, if something has to be
done the same way, at the same time by everybody, only the federal
government can do it. The feds are good at one-size-fits all solutions.
But if you want creativity, innovation or justice, and consideration
for unique circumstances, states are, as Louis Brandeis once called
them, the true laboratories of democracy.
The Founding Fathers understood the Federal Government should be
limited, not just for the fun of it, but the federal government has
limitations to its effectiveness. In Federalist Number 45 James Madison
said, ``Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.
Those to the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' Why?
Because states can be more effective than a large national government.
The federal government can't and shouldn't try to solve all our
problems, even when the intention may be good. A Supreme Court Justice
wrote: ``The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It
divides power . . . precisely so that we may resist the temptation to
concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the
crises of the day.''
He wasn't speaking about health reform specifically, but if there
ever was a bill that sought to concentrate power as an expedient
solution to the crisis of the day, it's Speaker Pelosi's health care
bill.
If we were to pass it, we would be losing sight of the structure the
Founders put in place to ensure reforms were done at the most
appropriate and helpful level, and power wasn't concentrated.
Balance is key, and the Pelosi bill would be a permanent shift of
power to the federal government to control our daily lives and our
health care decisions. You see, that as why the Constitution was
designed with this balance in mind. James Madison said, ``Parchment
barriers, a few luminous words on paper, would not keep ambitious men
from exercising undue power--freedom can be preserved not by glowing
statements but by the balance of real forces.''
Our health care system needs reform and costs need to be lowered.
Hey, in 2000, 54% of all firms (in Utah?) offered health benefits,
today only about 44% of them do. But the reforms needed for the state
of California are not the reforms needed for the state of Massachusetts
or the state of Utah. Massachusetts has their program; it's expensive,
but they appear to like it; but it won't work in Utah. What Utah is
trying to do wouldn't fly in Boston. Like every state, Utah's
demographics are unique.
We have a very young population that predominately works for smaller
firms. In Utah, 32 percent of small businesses offer insurance, but
that is 10 percent less than the national averages--a unique challenge
to Utah. Utah needs reform that will take the burden off small
business and give competitive, affordable pricing to consumers.
That is why I'm so encouraged about the reforms taking place in Utah.
The changes taking place right now in our state are based on consumer
choice and options, businesses have stable costs, workers have
affordable, portable options, and it's tailored for our demographics.
If the Pelosi bill were to pass, though, that state innovation is
stopped. That would be the true health care tragedy.
You know, we can't solve every issue by getting all the experts in a
room in DC. All the creativity and intelligence is not just here in
this city. Creative solutions can happen throughout the country when
the federal government gets off the backs of individuals and businesses
with their mandates and regulations, and out of their pockets with
their taxes and then allows real people the ability to find real
solutions.
The Pelosi bill seeks to dramatically alter the healthcare landscape
for the U.S. and Utah forever. For example, prohibits the sale of
private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013,
forcing individuals and businesses to purchase coverage through the
federal government.
PG 49--provides a huge liability loophole for (large) insurance
companies, and I bet not more than 10 people know about it.
Small business will be hit with a mandate to provide insurance, with
penalties for not providing insurance . . . and a surtax of 5.4% on
small business owners. It is estimated that fifty five hundred (5,500)
businesses in Utah will be hit with this additional tax. This is
devastating for small business owners, already sick and tired of being
nickel and dimed by the federal government.
Tort reform, allowing interstate insurance competition and block
grants to states for high risk pooling are things the federal
government can reform to drive down costs. These are common sense
changes that won't damage the work states are doing to provide what
their citizens need.
Individual merits of the bill notwithstanding, the biggest problem is
the idea that health care decisions can be dictated by Washington, DC
bureaucrats--a health care czar.
To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, the Pelosi bill would have the same effect
as giving alcohol and keys to the car to a teenage boy.
The federal government can play a role, but real health reform must
happen on the state level. We . . . you and I, know what our unique
healthcare needs are, and frankly what types of treatment or access we
require to live the healthiest possible life. Despite the fanciful
rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle, our ability to choose
will be lost if we fail to allow individual states to address their
unique and diverse needs.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say this job-killing bill would
cause as many as 112 million Americans to lose their current health
care insurance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. LEE of New York asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEE of New York. I rise to say this job-killing bill cuts
Medicare, piles debt on our children, and does nothing to address the
issue of medical liability reform.
Medical liability reform would decrease the need for physicians to
practice defensive medicine and could save $54 billion, according to
the CBO.
[[Page H12607]]
As we all know, the majority refused virtually all amendments to the
underlying bill. An amendment that I proposed would play a meaningful
role in reforming medical liability laws.
My amendment would administer a pilot program in five states in which
a three-member panel--a judge, a physician and a lawyer--would hold a
hearing to determine if the facts of an alleged medical malpractice
case are sufficient to raise a question of liability. This will lower
costs and help eliminate defensive medicine.
Modeled after a Massachusetts program, all cases can proceed past
this panel and go to trial regardless of whether the panel believes the
defendant was at fault.
However if the panel believes that the case is frivolous, the person
who files the case would have to file bond in an amount, determined by
the judge, payable to the defendant for costs should the plaintiff not
prevail in the final judgment.
The pilot program would look at the changes in the cost of
malpractice insurance, the number of physicians practicing, number of
liability carriers, and the amount of pay-outs from liability carriers
with respect to lawsuits.
In more than 2,000 pages there is not one meaningful piece that will
address the issue of medical liability reform.
This pilot program would show Congress and the American people how
meaningful reforming medical liability will be, and that is the only
reason I can assume the majority did not allow it to proceed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Posey) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. POSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill
that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want and don't need.
Madam Chair, I rise to express my deep concerns not only about the
specific provisions in the bill before us, but over the lack of
transparency and openness throughout this process.
In just a few short hours, the U.S. House of Representatives will
vote on the most sweeping changes ever in our nation's health care
system. The final version of this bill, including last minute
amendments, was made available to Members of Congress just a few short
hours ago. The final text of this bill has not been made available to
the public or Members of Congress for at least 72 hours.
I believe that when the Congress considers changes of this magnitude
which will affect 17 percent of our entire economy, we should have more
transparency and openness. I will be voting against H.R. 3962, not only
because of the many provisions I find objectionable, but also because
of the lack of transparency about what it is specifically that we are
voting on.
The House should not be considering or passing this 2,000-page bill
which has not even been subjected to a single committee hearing. Over
200 amendments were filed to this 2,000-page bill. Sadly, out of these
200 amendments, only 1 is allowed to be offered.
Now, let me turn to some specific concerns with the bill.
H.R. 3962 is the wrong prescription for our economy. Yesterday, the
Department of Labor reported that the national unemployment rate hit a
26-year record high of 10.2 percent. Florida's unemployment rate is
above 11 percent. Furthermore, as reported in this morning's New York
Times, the broadest measure of underemployment and unemployment
reaches. 17.5 percent, which is higher than the record 17.1 percent
reached at the height of the 1982 recession.
This is the wrong time to be considering legislation that will cost
us jobs. The hundreds of billions of dollars of higher taxes and the
unfunded mandates that H.R. 3962 places on small businesses will result
in the elimination of between 4 and 5 million American jobs. That is
the estimated job loss as measured using a formula developed by
President Obama's own Chief Economic Advisor, Kathleen Romer. This
would be in addition to the estimated 2.5 million jobs that would be
lost if the Cap and Trade National Energy Tax legislation is enacted
into law. (Estimated job loss by the Heritage Foundation.)
Small businesses across America create nearly 65 percent of all new
jobs and this bill's 8 percent employer health care tax is only going
to make it that much harder for small business to create jobs. H.R.
3962's provision to impose a $500,000 fine for inadvertent errors will
only serve to bankrupt many small businesses.
America cannot afford this bill. They cannot afford more legislation
that will lead to higher unemployment. The American people need
legislation that promotes job creation, not legislation that will
stifle the creation of American jobs.
H.R. 3962 is excessively costly and completely unaffordable.
Washington just ended the year with a record $1.4 trillion debt. The
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates trillion dollar deficits as
far as the eye can see. Our Nation's debt is so serious that in May the
Secretary of the U.S. Treasury had to fly to China to ensure that the
Chinese would continue to purchase our U.S. Treasury notes and to
assure them that Washington would get serious about getting its fiscal
house in order.
Sadly, this health care bill creates a new unaffordable entitlement
program that we cannot afford and will indebt future generations of
Americans for decades to come. CBO says of H.R. 3962 that it ``would
put into effect (or leave in effect) a number of procedures that might
be difficult to maintain over a long period of time.'' In other words,
this bill creates serious long-term budget problems for our Nation.
The President said in his September address to Congress and the
Nation that health care reform legislation would not exceed more than
$900 billion. Unfortunately, when you assemble all of the pieces of
this health care agenda together, you come up with a price tag of
nearly $1.6 trillion for the first 10 years of this bill--56 percent
above the $900 billion cap. This includes CBO's $1.05 trillion cost
estimate for H.R. 3962 and the $209 billion for the Medicare doctor
fix. Further increasing the cost is the administration's $70 billion
Medicare adjustment, more than $200 billion in discretionary spending
required in the future as a result of H.R. 3962, and more than $34
billion in unfunded Medicaid mandates on the States ($1 billion for
Florida as estimated by the State).
Furthermore, when you consider that the costs of H.R. 3962 begin to
significantly increase in 2014, thus a more accurate 10 year cost
estimate for the bill (2014-2024) shows a cost of $2.4 trillion. H.R.
3962 sets us up for serious budget challenges for 2020 and will indebt
our children for decades to come.
H.R. 3962 will have an adverse impact on Medicare recipients. I am
very concerned about the nearly $500 billion in cuts that H.R. 3962
makes to Medicare. This, I believe will have a long-term negative
impact on Medicare. Taking the money out of Medicare only makes the
challenge of averting Medicare's projected 2017 insolvency more
difficult. Furthermore, those hardest hit are likely to be seniors
enrolled in Medicare Advantage, MA, plans, including over 42,000
seniors in my congressional district who are enrolled in MA plans. Many
of these seniors would lose their current Medicare plan and be forced
back into the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan, which will
cost them more money and less coordination of their care.
Failure to buy government approved plan can result in fines and jail
time. A November 5, 2009, letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation
affirmed that if an American citizen fails to purchase a government
approved health care plan or pay the mandatory 2.5 percent national
health care tax, they will be subject to Federal penalties which may
include up to 5 years and a fine of up to $25,000. It is simply
unthinkable that Washington would enact legislation carrying such
mandates and penalties, but that is what H.R. 3962 would do. Such
coercion is wrong and quite frankly runs counter to the freedoms and
liberties that have made this Nation what it is today.
The American people should be allowed to choose whatever health care
plan they want. They should not be restricted to only buying health
insurance that Congress or an unelected group of bureaucrats say you
can buy.
The word ``shall'' is included more than 3,400 times throughout H.R.
3962. Shall is a term used in legislative language to mandate what can
or cannot be done. With the use of the word ``shall'' more than 3,400
times, the choices and liberties of the American people to choose what
they want are clearly undermined. Clearly, these mandates seriously
undermine and change the health care that 80 percent of Americans have
today and want to keep.
Illegal Immigrants Covered Under H.R. 3962. It is wrong to use
taxpayer dollars to subsidize the enrollment of illegal immigrants into
this new government plan. While H.R. 3962 includes language stating
that funding in the bill cannot be used to enroll illegal immigrants in
the national health care plan, the nonpartisan Congressional Research
Service, CBO, and the Social Security Administration all agree that the
provisions in H.R. 3962 are insufficient to actually prevent their
enrollment in taxpayer subsidized health care. Millions of illegal
immigrants will receive taxpayer subsidies for enrollment in subsidized
health care plans.
Other Concerns. The American people were told earlier this year that
health care reform legislation would lower their average health care
costs by about $2,500. H.R. 3962 does just the opposite. Estimates by
the Joint Committee on Taxation, the CBO, and six other
[[Page H12608]]
studies show that imposing new taxes on insurance policies, as H.R.
3962 does, will drive up the cost of medical coverage.
We were told that health care reform was needed in order to lower the
overall amount of spending on health care. However, according to the
CBO, ``On balance, during the decade following the 10-year budget
window, the bill would increase both federal outlays for health care
and the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to
amounts under current law.'' So, H.R. 3962 will actually result in more
spending on health care rather than less.
I oppose the provisions in H.R. 3962, which would use taxpayer
dollars to pay for elective abortions and subsidize enrollment in
health insurance plans that pay for elective abortions. H.R. 3962 would
for the first time use taxpayer dollars to subsidize elective abortions
and expand mandate that insurance coverage of elective abortion be
expanded to every jurisdiction in the country. I oppose this mandate,
but I am supportive of the Stupak/Smith amendment, which will remove
from this bill any expansion of taxpayer funding for abortions.
Health Care Solutions. I was greatly disappointed that the debate in
the House was so severely restricted as only 1 of more than 200
amendments was allowed. This is truly a sad day for the American people
as constructive contributions to health care reform have been silenced.
We should focus on creating more choices for the American people, not
less. Rather than move in the direction of more choices and increased
competition, H.R. 3962 undermines choice in many ways. By creating a
national Health Benefits Advisory Committee, HBAC, H.R. 3962 creates a
one-size-fits-all set of benefits with which every health plan in
America must conform. Estimates are that millions of Americans will be
moved into this new government health care plan, losing the coverage
that they currently have and want to keep.
There are steps that can be taken--without reducing these choices--to
address the concerns of those who lack coverage or who have
difficulties paying for the coverage they want. We should expand the
deductibility of health insurance for all Americans. Refundable health
care tax credits of $2,500 for an individual or $5,500 for a family
will enable working Americans to secure affordable health care coverage
and empower them to choose the type of coverage that meets their needs.
Enactment of Association Health Plan, AHP, legislation would make it
easier for small businesses to pool together and negotiate with
insurance providers for the purchase of more affordable insurance for
their employees. Similarly, nonprofit civic groups should be empowered
to create health plans and offer them to their members and the public.
Sadly, liberals in the Congress have blocked these efforts for the past
decade.
Health Savings Accounts, HSAs, should be expanded enabling more
individuals to purchase a high deductible health plan while also
putting money aside in an HSA to cover medical expenses below the
catastrophic coverage cap. For many, this would be a more affordable
alternative to traditional insurance and over 8 million Americans have
chosen to enroll in HSAs in just the past 5 years. For those with
preexisting conditions or who otherwise have difficulty finding
affordable coverage, we should expand high-risk insurance pools and
other approaches to make sure that those with such challenges are able
to find affordable coverage.
Community health centers, like the ones I recently visited throughout
my district, can play an important role in serving those in need of
affordable medical care. These centers provide cost-effective primary
care and preventive care to millions of lower- and lower-middle-income
Americans, and we should continue to encourage their development and
expansion.
Expanding health care coverage also means taking steps to reduce
waste in medical care expenditures. One of the main factors behind
greatly increasing costs of health care premiums is the skyrocketing
cost associated with medical malpractice. H.R. 3962 does nothing to
move us in the direction of adopting medical malpractice solutions that
have proven successful in many States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Lance) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. LANCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, this health care proposal would be harmful to
New Jersey's taxpayers, senior citizens and businesses, and contains no
malpractice insurance reform.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is again charged time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Poe) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax-
increasing, runaway-spending, government-controlled, rationed health
care bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a massive
government takeover of our health care.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called
Democrat health care reform package.
I do believe health care reform is necessary. However, what this
looming health care legislation essentially amounts to is a Government
takeover of the health care system, which will result in devastating
consequences for families and small businesses across the country.
This massive Government expansion will cost nearly $1.3 trillion,
which is offset with job-killing tax increases. Small businesses will
be hardest hit by these tax increases, which will total to a staggering
$729.5 billion. This will be especially devastating in my home State of
South Carolina, where small businesses represent 97 percent of the
State's employers. According to the Heritage Foundation, 8,700 of South
Carolina's small businesses will be required to pay this new,
burdensome tax.
Currently, my State is trying to recover from a recession that has
swept the entire country. South Carolina is struggling with double
digit unemployment rates. This legislation will place unnecessary
burdens on our small businesses, which will result in even more job
losses. However, my State is not the only area that will be affected
negatively by this legislation.
Today, it was announced that our Nation's current unemployment rate
is 10.2 percent. With our national unemployment rate at a 26-year high,
why are Democrats pushing for a Government takeover of health care
which will only stifle job creation?
Furthermore, as a firm believer in the sanctity of life, I am
appalled by provisions in this bill that allow for the Government
funding of abortions. I adamantly oppose allowing any Government
funding of abortions because it endangers the lives of unborn children
across the nation.
Since I oppose this legislation, I tried to find ways to work with
the majority to illustrate my concerns with what I believe is a
reckless bill. However, when I tried offering amendments my efforts
were declined by the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee.
This is a broad sweeping bill that will have ramifications on our
economy and Government solvency for years to come. Since health care is
in need of reform, I would have liked to work with the Democrats so
that we could approach health care reform in a bipartisan matter--so
that we could create solutions that are in-line with most Americans'
opinions.
Mr. Speaker, people across this Nation are scared and they are in
need of leadership. Many are worried that they will not be able to keep
their current coverage, and they should be. In South Carolina, some
studies estimate that up to 178,889 individuals could lose their
current coverage.
They are in need of comprehensive reform that does not harm the
economy and actually facilitates a system that will keep our citizens
healthy.
That is why I support the Republican alternative. This Republican
plan fixes our country's health system in a creative way that requires
less Government involvement and taxes. Furthermore, this plan results
in zero job losses, zero medicare cuts, and zero tax increases.
We in Congress should be working together to achieve real reform--
making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans
without dramatically expanding the Federal Government and imposing
billions of dollars in taxes on American families and businesses.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bonner) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, this job-killing bill cuts Medicare, piles
debt on our children, raises health care costs, and raises taxes on the
American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker, who is
forthrightly
[[Page H12609]]
following the procedures which he spoke about.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say this record job-killing bill
tyrannically forces government health care on the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett)
for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT. This bill would mortgage the future of my 10 kids, my
17 grandkids and my two great-grandkids.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to request the
time that remains on both sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 26\1/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a Member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable, historic moment.
Passage of health insurance reform is a ``Franklin Roosevelt'' moment,
right up there with the creation of Social Security.
We have debated this issue for almost 100 years, since Teddy
Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose Party. This year alone, House
committees have spent nearly 100 hours in hearings on health reform.
They have heard from 181 witnesses, spent 83 hours in committee
markups, and considered 239 amendments. The Rules Committee spent
almost 12 hours hearing testimony last night. This has been a very
thorough and thoughtful process. The time for talk has come to an end.
Now is the time for action.
The need for reform is clear. Since 2000, employer-sponsored health
insurance premiums for American families have more than doubled.
Because of crushing health care costs, small businesses are losing
their ability to compete in the global marketplace.
If we do nothing, as my Republican friends want to do, family
premiums will increase an average of $1,800 every year and the number
of uninsured will reach 61 million people by 2020. Not only that, but
skyrocketing health care costs will bankrupt this country. By the time
my kids retire, health care will take up 50 percent, half of our entire
economy. We simply cannot leave that kind of debt for future
generations.
My Republican friends see things differently. Their prescription for
health care is ``take two tax breaks and call me in the morning.'' It
is the same-old same-old. For 12 years, Republicans had their chance to
improve health care in America, and for 12 years they let the number of
uninsured skyrocket, while letting the insurance companies make money
hand-over-fist.
Those who vote against this bill are on the wrong side of history.
With the passage of this bill, we stand for the uninsured, for the
underinsured, for those discriminated against by insurance companies
because they have preexisting conditions or because of their gender.
Mr. Speaker, this is an historic moment. I urge my colleagues to
stand with the people of this great country; not with the insurance
companies and not with the special interests, but with the real people.
Vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on this bill. Let's deliver
real health care insurance reform for the American people.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 3962 will bankrupt State
governments across America through the imposition of unfunded mandates,
I rise in opposition to the rule and its underlying legislation.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2009.
Hon. Glenn Coffee,
President Pro Tempore, State Capitol, Oklahoma City, OK.
Dear Senator Coffee: As you know, yesterday, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representative
John Dingell introduced H.R. 3962, the ``Affordable Health
Care for America Act''. This 1990 page bill is an attempt to
reorganize the entire health care system in the United States
to cover more Americans.
Unfortunately this comes with a price for state
governments.
As your representative in the Fourth District of Oklahoma,
I take very seriously your input when it comes to matters
involving unfunded mandates and other policy shifts. Before I
vote on this legislation, I would appreciate your insight on
some important issues.
It would seem from the text of this bill and the CBO report
that it creates an unfunded mandate in the amount of $34
billion from 2015-2019 by increasing Medicaid costs to the
States. I am concerned that this might present some budgetary
challenges for the State of Oklahoma, and I am therefore
turning to you to ask your assistance in answering the
following questions:
Can Oklahoma afford these unfunded mandates in the current
fiscally constrained environment?
Should the House version of health care reform pass, what
are your plans for fully funding the unfunded mandate that
will be transferred to Oklahoma?
Would new taxes on the citizens of Oklahoma be necessary to
cover the increased costs of Medicaid?
What do you believe the actual cost would be to Oklahoma?
Before we begin final consideration of this legislation,
your thoughts on these matters would be extremely helpful to
me. Unfortunately, the scheduling of this legislation is
dynamic, and a vote on it could come as early as Thursday.
All indications lead me to believe that we will have no
opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation.
Therefore, before I vote on this legislation, I would ask
for your insight on these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Cole,
Member of Congress.
____
Oklahoma State Senate,
Oklahoma City, OK, November 3, 2009.
Hon. Tom Cole,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cole: I am in receipt of your letter
dated October 30, 2009, regarding HR 3962, the so-called
``Affordable Health Care for America Act,'' and its fiscal
impact on the State of Oklahoma.
You posed some very pertinent and legitimate questions as
to the ability of the state to absorb the unfunded mandates
which will be transferred to Oklahoma, particularly in terms
of the increased costs of Medicaid which will result.
The state is experiencing major budget difficulties without
having to fund additional federal mandates. The budget for
the current fiscal year was reduced 7% from the FY'09 budget.
A severe revenue shortfall has forced us to further reduce
agency budgets for FY'10 by another 5%. If revenues continue
to underperform, a larger cut may be required. We will have a
better idea when October revenue data becomes available later
this week. A larger cut may be called for in order to keep
from overspending from the Rainy Day Fund as well. This
proposal leaves a $150 million budget gap in FY'11 from Rainy
Day alone.
The state will most likely face a continued reduction in
revenues in FY'11. The FY'11 budget assumptions most likely
will include spending the last of the Education and Medicaid
Stimulus funds as well as Rainy Day funds in order to
maintain current levels of service.
The FY'12 outlook is even more dire as the absence of
Stimulus and Rainy Day funds will have a significant impact
on the budget. The absence of stimulus funds will be most
apparent in the Medicaid program, where over $400 million was
used in FY'10 and over $500 million will be used just to
maintain current services in FY'11. Adding tens of thousands
of adults to the Medicaid rolls when the state is struggling
to cover children and the elderly is irresponsible at best.
The reality of this bill is that more low-income
individuals (now up to 150% of the federal poverty level)
will be pushed onto the rolls of Medicaid (Sec. 1701) leaving
already overstretched State Governments, ours included, to
pick up the tab.
You specifically asked if new taxes on the citizens of
Oklahoma will be necessary to cover the increased costs of
Medicaid. The simple answer is, without draconian cuts in
state services, yes. As a proponent of a smaller, efficient
government, and one who believes that the more of one's hard-
earned money one can keep, the better, I find this option
appalling. I'm confident there are ample inefficient or
outdated services we could eliminate from the state budget,
and we will be aggressively seeking such areas to cut,
regardless. But I fear such cuts would not cover the costs
imposed upon us by the Federal government.
Should President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader
Reid prevail in pushing their plans for our health care
delivery system through to becoming law, I fear for not
[[Page H12610]]
just our state, but for every state in the nation. Certainly,
there will be no good answers for state leaders facing these
unfunded mandates. As a former state senator yourself, you
know as well as anyone the fiscal crisis facing the states in
today's economy. No state in the nation can sustain the
financial hit they are about to experience. Fortunately,
thanks to the conservative budgeting practices we engage in
here in Oklahoma, our situation, while dire, may not be as
severe as many other states, but that's small comfort for us,
with the realities we face today. Indeed, factoring in the
added load of Federal legislation further burdening our
economy, I fear for the long-term future for the hard-working
taxpayers of our state.
We will be watching with great interest as you fight the
good fight in Washington. Please, let's keep the lines of
communication open as this process unfolds.
With best regards,
Glenn Coffee,
President Pro Tempore,
Oklahoma State Senate.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2009.
Hon. Chris Benge,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, State Capitol,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Dear Speaker Benge: As you know, yesterday, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representative
John Dingell introduced H.R. 3962, the ``Affordable Health
Care for America Act''. This 1990 page bill is an attempt to
reorganize the entire health care system in the United States
to cover more Americans.
Unfortunately this comes with a price for state
governments.
As your representative in the Fourth District of Oklahoma,
I take very seriously your input when it comes to matters
involving unfunded mandates and other policy shifts. Before I
vote on this legislation, I would appreciate your insight on
some important issues.
It would seem from the text of this bill and the CBO report
that it creates an unfunded mandate in the amount of $34
billion from 2015-2019 by increasing Medicaid costs to the
States. I am concerned that this might present some budgetary
challenges for the State of Oklahoma, and I am therefore
turning to you to ask your assistance in answering the
following questions:
Can Oklahoma afford these unfunded mandates in the current
fiscally constrained environment?
Should the House version of health care reform pass, what
are your plans for fully funding the unfunded mandate that
will be transferred to Oklahoma?
Would new taxes on the citizens of Oklahoma be necessary to
cover the increased costs of Medicaid?
What do you believe the actual cost would be to Oklahoma?
Before we begin final consideration of this legislation,
your thoughts on these matters would be extremely helpful to
me. Unfortunately, the scheduling of this legislation is
dynamic, and a vote on it could come as early as Thursday.
All indications lead me to believe that we will have no
opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation.
Therefore, before I vote on this legislation, I would ask
for your insight on these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Cole,
Member of Congress.
____
November 3, 2009.
Hon. Tom Cole,
Member of Congress, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cole: Thank you for the opportunity to
share my insights regarding the Medicaid expansions contained
in the ``Affordable Health Care for America Act'' (AHCAA). As
I am sure you are not surprised, these expansions would
represent significant unfunded mandates on the state of
Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Health Care Authority, which is in charge of
administering the state's Medicaid program, has estimated a
preliminary annual state cost of $128 million if the federal
health care legislation becomes law. This estimate does not
account for decreased federal support of the Medicaid
expansions in later years, which inevitably will shift an
increasing financial burden to this state as well as others.
Oklahoma already is experiencing difficulty funding its
current Medicaid program due to revenue shortfalls as a
result of the national recession and decreased natural gas
prices. Revenue collections to the state in the first quarter
of FY-10 trailed last year's collections by 29.5 percent.
State agencies, on average, experienced an initial budget
reduction of 7 percent when compared to FY-09. Agencies are
also expected to see 5 percent cuts in their monthly
allocations for the remainder of the fiscal year. Even deeper
cuts may be necessary if future revenue streams continue to
decline.
In the current economic environment, Oklahoma is struggling
to maintain core services for its citizens. And that is
before the ramifications of this federal health care policy
and its unfunded mandates are even considered.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) federal
stimulus funds have been employed and are budgeted to offset
declining revenue in FY-10 and FY-11. These funds will no
longer be available for FY-12 and beyond. Though some
economic indicators suggest that revenues may be stabilizing,
no firm indicators signal that state revenue can be expected
to improve in the near future. Without economic growth,
Oklahoma is left with two options to replace current stimulus
funds: raise revenue through tax increases or institute
deeper budget cuts.
Like you, I find the idea of tax increases, even if they
weren't incredibly difficult to pass under our state's
Constitution, in an economic downturn a nonstarter. In tough
economic times, increasing taxes on work and productivity is
counterproductive and takes more money out of the hands of
Oklahomans and Americans when they need it the most. So with
tax increases off the table, we will have no choice but to
drastically cut government services to free up funds to pay
for the unfunded mandates passed onto us from the federal
government.
Our state is already experiencing significant budget
challenges and the added burden of AHCAA's $128 million
unfunded federal mandate would lead to further budget cuts,
jeopardizing existing state programs and services developed
for Oklahomans by Oklahomans.
In Oklahoma, we have put in place market and consumer
driven reforms that are working to move our state's uninsured
onto private insurance, all while improving access to
affordable health care for all of our citizens. I would urge
Washington to give states the maximum amount of flexibility
possible to craft a health care plan that best meets
individual state needs. A one-size-fits-all health care
policy is not the answer for Oklahoma, or our country as a
whole.
I know we have an advocate in you and your fellow federal
delegates, but I would like to urge you to vote `no' not only
on behalf of what this legislation may do to our country, but
the disastrous financial burden it will also place on our
state.
Sincerely,
Chris Benge,
Speaker, Oklahoma House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
with the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for
a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this job-killing bill cuts
Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care costs, and
raises taxes on the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is again charged
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here on the floor today to debate the government
takeover of health care in America. We understand that this bill is
about a massive tax increase, $740 billion. We understand it is about
deep Medicare cuts, some $430 billion. We also understand that millions
of jobs will be lost and that mandates for purchasing insurance will
cost an incredible $1.2 trillion, and there will be 118 new Federal
bureaucracies created by this legislation.
The gentleman from Massachusetts came down and talked about the evil
insurance companies. Well, the fact of the matter is that the largest
six insurance companies in this country made about $6 billion 2 years
ago, but the Federal Government in their mismanagement lost $90
billion. Mr. Speaker, we know who can best take care of the health care
for our country.
{time} 1200
For the past 5 months, the American people have called out, written
and taken part in town hall meetings, calling the Capitol and their
Members of Congress to express their outrage to the Democrat health
care proposal. But here we are today. Month after month, this country
has bled jobs. We are now at a record 10.2 percent unemployment rate,
and over 15 million Americans are currently unemployed. And what do we
do? We stick it to them again.
Mr. Speaker, last night I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee
that would have prohibited any provisions of this bill to take place if
the Office of Management and Budget, working with the Department of
Labor, found that this bill would result in 4 million jobs or more
being lost, but my Democrat opponents defeated that. That means that
they really could care less how many jobs are lost in America as a
result of this legislation. They want a government-controlled and -run
health care system.
Chairman Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was
[[Page H12611]]
up before Rules last night. He admitted to the Rules Committee that he
had not asked the CBO or any other independent source for employment
implications of this bill. Yet Republicans, using the same economic
forecasts and economic models that the White House uses, we find that
there would be between 4 and 5 million free enterprise-system jobs that
would be lost.
During a time of recession where every single American is trying to
make ends meet, what do we find? We find $730 billion in new taxes that
are on this bill. Taxes on small businesses, taxes on health savings
accounts, and the worst part is is that this will surely lead to a
double dip in the recession. This is a problem not only for employers,
but it will be a problem for people who want to find jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this is a hard mandate on business, and it means that
the free enterprise system will simply not employ more Americans. We're
concerned about this. We Republicans are on the floor today, and we're
going to stand and say ``no'' to what is happening.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this legislation for health care
will do about for health care what the stimulus did for jobs, the
diminishment of employment in America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Distinguished chairwoman and distinguished
Speaker, this is an extraordinary day for the two of you and the
Members of the House of Representatives. I, too, am hopeful that our
legacy is that we achieved health care for more citizens in our great
country.
Achieving comprehensive health care reform in a way that is
sustainable, fiscally responsible, and improves the overall health of
the American people has proven to be no small task. The facts are
clear. Despite being the richest country on Earth, the United States
ranks 45th in life expectancy and has startlingly high rates of infant
mortality, depression, and chronic disease. What's more, employer-
sponsored health insurance premiums have grown six times faster than
cumulative wages. This issue hits close to home.
My State of Florida has the sixth highest number of uninsured people
in the country. There are millions that are uninsured and tens of
millions who are underinsured, and they are the prime justification for
moving forward with one of the most important health care reform
agendas in modern history.
Some have sought to dominate the health care debate with fear-
mongering, misinformation, and blind opposition to key reform elements
without offering substantive and high-quality alternatives. This
perpetuation of fictions and misinterpretations is off base and has
steered the health care discussion off course. Such claims as death
care panels, rationed care, government monopoly, these are not true.
What is true is that the United States spends more on health care
than any other country in the world, but yet the high cost of care has
not brought a high standard of health for millions of Americans.
What's true is that Medicare, which is a Federal Government plan and
one of the great health care successes that this gentleman in the Chair
had something to do with in our Nation's history, was initially met
with opposition, the same we get now.
I urge this measure to be adopted.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that
increases taxes on small business.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from
Texas for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing bill
that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care
costs, and raises taxes on the American people.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the House that if a
unanimous consent request includes debate, the gentleman yielding time
may be charged.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina for a unanimous consent agreement.
(Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which is a
major overhaul of our delivery of health care. We need a fine tune-up,
not a major overhaul.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is so appropriate that you are sitting in this Chair
on this historic bill, considering that you have introduced a health
care bill every Congress that you were here, so we really love having
you in the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here on the House floor today, humbled by the
fact that in the wealthiest country in the world that we have so many
needs. The most pressing of these needs is for a reformed and
strengthened health insurance system.
When I listen to my constituents, whether they are doctors, nurses,
workers, business owners, or government employees, they are united in
their support for health insurance reform. They know that costs are
skyrocketing with no end in sight. They know that more people are
losing their insurance as they lose their jobs, making the burden of
uncompensated care even harder to bear for hospitals and doctors. They
know that the doors of our community health centers are in constant
motion because of overwhelming demand for their low-cost and high-
quality services.
For my constituents, for all of us as Members of Congress, but most
importantly, for the American people, the Affordable Health Care for
America Act is a major victory. It achieves a long-held goal of
reforming our health insurance system so that it works for all American
families. In Sacramento, that means 2,000 families who will not have to
file bankruptcy due to unaffordable health costs.
This legislation also strengthens Medicare so that our country's
seniors can continue to rely on this bedrock program for their health
care. In my district alone, this means nearly 8,000 Medicare
beneficiaries who will not fall into the doughnut hole.
It makes health insurance affordable again for businesses who want to
provide coverage to their employees and for those who are buying
coverage for the first time on their own. In Sacramento, this means
affordability credits to help pay for coverage for up to 181,000
households.
Finally, the bill invests in prevention and wellness and public
health, which are some of my highest priorities. Unless we help people
live healthier lives, we can never get health costs under control.
In short, the provisions of this legislation build on all that is
good in our current health system to strengthen it for the future. This
is why we come to Congress, Mr. Speaker. We come here to improve
people's lives, to recognize and address the needs of the people we
represent. I know that today's bill does this, which is why I support
it so strongly. I look forward to today's debate and to our historic
vote.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, a member of the
Rules Committee.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that
Congress needs to make reforms to expand health care coverage so that
everyone in this great Nation has health insurance. The problem with
the legislation the majority is bringing to the floor today is that it
will seriously and unnecessarily hurt our economy. It will cause severe
job losses, and that's most unfortunate.
The Republican alternative has some very good aspects. It will expand
health care coverage to millions who currently do not have it, and it
does
[[Page H12612]]
not include the fatal flaw in the Democrats' bill--massive tax
increases on small businesses; tax increases and regulations that will
kill jobs.
The Republican alternative allows small businesses to pool together,
allows people to buy insurance across State lines. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, it actually brings down the cost of health
care premiums.
The Democrats' bill will raise taxes, according to the CBO by over
$700 billion and cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. It will
make much worse our economic situation, increase unemployment, take the
country in the wrong direction at a time when unemployment is already
over 10 percent.
Especially, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that there is a bipartisan
consensus in this Nation on the need to increase access to health
insurance to those who do not have it today, it is sad that this
destructive legislative product is being brought to the floor.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here in your
presence today and to be here with my colleagues. I thank the
gentlewoman from New York for allowing me this time.
I am so proud to be here casting the vote that so many of my
constituents have waited way too long for. There has been a lot of hard
work, a lot of facts and figures that have gone into the discussion of
this important piece of legislation before us, and certainly over the
last 10 months that I've been here. I want to spend my time talking
about the story that is always on my mind when I'm talking about health
care and is certainly on my mind today.
As a young father, my brother was diagnosed with malignant melanoma,
a disease that I hope no one else ever has to face or face in a loved
one. He had recently left his job to stay home to take care of his 2-
year-old son. His wife had better pay. His insurance, of course, was
temporary and soon withdrawn, and he had no public option to choose. He
did what so many young families did. They spent down their savings.
They sold everything they had. They became poor so that they could
qualify for Medicaid because no doctor would see him without insurance.
The fact is, he passed away 14 months later, and I have often wondered
would he have survived had he had the medical care that he needed.
That would be a very sad story if it had been 2 years ago, but in
fact, my brother's death was 20 years ago, and back then we talked
about the importance of making sure that no one was ever denied
insurance because they had a preexisting condition. We talked about the
fact that no one should have to go into personal bankruptcy or be poor
because they don't have health care insurance.
I am here today, looking forward to casting my ``yes'' vote on this
rule, on this health care bill, in the memory of my brother and of so
many of my constituents and their families who have suffered through
exactly the same thing, because I believe that this bill moves us much
closer to a time when no one can be denied health care coverage because
of a preexisting condition; no one can be told you can't have health
care coverage; no one will have to go into personal bankruptcy. I am
here in the memory of my brother. There can be no more delay.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's story. The
other side of the story is that it will be $730 billion worth of taxes,
that we will have a health care system where you will not be able to
choose your own physician, where you will have to call someone to then
find out which doctor you go to, and perhaps worst of all, the
gentlewoman also needs to know--because we heard in the Rules Committee
last night--if you willingly make the decision that you do not want to
participate and you do not pay the tax to the IRS, there is a penalty
and a fine that is a criminal penalty of up to 5 years in prison and up
to a $250,000 fine. That is not freedom.
Criminalizing this issue is a bad way. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats
have it on the floor today. It is not in the Senate bill. It is in this
bill. So to glorify this bill which has criminal felony penalties is a
difficult way to have enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Miami Township, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, the American people are speaking, and we
must listen. An overwhelming majority are against this bill. Americans
know that health care costs won't be reduced because our Congressional
Budget Office told all of us so. They fear their insurance premiums
will rise, and they don't want their hard-earned tax dollars to go to
pay for abortions. Our seniors do not want the $500 billion cuts to
Medicare or the cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that 17,000
seniors in my district currently enjoy. Our youth do not want to spend
the rest of their lives paying for the trillion-dollar costs embedded
in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are speaking, and we must listen. We
must say ``no'' to this trillion-dollar takeover of our health care. We
can do better.
{time} 1215
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today we make history. After months of hard
work, my colleagues and I can make good on our promise to deliver
meaningful health care reform.
Like most Members of Congress, I held over 50 town halls, tele-town
halls, roundtables, and ``Congress on Your Corners,'' and listened to
my constituents about health care reform. Every town hall in America
from Virginia to Vail and Northglenn to North Dakota shed light on our
broken health care system. And many Members of this body heard the same
thing: We need health care reform now and No government takeover of
health care.
We took their concerns back with us to Washington. We echoed their
voices in these Halls, and we created the bill we have before us today:
a stronger bill, a better bill, a bill that avoids a government
takeover of health care, a bill that costs less and reduces the budget
deficit by $100 billion. A bill that we can be proud of.
We fought to protect Medicare, and we're giving our seniors a bill
that immediately closes the Medicare part D doughnut hole and
strengthens Medicare.
We heard stories from honest, hardworking Americans who were denied
or lost coverage because of preexisting conditions when they needed it
the most. Our bill ends that discriminatory process. The Republican
bill, by their own admission, leaves more uninsured people in 10 years
than we have today.
I personally took on the cause of small businesses, the economic
engine of the American economy and job growth, many of which can't
afford to provide coverage today. These businesses are the
entrepreneurs and innovators on which the future of our economy
depends.
I'm happy to say this new bill raises the threshold for the surcharge
to a million dollars in income for most small businesses, significantly
reducing any impact while giving small businesses access to the
exchange which provides them the same buying power previously only
enjoyed by large corporations. I remain hopeful that through the
conference process, we can further reduce or eliminate the small
business surcharge while preserving the savings for individuals and
small businesses.
My constituents said to include tort reform and interstate
competition, and their voices have been heard. And I'm proud to say
this bill provides for insurance companies competing across State lines
through interstate compacts and includes reforms to reduce defensive
medicine.
This summer Americans in every district in this country spoke out
about health care. We listened. We took their ideas to heart and
brought them to Washington. This bill was written by patriots across
our great Nation, and I urge my fellow Members to join me in proud
support of this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I think all in this Chamber agree that health
care costs continue to weigh heavily on Americans. But, unfortunately,
this trillion dollar government takeover will make matters worse.
[[Page H12613]]
Medicine will be rationed via politics under this act. The cost of
private insurance for those not getting the government subsidy will
undoubtedly skyrocket. It's going to potentially double for a lot of
people.
Economists of all political affiliations will tell you that the
greater government's thumb, the greater government's role in health
care, the more the bureaucracy that's going to come out of it, the
higher it's going to drive costs. And this bill would create a costly
new entitlement.
It's going to centralize the decisions on what constitutes insurance.
It's going to impose mandates on individuals, including up to 5 years'
prison time for noncompliance if you're not in the scheme, and mandates
on employers. And it adds hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes
all without regard to the fundamental problem.
We can take steps to bring greater choice and competition to health
care. But, instead, this bill is about government dominating the market
and it's about an unsustainable debt that's added to the future.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the distinguished chairwoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of health care reform. H.R.
3962, this bill, has been a century in the making.
Teddy Roosevelt first called for comprehensive health care in the
early 1900s. Some rush. A hundred years after that Republican's vision,
T.R. has been vindicated. Americans need the reform he endeavored to
achieve.
Today's vote will mark an epic turning point for our country for it
enshrines national principles far more important than legislative
pages: the principle of universal access and affordability; the
principle of protection for American families against bankruptcy from
the costs of catastrophic illness; the simple justice of shielding
millions, including our children, from the caprice and devastation of
health care benefits denied because of a preexisting medical condition.
If we have common American values that include compassion and
economic common sense, if we have some sense of commonwealth in which
your need is also mine, if we can rise above partisan advantage and
understand our responsibilities to our fellow countrymen here in this
place, then we will seize this moment, this one transformative moment,
to make America a better place.
I will vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, after months of spirited debate in thousands of
meetings, letters, phone calls, and e-mails with my constituents, I am
proud to stand here today and pledge my support for meaningful health
insurance reform that will improve the quality of care and quality of
life for virtually every family in my district, while reducing the
deficit by more than $100 billion.
This bill will: eliminate the insurance company practice of denying
coverage based on pre-existing conditions; close the prescription drug
donut hole and save money for our seniors; cap out-of-pocket expenses;
and make insurance more affordable and accessible.
I was an early critic of the draft bill because it placed too much of
the financial burden on families and small businesses in my district. I
also heard from my constituents that it did not do enough to contain
costs.
I have appreciated the opportunity to weigh in with those concerns,
and I am pleased to see them addressed in the bill we have before us
today. The thresholds for the income surcharge have more than doubled,
saving thousands of working families and small businesses in Northern
Virginia and elsewhere from higher taxes.
The legislation before us today will provide insurance coverage to 96
percent of all Americans, reduce long-term premium costs for families
and small businesses, and bring down the federal deficit by more than
$100 billion. I will support legislation that does those things.
Mr. Speaker, with this vote we will deliver on a generations-old
promise for meaningful health care reform that will endure for
generations to come.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tarkio, Missouri, the senior Republican member of the
Small Business Committee.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and
the underlying bill.
Small businesses have struggled for years to obtain affordable health
insurance for their employees. However, rather than embrace solutions
that enjoy the unanimous support of the small business community, this
bill takes a government-heavy approach that fails in its goal to make
health insurance more affordable. What is more unfortunate is that the
bulk of the funding for the health care bill is balanced on the backs
of small business owners and entrepreneurs.
I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee to provide relief to
these job creators by striking the mandate and tax on employers, but my
fight fell on deaf ears.
The tax increases included in this bill are job killers, plain and
simple. At a time when our Nation's unemployment rate exceeds 10
percent for the first time in 26 years, the first goal of this body
should be improving the economy and creating jobs.
Real solutions exist to the problem of affordable health care. This
bill is not that solution, and I would urge my colleagues to vote
against the rule and this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).
Ms. KILROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address some of the claims made by
the other side of the aisle that the Democratic health care bill will
cost our country's economy jobs. In fact, as noted in the June 2009
Council of Economic Advisers' report, our legislation will most likely
have a positive impact on job growth, economic efficiency, standards of
living, and the budget deficit.
Our bill will provide assistance to small businesses. Small
businesses in my district have asked over and over again for help with
the crushing cost of health care insurance and for the problems that
small groups have in obtaining insurance. Small businesses will see a
great deal of help and support in this bill, and large businesses as
well because they will be able to contain the costs of their health
premiums, which over the years, as employers know, keep increasing at
double-digit rates of inflation.
Our bill has features that will improve efficiency in the labor
market, improve workplace productivity, and lower the rates of
disability.
We've heard how long our country has waited to get a bill like this.
We've heard that it's been since Teddy Roosevelt and other Presidents,
other Congresses have tried and failed to bring America up to the
standard of making health care affordable and accessible for all of us.
You know, we've waited a long time, and there is such a thing as
waiting too long. It's been too long for the 14,000 Americans a day who
lose their health care coverage. Too long for the millions of us who
are deemed uninsurable because we have a preexisting condition. Too
long for people without insurance who cannot obtain the lifesaving
medication or life-improving medications that will help them live a
better life.
It is time now to pass the Democratic health care bill, time to
finally make coverage accessible, affordable. Give people a choice of
doctors and plans and emphasize wellness, prevention, primary care in a
bill that reduces the deficit and improves our economy.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to a favorite son from Sarasota, Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, with unemployment over 10 percent, the
worst thing we could do is raise taxes and expand government, but
that's precisely what we're doing here today if we pass this bill.
People are fed up with Federal spending coming out of Washington, and
they don't want higher taxes like the 8 percent job-killing tax
increase on small businesses included in this bill, which create 70
percent of the jobs. This $1.2 trillion bill would also cut Medicare by
$500 billion and extend health insurance to illegal immigrants. That's
just plain wrong.
There's a far better approach, an alternative, which we will vote on
today that will reduce costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare.
Now, that's a better prescription. It makes sense for America and
Americans and a plan that we can afford.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
[[Page H12614]]
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Speaker, during the past few months, we have seen a
vigorous and at times emotionally charged debate about how to fix our
broken health care system. I spent the last several months conducting
an aggressive and thorough health care listening tour across the First
Congressional District of New Mexico. Just last week I held a telephone
town hall with nearly 10,000 seniors in my district to discuss how
reforming the health care system strengthens Medicare.
Six principles have guided my work and determined my vote on this
legislation: health insurance reform must create stability, contain
costs, guarantee choice, improve quality, cover everyone, and include a
strong public option.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act delivers on each of these
principles, and it does so without adding a penny to the deficit. This
bill will provide greater competition for insurance companies, give
Americans affordable coverage, choice, and stability that they can
count on.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3962.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I know that Republicans in our districts
are also telling seniors and other people that there will be a $730
billion tax increase to pay for this massive government takeover of
health care.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Marietta, Georgia (Dr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and unequivocal
opposition to the underlying government takeover of the American
people's health care.
When I appeared before the Rules Committee last night, I heard the
chairman designee say that the changes to bring us these 2,000 pages
that were enacted in the middle of the night were de minimis changing.
Going from a thousand pages to 2,000 pages is hardly de minimis. And
what I noted, of course, was of the 20 Republican amendments that had
been approved in committee, only five remained and none of mine.
So, Mr. Speaker, I've brought forth amendments that the American
public has told me that they want, such as that every Member of
Congress, if the government option is so good, they ought to sign up
for it; amendments such as medical liability reform, and the CBO has
told us, Mr. Speaker, that it would save $54 billion; amendments such
as no cuts to Medicare unless you keep that money in the Medicare
system, which has a $35 trillion unfunded mandate; and finally no
individual mandates on our young people who can ill afford it. It is
unconstitutional.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to the star of the Texas delegation from Dallas, Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
{time} 1230
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, since the President and the Democrats
took control of Congress, they have passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus
plan, a $410 billion omnibus spending plan, they have passed
appropriations bills that have increased spending 10, 20, 30 percent.
They passed our first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history.
They passed a budget that will triple--triple--the national debt in the
next 10 years. And now today, a $1.3 trillion government takeover of
our health care system.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot improve the health of a nation by bankrupting
its children. There are a trillion reasons, a trillion reasons, to
defeat this government takeover of our health care system. Let me give
you one more: government control is the rationing of our health care.
Think about your loved ones. Think about your constituents. Think
about your fellow countrymen. Reject this trillion-dollar takeover of
our government health care.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many
speakers he has remaining?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Rules
Committee asking about our further speakers. We have several speakers
left before I would close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I will continue to reserve.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire upon the time that
remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 13\3/4\ minutes
remaining. And the gentlewoman from New York has 5\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
unfair rule and the underlying bill, and in support of the Republican
substitute.
This bill is a tragedy, and to be taking it up a day after the
unemployment figures were released that showed 10.2 percent, 15.5
million Americans out of work, the highest number in American history,
and when you add in those who are underemployed, one out of every six
Americans is looking for more work.
That means that the average American can look out from their home,
their neighbor to their left, their neighbor to their right, and in
their own home, and they will see at least one person who is looking
for more work or who is completely unemployed. And the same day a
report came out showing that this legislation will cost up to 5.5
million more jobs. It is an outrage. That is why this legislation
should be opposed.
Don't let this 2,000-page, 400,000-word, job-killing, tax-increasing,
bureaucratic legislation fall on your job.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in January, with 8.5 percent unemployment
rates, Speaker Pelosi passed an $800 billion pork-laden stimulus bill.
In May, unemployment goes to 9.5 percent, and we get an energy tax of
$1,500 per household. Now, November, unemployment is over 10 percent
and we are about to pass a $1 trillion government takeover of health
care. It raises premiums, it raises taxes. It cuts Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, America does not need a government takeover of health
care; we need jobs. If your kitchen sink is leaking, you fix the sink;
you don't take a wrecking ball to the entire kitchen. This bill is a
wrecking ball to the entire economy.
We need targeted, specific reforms to help people who have fallen
through the health care cracks, and we have a lot of bipartisan support
for that, and I am part of it. The only bipartisanship we have is
against this monstrosity. Vote ``no.'' Let's start all over and do it
right.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 90
seconds to the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, there is so much wrong with this bill it is
impossible to cover in 90 seconds, so let me focus on one aspect.
Yesterday we learned that unemployment has reached 10 percent in this
country. Can you imagine being a small businessman and deciding whether
or not you are going to hire new employees when you face the prospect
of an 8 percent tax if you are not providing the kind of health care
coverage that this bill envisions. An 8 percent tax. And depending on
the kind of business you have, if you file as a Sub S corporation, for
example, you could face an additional 5.4 percent surtax on top of
that. Are you going to hire more people? Not a chance. Unemployment
will get worse.
We are in a deep economic hole, Mr. Speaker, and the first rule
should be, stop digging. Yet here we have doubled down, and we are
trading in our shovel for a backhoe, and we are saying we are going to
dig faster and deeper. To what effect? What are we saying to people out
there? That jobs aren't important? That we don't care because we just
have to pass this legislation?
We ought to have more responsibility than that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona is correct.
This bill is as much about health care as the stimulus package was
about jobs. It is to bust the free enterprise system and for all of the
control of health care to go to the Federal Government. I get it, and I
assure you, the American people get it, also. And we
[[Page H12615]]
will give our friends, the Democrats, all of the credit for what they
are doing.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Democrats, why did you do
this in a health care bill: In section 340N, called Public Health
Workforce Loan Repayment Program, it is going to cost the government
taxpayers $283 million over 5 years because you are forgiving loans for
veterinarians. So the real question I have for you folks: Why are
veterinarians part of this health care bill?
When you go to section 555, Second Generation Biofuel Producer
Credit, you remove the eligibility for tax credits for biofuels. My
question again: What do biofuels have to do with health care?
I would like the gentlelady from New York to answer why veterinarians
are included in this bill in terms of loan forgiveness and why you are
creating a brand new tax on biofuels when it is not necessary. In fact,
this is a gift for trial lawyers as it lacks real tort reform, and also
it establishes Health Czars to oversee all health plans and dictate
coverage options.
If you are happy with the health care system today, then you won't be
happy with the new Health Care Czar described in this bill. This is a
bad bill for the American people. Vote against the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 30 seconds
because I need to answer Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns asks why are the veterinarians covered. Have you ever
heard of swine flu? Have you ever heard about food safety? Have you
ever heard that 70 percent of all of the antibiotics produced in the
United States are given to cattle and poultry even though they are not
ill? But swine flu should make you worry a little bit, don't you think?
I want to spend the rest of my 30 seconds saying this morning we have
heard all kinds of nonsense about the dire things that will happen from
this bill. This bill does not add one cent to the deficit certified by
the CBO. In fact, it reduces it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) a member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I
rise in opposition to this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to stand
in opposition to this rule.
The reason is this is not what the American people want to see in
health care reform. It is not what my constituents want to see in
health care reform. There are some very valid, tangible reasons. This
is a wrong step for America. This bill costs too much. It is too
expensive to afford.
Look at what happened to my home State of Tennessee with the test
case for public option health care. The cost not only doubled, not only
tripled--it quadrupled, and it nearly broke the State. Our State was on
the verge of bankruptcy. We had a 4-year battle over a State income tax
to pay for this.
Who do you think is going to pay for this bill? This is too expensive
to afford. What you are doing is sacrificing the future of our
children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to pay, to pay
for federalizing, nationalizing government control of health care.
Let's oppose the rule and take it down.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 68 percent of Americans want this bill
very seriously, and I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Dr. Kagen).
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Slaughter for this
opportunity to speak on behalf of this rule, a rule that will guarantee
that we will get an opportunity to pass legislation to help everyone in
Wisconsin that I represent; a rule that will help everybody that I have
cared for as a physician for the past 33 years.
What are we doing? We are fixing what is broken, we are improving on
what we already have, and making certain it is at a price we can all
afford to pay. We are putting patients first. We are putting patients
first so no longer will a family lose their home and go bankrupt simply
because their children become sick and they can't afford their health
care bills.
We are putting patients first by reforming the rules, reforming the
rules by making sure that we are going to close the doughnut hole in
Medicare part D, and making certain that we are going to reform the
medical malpractice rules to guarantee that patients and their doctors
can decide their decisions amongst themselves. We are putting people
first because people are more important than corporate profits.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we debate this great legislation about
health care, but we forget the obvious. This massive government
takeover of our health care still allows the 20 million people in this
country that are illegally here to get one of those fake Social
Security cards without benefit of even a photo ID and get some of that
free government health care that everybody else has to pay for.
We need to fix that problem, and we need to fix some other problems,
but don't turn the Federal Government loose on the health care of
America. This bill costs too much, $700 billion in new taxes, and
citizens and legal immigrants are going to get stuck with the bill with
poor health quality and health care.
And that's the way it is.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, that's not the way it is. There are no
illegal aliens in this bill who get anything at all.
I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the rule
and the underlying legislation. I want everybody to look into their
heart of hearts, their conscience, the loneliness of the recesses of
their consciousness, and in that moment you know that all Americans
deserve health care, not just the rich and wealthy. What we are doing
today is giving that to the average American.
I support the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule
and the underlying legislation, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care
for America Act. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and Chairman
Waxman for their leadership and hardwork in bringing this important
legislation swiftly to the floor. Your efforts are commendable and will
benefit all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, today I and many of my colleagues will take a historic
vote in favor of extending quality affordable health insurance to
millions of Americans. This is a moral question as well as a financial
question. When this bill becomes law, 96 percent of Americans will have
access to primary care doctors, prescription drugs, and preventive
health services. When this bill becomes law 96 percent of Americans
will no longer have to worry about choosing between their or their
children's health and other essentials like food and shelter. If that
were not enough then I remind my colleagues that the Congressional
Budget Office says that this bill will reduce the national debt. The
status quo is no longer acceptable.
I urge my colleagues to stand today on the right side of history as
this Congress takes the first step in bringing the security of
affordable health insurance to millions of people.
Congress and the public have had ample opportunity to review, comment
on, and improve upon the health reform legislation that we will vote on
today. During the month of August many Members of Congress, including
myself, held town hall meetings. During my town hall meetings I heard
testimony from constituents across the Fourth District and from across
the political spectrum. I considered the views of everyone who wishes
to share their opinion and I came to the consideration that the
thousands of my constituents--and the millions of Americans--without
health insurance could no longer wait. I ran for Congress on a pledge
to take care of home and I believe that there is no better way to take
care of home than to ensure that all of my constituents and all
Americans have access to quality affordable health care.
I have advocated--consistently and strongly--for the inclusion of a
public option in health reform legislation. While my preference remains
the more robust version of the public option, I am proud that H.R. 3962
contains a public option that will create competition in the insurance
market to drive down costs for everyone, including the Federal
Government.
[[Page H12616]]
I worked hard to make this the best bill that it could be. In
addition to advocating for the public option, I worked to ensure that
the recommendations of specialty medical associations, patient advocacy
groups, and scientific societies are considered as part of the minimum
benefit package by the Task Force for Clinical Preventive Services.
Currently, when the task force has insufficient evidence to recommend a
service, it provides an ``I'' or insufficient evidence grade. Many
valuable preventive interventions do not yet have the evidence base
needed to obtain a positive recommendation. Others can never be
evaluated using the gold standard of a randomized clinical trial
because a trial would be too expensive, recruiting participants is not
feasible, or investigator interest or funding is lacking. I am pleased
to report that H.R. 3962 contains report language which clarifies that
the benefits commission can look beyond Task Force recommendations to
other sources of evidence and that the commission can consider the
recommendations of specialty medical associations, patient advocacy
groups, and scientific societies as part of the minimum benefits
package.
Additionally, I worked with my colleague, Mr. Green of Texas, on sec.
2587 of the bill which requires a report to Congress on the current
state of parasitic diseases that have been overlooked among the poorest
Americans. A 2008 study identified high prevalence rates of parasitic
infections in the poorest areas of the United States--potentially up to
100 million infections of Acariasis, Chagas Disease, Cysticercosis,
Echinococcosis, Toxocariasis, Toxoplasmosis, Trichomoniasis, or
Strongyloidiasis. These diseases disproportionately affect minority and
impoverished populations, producing effects ranging from asymptomatic
infection to asthma-like symptoms, seizures, and death. These diseases
receive less financial support than they deserve with a mere $231,730
of research funding allocated by NIH since 1995. This discrepancy in
funding is known as the ``10/90 gap''; a mere 10 percent of global
health research funding is directed towards diseases affecting 90
percent of the global population. For example, between 1995 and 2009,
the National Institutes of Health funded a mere $231,730 of
Toxocariasis research. The report required by this section would
provide an up-to-date evaluation of the current dearth of knowledge
regarding the epidemiology of these diseases and the socioeconomic,
health and development impact they have on our society. The Secretary
of Health and Human Services will report to Congress on this as well as
the appropriate funding required to address neglected diseases of
poverty, including neglected parasitic diseases. I look forward to the
completion of this report so that Congress can take appropriate action
in the future to address these diseases.
Finally, the goal of health reform is to expand access to quality
affordable health care. The underlying bill makes commendable strides
to expand access but I believe that we must go further to ensure that
Americans can afford the care they need. Many Americans--our friends
and neighbors--suffer from debilitating and chronic illnesses such as
multiple sclerosis or severe arthritis. The medications available to
them are so expensive that insurers create so-called ``specialty
tiers'' within their formularies for these medications. People living
with chronic conditions incur heavy financial burdens for treatment and
prescription drugs--and they are at the breaking point. High out of
pocket costs limit access to care and ultimately reduce their chances
of living healthy lives. In a recent study of medical bankruptcies,
out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,749 for the privately-insured,
and $26,971 for the uninsured. Patients with neurologic disorders such
as multiple sclerosis faced the highest costs, at an average of
$34,167. I believe it is time to put a limit on these outrageous costs.
Last night in the Rules Committee I waited over 4 hours to offer two
amendments to do just that.
My first amendment would cap out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at
$200 per monthly prescription and $500 per month, total. This would
apply to all insurance plans, including Medicare Part D. My amendment
would also amend the current Medicare Part D exemption process so low-
income beneficiaries can request an exemption for specialty tier drugs
that would lower their costs. The amendment would also request two
MedPAC studies of discrimination and cost-sharing. This amendment is
supported by the Arthritis Foundation and the Lupus Foundation of
America.
My second amendment would build on the underlying legislation by
reducing the cap on out of pocket medical expenses from $5,000 annually
to $1,250 quarterly. People whose care results in high out of pocket
costs could easily reach the $5,000 limit in a one or two month span.
This is potentially unaffordable for people with chronic disease and
dividing the cap quarterly would achieve the same policy outcome while
increasing its affordability. This amendment is supported by the
Arthritis Foundation and the Lupus Foundation of America.
According to a 2008 study by the Commonwealth Fund, more than half of
chronically ill patients did not get recommended care, fill
prescriptions, or see a doctor when sick because of costs. My
amendments would have reduced out of pocket costs for the most
expensive prescriptions, making health care affordable for some of our
county's neediest citizens.
While my language was not ultimately included in this legislation, I
support the underlying bill and I would urge my colleagues to do
likewise for the benefit of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, the Fourth Congressional District of
Georgia, the Affordable Health Care for America Act will: improve
employer-based coverage for 349,000 residents; provide credits to help
pay for coverage for up to 166,000 households; improve Medicare for
65,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut
hole for 5,400 seniors; allow 15,400 small businesses to obtain
affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce
health insurance costs for up to 14,200 small businesses; provide
coverage for 153,000 uninsured residents; protect up to 2,200 families
from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs; and reduce the
cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by
$98 million.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill and
I thank you for your consideration.
{time} 1245
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would first say, as the gentleman from Georgia stated,
all Americans deserve health care, that all Americans have health care,
every single one. Eighty-five percent of us are insured and 85 percent
of us are happy with the policy that we have.
The President has made two arguments. One of them is that health care
in America costs too much money. What's your solution? Spend another
$1.5 trillion. Too much money, throw another $1.5 trillion at it.
That's upside down. What is the simplest part of logic that you don't
understand?
Second thing, too many people in America are uninsured, 47 million.
Well, subtract from that 47 million illegal aliens which will be funded
under this bill, immigrants, those that qualify for Medicaid and other
government programs, employer programs that make over $75,000 a year,
now you're down to really only 12.1 million Americans who are without
affordable options. That is less than 4 percent of America. And for
that you would throw out the liberty of America, throw out the baby
with the bathwater of the best health insurance industry in the world,
the best health care delivery system in the world, destroyed by a
desire to create a dependency society to steal our freedom.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in
strong support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong support of the
Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962.
Let me be absolutely clear: every single American should have access
to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too many years,
drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm happy
to say the long overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has
finally begun. The status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without
health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is
expected to rise from $11,000 to $24,000 in less than a decade.
Americans want reduced costs and more choices.
Mr. Speaker, I support this landmark legislation because it changes
the way that insurance companies ration medical care: The measure would
require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of a pre-
existing condition, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become
sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on
care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans
deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and
these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all
those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are
extremely satisfied with their current plans.
[[Page H12617]]
The act starts with what works well in today's health care system and
fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to discard the health care
they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors
and hospitals. A new marketplace will allow individuals to shop among a
large number of private plans or choose a public insurance option. For
the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their
current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry
about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill
finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need
and deserve.
I also strongly support this bill because the 47 million uninsured
Americans, the 2.6 million uninsured New Yorkers and the 78,000
uninsured neighbors in my congressional district will have access to
affordable, secure and quality health-care coverage instead of having
to rely on the local hospital emergency room. Most recent
administrations never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay
every day for our failure to fix this problem. Fortunately, President
Obama has made comprehensive health-insurance reform his top priority.
I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care reform
contains costs and is affordable; puts our country on a clear path to
universal coverage; provides portable coverage; ensures choice of
physicians and health plans; promotes prevention and wellness; improves
the quality of care, and is fiscally sustainable over the long-term.
Putting these principles into action is not only doable; it is
absolutely essential.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Affordable
Health Care for America Act so that all Americans will have access to
health care.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady.
The Republican record defies their rhetoric. Remember their so-called
``prescription drug benefit'' for seniors passed in the dark of the
night, no one read the bill, didn't know what was in it? It cost $700
billion because that was subsidizing the pharmaceutical and insurance
industry. But now they're worried about costs that gave the seniors a
doughnut hole. Now their concern is not about what they're stating;
it's about their patrons in the insurance industry.
This bill has real reforms of the worst abuses of the insurance
industry. It takes away their unfair antitrust community so they can no
longer collude to drive up premium prices or restrict coverage. The
Republicans would continue the antitrust exemption.
This bill outlaws the unfair preexisting condition restriction. The
Republicans would continue that for the insurance industry.
This bill would not allow the industry to cancel your policy even
though you've been paying your premiums when you get sick. It's called
recision. The Republicans allow that abuse to continue.
This bill on our side outlaws the small print that limits your
lifetime coverage which bankrupts families every day in America. The
Republicans allow it to continue.
And that's not enough. They open up a new loophole, their so-called
``national plan.'' A company would only be regulated by the laws of the
State in which it was based when it sold you a policy. If you live in
Oregon but you bought a policy that was written in--oh, and by the way,
they expand the definition of States to include the territories and the
Mariana Islands. So if you've got a problem, call the Mariana Islands
insurance commissioner. That's the Republican plan: Profits for the
insurance industry.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this job-killing
bill that cuts Medicare, piles debt on our children, raises health care
costs, and raises taxes on the American people.
Last week, Speaker Pelosi introduced the long-awaited final draft of
her health care reform bill. H.R. 3962, combined with the 42-page
manager's amendment, comes in at over 2,000 pages.
A preliminary analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the true cost of the bill is $1.3 trillion. Buried
within this bill are details that would add massive Federal involvement
in the health care of every American, including the following: creation
of a government-run insurance program that could cause as many as 114
million Americans to lose their current coverage; elimination of the
private market for individual health insurance; taxes on all Americans
who purchase insurance, individuals who don't purchase insurance, and
millions of small businesses; and cuts to Medicare Advantage plans that
will result in higher premiums. Yet with all these taxes, mandates and
cuts, the majority party still maintain somehow this bill will lower
the cost of health care to Americans.
For months, Americans have been telling Congress they want real
solutions for the health care crisis in America but they are also
telling us there is a big difference between the right and wrong way to
reform health care. Republicans listened to the American people and
have produced a commonsense, fiscally responsible health reform
proposal--not Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 2,000+ page government takeover of
one-sixth of our Nation's economy.
Republicans' alternative solution focuses on lowering health care
premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to
affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles--
without adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed on our
children and grandchildren. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, CBO, confirmed that the Republican health care plan would lower
health care premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68
billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases on families and
small businesses. The Republican alternative contains no tax increases,
no cuts to Medicare, no health care rationing, no deficit spending, and
no huge intrusion of government into your personal health care choices.
Instead, our plan recognizes that health care reform must be based on
competition, preserving the relationship between doctors and patients,
and reducing health care costs for American families without a massive
government intrusion.
Health care solutions are badly needed in this country, but we need
to get it done right. Republicans have listened to the American people
and put forth commonsense health care legislation that reduces the
deficit, lowers premiums, and improves coverage options for those with
preexisting conditions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair will ask for a simple statement of unanimous consent or the
gentleman from Texas will be charged.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee did a great job; they
held a 12-hour meeting yesterday.
I would like to say to the American people that everybody understands
what's in this bill, they have a chance. No unintended consequences
with this. Republicans have laid out what we believe will happen.
Mr. Speaker, lots of groups around the country also know what would
happen, and I would like to insert into the Record the list of people
who would say vote ``no'' on this bill. They are business organizations
all across this country.
H.R. 3962--The Affordable Health Care for America Act
Groups Key Voting ``NO''
American Bakers Association; American Conservative Union;
American Council of Engineering Companies; American Hotel and
Lodging Association; American Rental Association; Americans
for Tax Reform (Double Rating); Associated Builders and
Contractors, Inc (ABC); Associated Equipment Distributors;
Associated General Contractors of America; Automotive
Recyclers Association; Brick Industry Association; Club for
Growth; Concerned Women for America; Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste; Family Research Council;
FreedomWorks.
Independent Electrical Contractors; International
Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise
Association; National Association of Manufacturers; National
Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB); National Lumber and Building
Material Dealers Association; National Ready Mix Concrete
Association; National Retail Federation; National Taxpayers
Union; North American Die Casting Association; Printing
Industries of America; Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Council; U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Groups Opposing H.R. 3962
Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Air Conditioning
Contractors of America; American Academy of Facial Plastic
and Reconstructive Surgery; American Apparel & Footwear
Association; American Architectural Manufacturers
Association; American Association of Neurological Surgeons;
American Benefits Council; American Center for Law and
Justice; American Electric Power; American Family Insurance;
American Farm Bureau Federation; American Foundry Society;
American International Automobile Dealer Association (AIDA);
American Petroleum Institute; American Society of General
[[Page H12618]]
Surgeons; American Staffing Association; American Veterinary
Medical Association; American Wire Producers Association;
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP); AMT--The Association
For Manufacturing Technology; Arizona-New Mexico Cable
Communications Association; Arkansas Medical Society;
Association of Ship Brokers and Agents.
Association of Washington Business; AT&T; Automotive
Aftermarket Industry Association; Best Buy Co., Inc.; Blue
Cross Blue Shield; Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota;
Bowling Proprietors' Association of America; Business
Roundtable; Caterpillar, Inc.; CIGNA; Congress of
Neurological Surgeons; Corporate Health Care Coalition; Deere
& Company; Eastman Kodak Company; Electronic Security
Association (ESA); Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida
Medical Association; Food Marketing Institute; Goodrich
Corporation; Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration
Distributors International; HR Policy Association; HSBC North
America; Illinois State Medical Society; Independent
Insurance Agents & Brokers of America.
Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers
Association; Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Indiana
Manufacturers Association; International Association of
Refrigerated Warehouses; International Housewares
Association; International Sleep Products Association; Kansas
Medical Society; Land O'Lakes, Inc.; Maine Chamber of
Commerce; Marathon Oil Corporation; Marine Retailers
Association of America; MeadWestvaco Corporation; Medical
Association of Georgia; Medical Society of Deleware; Medical
Society of New Jersey; Medical Society of the District of
Columbia; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Missouri Chamber of
Commerce and Industry; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association; NAMM, International Music Products Association.
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS); National
Association of Health Underwriters; National Association of
Mortgage Brokers; National Association of Theatre Owners;
National Automobile Dealers Association; National Business
Group on Health; National Club Association; National
Coalition on Benefits (440 Associations and Companies);
National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Funeral
Directors Association; National Grocers Association; National
Newspaper Association; National Roofing Contractors
Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association;
National Teachers Associates Life Insurance Company; National
Tooling Machining Association; National Utility Contractors
Association; North Carolina Chamber; North Dakota Chamber of
Commerce; Northeastern Retail Lumber Association.
Nursery and Landscape Association; Ohio Chamber of
Commerce; Ohio State Medical Association; Pennsylvania
Chamber of Business and Industry; Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA); Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors Association; Precision Machined Products
Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Professional
Golfers Association of America; Republican Jewish Coalition;
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA); Self-Insurance
Institute of America (SIIA); Small Business Coalition for
Affordable Health Care; Society for Human Resource
Management; Society of American Florists; Society of Chemical
Manufacturers & Affiliates; South Carolina Chamber of
Commerce; South Carolina Medical Association; Specialty
Equipment Market Association (SEMA); SPI: The Plastics
Industry Trade Association.
Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Texas Association
of Business; The Black & Decker Corporation; The Business
Coalition for Fair Competition; The Business Council of New
York State, Inc.; The Dow Chemical Company; The ERISA
Industry Committee; The Louisiana State Medical Society; The
Medical Association of the State of Alabama; Tire Industry
Association; Triological Society; Tyco International; UAM
Action Network; United Parcel Service, Inc.; United States
Steel Corporation; Universal Health Network; Utah
Manufacturers Association; Verizon Communications; Virginia
Chamber of Commerce; Wedding & Event Videographers
Association International; WellPoint, Inc.; Western Growers
Association Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Wood
Machinery Manufacturers of America (WMMA); Xerox Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, we understand $732.5 billion worth of tax increases.
Once again, let's get this right. No unintended consequences here. This
is a job killer.
I will insert into the Record a list of the tax increases that are
proposed in this bill.
Top Ten Tax Increases Included in H.R. 3962
(As scheduled for consideration on the House Floor on November 7, 2009)
1. Small business surtax (Sec. 551, p. 336): $460.5
billion.
2. Employer Mandate tax* (Secs. 511-512, p. 308): $135.0
billion.
3. Individual Mandate tax* (Sec. 501, p. 296): $33.0
billion.
4. Medical device tax* (Sec. 552, p. 339): $20.0 billion.
5. $2,500 Annual cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325): $13.3
billion,
6. Prohibition on pre-tax purchases of over-the-counter
drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p. 324): $5.0
billion.
7. Tax on health insurance policies to fund comparative
effectiveness research trust fund* (Sec. 1802, p. 1162): $2.0
billion.
8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA distributions* (Sec. 533, p.
326): $1.3 billion.
9. Other tax hikes and increased compliance costs on U.S.
job creators: $60.2 billion.
IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553,
p. 344): $17.1 Billion.
Repeal implementation of worldwide interest allocation
rules (Sec. 554, p. 345): $6.0 billion.
Cellulosic Biofuel Credit/deny eligibility for ``black
liquor'' (New Sec. 555, inserted on p. 346): $23.9 billion.
Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by
``insourcing'' businesses (Sec. 561, p. 346): $7.5 billion.
Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties
(Sec. 562, p. 349): $5.7 billion.
10. Other revenue-raising provisions: $2.2 billion.
Total tax increases: $732.5 billion.
* = Violates President Obama's pledge to avoid tax
increases on Americans earning less than $250,000.
Mr. Speaker, also, last night at the Rules Committee we found out--
which is very devastating and I believe unwise--the Senate does not
have this provision. They removed it. But the House keeps in this bill
the failure to comply with individual mandates in this bill could lead
to a $250,000 fine and 5 years in jail, criminal penalties that are a
felony if you willingly choose not to participate, if you willingly
choose then not to pay the fine in your taxes. Mr. Speaker, what we are
going to do is criminalize Americans who choose not to join in this
government-run health care system.
There are not unintended consequences. The Members need to know that
this is going to raise premiums, it is going to raise taxes, and
perhaps worst of all, we are going to criminalize with felony penalties
noncompliance. Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to run a bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the rule being debated makes in order the
Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Smith-Kaptur-Dahlkemper pro-life amendment that
would apply the longstanding Hyde amendment, which states no public
funding for abortion.
I appreciate the willingness of Speaker Pelosi to work with all
Democrats through the day and night Friday to reach an agreement on
language. Ultimately, the agreement we reached fell apart, and the only
appropriate consideration was to make our amendment in order.
The Speaker recognizes that Members deserve the chance to vote their
conscience and have their voices heard on this most important matter.
There are a number of critical reforms in this bill, such as a repeal
to the health insurance industry's antitrust exemption to inject
competition into the industry, a prohibition on insurance companies
discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, elimination
of the practice of recision, except in the cases of fraud, and a
transition to a health care reimbursement system that addresses
geographic disparities and rewards quality of care over quantity of
procedures performed.
Now is the time to pass health care reform and provide quality,
affordable health care for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and to support the Stupak amendment later today.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
rule and the underlying bill which finally puts us on the path to
solving our Nation's health care crisis.
Since coming to Congress, I have heard from countless constituents in
Rhode Island struggling with the failures of our health care system. I
have heard from constituents forced to make unconscionable choices
between seeing a doctor or their next meal, paying their mortgage or
losing their coverage, and families facing bankruptcy due to
catastrophic medical costs.
[[Page H12619]]
The time for inaction is over. This bill represents an historic
opportunity to enact reforms that will allow constituents who lose
their jobs to keep their health care coverage, eliminates preexisting
conditions, and protects people by abolishing lifetime insurance caps.
Every American deserves the promise of quality affordable health
care, and this is our moment to fulfill that promise.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I spoke just a second ago about the
mandates that would be criminal penalties. I would like to enter a
letter from the gentleman, Mr. Camp, that is from the Joint Committee
on Taxation that outlines this part of the law.
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washington, DC, November 5, 2009.
Hon. Dave Camp,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Camp: This is in response to your request for
information relating to enforcement through the Internal
Revenue Code (``Code'') of the individual mandate of H.R.
3962, as amended, the ``Affordable Health Care for America
Act.'' You specifically inquired about penalties for a
willful failure to comply.
Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and
wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time
during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance
coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her
qualifying children is subject to an additional tax. The tax
is equal to the lesser of (a) the national average premium
for single or family coverage, as applicable, as determined
by the Secretary of Treasury in coordination with the Health
Choices Commissioner, or (b) 2.5 percent of the excess of the
taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income over the threshold
amount of income required for the income tax return filing
for that taxpayer. This tax is in addition to both regular
income tax and the alternative minimum tax, and is prorated
for periods in which the failure exists for only part of the
year. In general, the additional tax applies only to United
States citizens and resident aliens. The additional tax does
not apply to those who are residents of the possessions or
who are dependents, nor does it apply to those whose lapses
in coverage are de minimis or those with religious conscience
exemptions. The additional tax does not apply if the
maintenance of acceptable coverage would result in a hardship
to the individual or if the person's income is below the
threshold for filing a Federal income tax return.
Range of civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance
You asked that I discuss the situation in which the
taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and
not to pay the additional tax. The Code provides for both
civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate
reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent
attempts to defeat or evade tax. Civil and criminal penalties
are applied separately. Thus, a taxpayer convicted of a
criminal tax offense may be subject to both criminal and
civil penalties, and a taxpayer acquitted of a criminal tax
offense may nonetheless be subject to civil tax penalties. In
cases involving both criminal and civil penalties, the IRS
generally does not pursue both simultaneously, but delays
pursuit of civil penalties until the criminal proceedings
have concluded.
The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are
collected through the civil process. In determining whether a
penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the
examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable
statutory provisions, but also by the written policy of the
IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead
to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to
assert or not to assert a penalty. The goal is consistency,
fairness and predictability in administration of penalties.
If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax
liability results from willful behavior, the following
penalties could apply.
Civil penalties
Section 6662(a)--an accuracy related penalty of 20 percent
of the underpayment attributable to health care tax, based on
negligence or disregard (the former includes lack of a
reasonable attempt to comply and the latter includes any
intentional disregard of rules or regulations) or substantial
understatement, if the understatement of tax is sufficiently
large.
Section 6663--a fraud penalty of 75 percent of the
underpayment, if the government can prove fraudulent intent
to avoid taxes by clear and convincing evidence.
Section 6702--a $5,000 penalty for taking a frivolous
position on a tax return, if the underpayment is intended to
delay or impede tax administration and the return on its face
indicates that the self-assessment is substantially
incorrect.
Section 6651--delinquency penalty of .5 percent of the
underpayment, each month, up to a maximum of 25 percent of
the underpayment.
Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of
offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the
following penalties could apply to an individual:
Section 7203--misdemeanor willful failure to pay is
punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of
up to one year.
Section 7201--felony willful evasion is punishable by a
fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five
years.
Application of penalties under current practice
The IRS attempts to collect most unpaid liabilities through
the civil procedures described above. A number of factors
distinguish civil from criminal penalties, in addition to the
potential for incarceration if found guilty of a crime.
Unlike the standard in civil cases, successful criminal
prosecution requires that the government bear the burden of
proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the
offense. Most criminal offenses require proof that the
offense was willful, which is a degree of culpability greater
than that required in a civil penalty cases. For example, a
prosecution for willful failure to pay under section 7203
requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt both that the
taxpayer intentionally violated a known legal duty and that
the taxpayer had the ability to pay. In contrast, in applying
the civil penalty for failure to pay under section 6651, the
burden is on the taxpayer: the penalty applies unless the
taxpayer can establish reasonable cause and lack of willful
neglect with respect to his failure to pay.
Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful
review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In
practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent.
In fiscal year 2008, the total cases referred for prosecution
of legal source tax crimes were as follows.
Investigations initiated: 1,531.
Indictments and informations: 757.
Convictions: 666.
Sentenced: 645.
Incarcerated: 498.
Percentage of those sentenced who were incarcerated: 77.2.
Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008,
fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file
or pay taxes under section 7203. Civil penalties outnumber
criminal penalties imposed. For example, in fiscal year 2008,
compared to the 666 convictions, approximately 392,000
accuracy related penalties were assessed on individual
returns. Also in fiscal year 2008, the IRS assessed 5,502
penalties under section 6702 for frivolous positions taken on
returns.
I hope this information is helpful for you. If I can be of
further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Barthold.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield for the close for
the Republican Party, the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member
of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr.
Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
The American people have spoken very loudly and clearly. They do not
want the Federal Government to control one-sixth of our Nation's
economy, and they believe that we should be able to scrutinize
legislation. We have over 2,000 pages here. Many of the changes were
made late last night, Mr. Speaker, and we have not had what the
American people said we needed to have following the debate on the cap-
and-trade bill when we had a 300-page amendment dropped on us at 3
o'clock in the morning; that is an adequate amount of time to look at
this legislation.
My friend from Dallas has talked about unintended consequences.
Obviously in those 2,000 pages there are things that none of us want to
have happen that we don't know about now, but we've had reported here
on the floor a wide range of things that we believe will happen.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the debate on health
care reform has been cast on those who are in favor of reform and those
who are opposed to reform. We have continued to hear that over and over
and over and over again, unfortunately. There is no Member of this
House, Democrat or Republican, who does not want to ensure access to
quality health insurance and quality health care for our seniors, for
our veterans, for our families, for individuals across this country. So
let's make it very clear, we all want that to happen.
We all want to do what we can, Mr. Speaker, to increase
accessibility. We all want to increase accessibility. How do we do
that? Well, I believe very fervently that increasing affordability will
increase accessibility. If we can
[[Page H12620]]
make health insurance more affordable, more people in this country will
have access to quality health insurance. The substitute that we have
offered does just that. It says that the opportunity to have access to
the best quality product at the lowest possible price is a right that
every American should have. They are denied that today by virtue of the
fact that they can't buy insurance across State lines.
If you look at our goal of trying to bring about meaningful liability
reform, doctors today engage in, as we all know, defensive medicine.
They recommend a wide range of tests simply because of their fear of
being sued. In my State of California, we have a very, very viable
package that deals with that. If we were to take the California model
and apply it here at the Federal level, the Congressional Budget Office
has estimated that we will save $54 billion. $54 billion will be saved.
I believe that we need to do everything we can to allow small
businesses to come together so that they can, in fact, as large
entities do, get lower insurance rates. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe
that we can also ensure that we address the challenge of preexisting
conditions so that Americans with those preexisting conditions are not
denied access to quality health insurance and health care. We can do
that, and that is exactly what our substitute does.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have continued to have this
characterization that if we don't support this measure, if we don't
support this measure which takes control of one-sixth of our Nation's
economy, we are not committed to reform. That is outrageous. We believe
that a step-by-step approach is the proper route for us to take.
I like very much what our friend from North Carolina earlier said: We
don't need a complete overhaul. We need to fine-tune this system to
ensure that every single American does have access to quality,
affordable health care.
Vote ``no'' on this rule. We can do better.
It is truly unfortunate that the healthcare debate has come to be
cast as a fight between those who favor and those who oppose reform.
There is not a single Member of this House who does not support the
idea of improving the accessibility and the quality of healthcare in
America. We all want to expand access to coverage for the individuals,
working families, seniors and veterans who are worried about their
healthcare.
I am a strong proponent of reforming our healthcare system in a way
that enhances the affordability and availability of quality healthcare
options, without limiting patient choice. There are a number of steps
we can take to reduce costs for working families without rationing care
or raising taxes. Lowering costs is central to expanding coverage,
because affordability enhances accessibility.
For example, we must implement medical malpractice reform and
redirect resources from trial lawyers to patients. My state of
California has been a leader in medical liability reform. We have
realized substantial savings, simply by limiting exorbitant trial
lawyers' fees, as well as speculative, noneconomic damages.
Without limiting economic damages, medical expenses or punitive
damages, the state of California has been able to save consumers tens
of billions of dollars. The limit on trial lawyers' fees alone has
saved nearly $200 million over 7 years. As a result, we have some of
the lowest medical malpractice rates in the country. The nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office determined that nationwide implementation
of reforms similar to California's would result in savings of up to $54
billion over 10 years.
This isn't just about companies' bottom lines or state budgets, these
cost savings have a real impact on working families, especially during
these difficult economic times. As I said at the outset, affordability
and accessibility go hand in hand. One independent study showed that
partially reversing the reforms that California has implemented would
raise healthcare costs for families of four by over $1,000 a year. That
is a tremendous burden that families cannot bear. And it underscores
the reality that excessive costs are the biggest impediment to access
to healthcare.
Furthermore, medical liability reform has proven to not only reduce
costs, but to increase quality as well. States with lower medical
malpractice premiums tend to have more doctors per capita, including
surgeons and specialists. For example, Texas implemented reform 6 years
ago, and subsequently saw an increase in doctors of nearly 18 percent.
Twenty-four counties that previously had no ER doctors now have
emergency services.
We must also address the challenge of overlapping government
programs. The cost of providing services for those who qualify for both
Medicare and Medicaid is nearly $250 billion every year. And yet, there
is no comprehensive effort to coordinate these programs to ensure that
overlap does not result in wasteful spending. As Governor
Schwarzenegger proposed, states could be given the authority and
flexibility to coordinate these programs, as well as the opportunity to
share in the cost savings.
We also need to empower small businesses to provide more affordable
healthcare options.
They should have the ability to band together, to achieve the
economies of scale that large corporations and labor unions have. Small
businesses and individuals should also be able to purchase insurance
across state lines. And we can provide tax incentives to make coverage
more accessible. Finally, we must eliminate the rampant waste, fraud
and abuse that are dramatically and needlessly driving up costs.
Each of these proposals would significantly reduce costs for
individuals and families without diminishing the quality of care. In
fact, they would enhance the quality of healthcare in this country.
Greater competition and greater accountability in the healthcare
industry would provide Americans with more choices--and better choices.
Some have made the very dubious claim that expanding options for
consumers would somehow diminish the quality of our healthcare. They
have said that reforms, such as giving small businesses and individuals
the flexibility to purchase insurance across state lines, would spark a
race to the bottom.
But increasing competition and accountability would have precisely
the opposite effect. When patients have more choices and more
flexibility, the result will be higher-quality care. And by addressing
the root issue of affordability, we can effectively expand access for
all, including those with pre-existing conditions.
The commonsense reform measures we are proposing would accomplish
this without raising taxes or diminishing coverage for a single
American. And we would expand access while allowing those who are happy
with their current coverage to keep it. Perhaps most important of all,
these straightforward yet significant reforms would keep patients and
doctors at the center of healthcare decisions--without the interference
of government bureaucrats.
This is a positive, workable, effective reform proposal, and it is
the reform agenda that Republicans are pursuing.
If we'd had a collaborative, bipartisan process from the beginning, I
believe this is the kind of reform proposal that could have gained
widespread support from both parties here in Congress. Certainly these
are solutions that are widely supported by the American people.
So it is extremely unfortunate that the Democratic Majority has
chosen to put forward a divisive, unworkable, enormously expensive
proposal that will improve neither accessibility nor the quality of
healthcare. In fact, I believe this legislation would accomplish
precisely the opposite of its stated goals. A dramatic expansion of the
government role in our healthcare system is an utterly nonsensical way
to try to enhance efficiency, cut costs or improve quality.
Furthermore, government bureaucrats are the last people that Americans
want to have making their healthcare decisions for them.
Our national unemployment rate sailed past 10 percent last month, as
we just found out on Friday, while California's is at 12.2 percent.
As our economy continues to struggle on its road to recovery, now is
the worst possible time to impose significant new taxes on the American
people. And with the announcement of the Democratic Majority's $1.4
trillion deficit, we simply cannot afford to enact more than a trillion
dollars in new government spending--an estimated figure that would be
sure to balloon if implemented.
The Democratic Majority's so-called reform bill is a fiscal disaster
that will make our healthcare system--already in need of reform--
substantially more inefficient, wasteful and costly, and make quality
care even less accessible. Today's vote is not a vote to reject or
support healthcare reform. Today's vote is about the path we will
choose as a nation to pursue better and more affordable healthcare.
Republicans have put forth solutions that will cut costs while
improving care, and we can achieve this without raising taxes or
further crippling our nation with even more debt.
The Democrats have put forth a proposal that would take us in
precisely the opposite direction-- higher costs, lower-quality care,
new taxes and a bigger deficit. I urge my colleagues to support real
reform.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful, exciting day for us
and the culmination of nearly 100 years of work that we will join the
community of nations that believe that the people who live within them
are deserving of decent health care, all of them, regardless of their
financial situation.
[[Page H12621]]
{time} 1300
This is such a step that I am proud that my life has brought me to
this moment today; and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you share with
every fiber of your being the same idea that we have finally reached
the day when we will all brace ourselves to meet the duty ahead and
will say to the future that this was our finest hour.
I request a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this historic day in strong
support of H. Res. 903--the rule providing for consideration of H.R.
3962--the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
Let me be absolutely clear: every single American should have access
to affordable and quality health-care coverage. For too many years,
drastically needed health-insurance reform has been delayed. I'm happy
to say the long overdue reform of our health-care insurance system has
finally begun. The status quo is unsustainable and costly: Without
health insurance reform, the insurance premium for an average family is
expected to rise from $11,000 to $24,000 in less than a decide.
Americans want reduced costs and more choices.
Mr. Speaker, I support this landmark legislation because it changes
the way that insurance companies ration medical care: The measure would
require all plans to eliminate coverage denials because of a pre-
existing condition, eliminate dropping coverage when individuals become
sick, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on how much can be spent on
care, and eliminate exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans
deserve these basic protections from their health-insurance plans, and
these important guarantees will improve the coverage for nearly all
those who already have insurance--even those Americans who are
extremely satisfied with their current plans.
The Act starts with what works well in today's health care system and
fixes the parts that are broken. No one has to discard the health care
they enjoy today--everyone can keep their current health plan, doctors
and hospitals. A new marketplace will allow individuals to shop among a
large number of private plans or choose a public insurance option. For
the first time ever, American families--even those who keep their
current health insurance--will benefit from no longer having to worry
about losing health coverage because of a new or lost job. The bill
finally brings the type of health insurance reform that Americans need
and deserve.
I also strongly support this bill because the 47 million uninsured
Americans, the 2.6 million uninsured New Yorkers and the 78,000
uninsured neighbors in my congressional district will have access to
affordable, secure and quality health-care coverage instead of having
to rely on the local hospital emergency room. Most recent
administrations never acknowledged the moral or economic costs we pay
every day for our failure to fix this problem. Fortunately, President
Obama has made comprehensive health-insurance reform his top priority.
I am proud to be voting today to make sure that health-care reform
contains costs and is affordable; puts our country on a clear path to
universal coverage; provides portable coverage; ensures choice of
physicians and health plans; promotes prevention and wellness; improves
the quality of care, and is fiscally sustainable over the long-term.
Putting these principles into action is not only do- able; it is abs
essential.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the rule for the
Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. Res. 903, so that all
Americans will have access to health care.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I held two town
hall meetings in Wisconsin's Fifth District that had record turnout.
The headline in the local paper summed up the meeting well: ``Health
Reform Bill Gets Thumbs Down in Elm Grove.''
Very few people in Wisconsin's Fifth District believe a program
costing more than a trillion dollars can be deficit neutral. My
constituents were overwhelming opposed to any government takeover of
health care.
I believe the right way to improve health care is to prioritize
spending and be careful with taxpayer dollars.
The wrong way is to raise taxes even higher and dig our debt even
deeper to pay for more wasteful programs that don't work.
This health care overhaul bill will likely make Cash for Clunkers
look like a Black Friday door buster item!
Before we raise taxes to pay for yet another program, we owe it to
our constituents to cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse of government
programs.
One size does not fit all when it comes to health care. A patient and
their physician should be in charge of their health care decisions, not
politicians.
I too, give this bill a thumbs down.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and the underlying bill.
Over the month of August, I spoke with over 20,000 of my constituents
about health care, and one subject in particular kept surfacing over
and over--the skyrocketing cost of insurance premiums. In fact, a
recent survey filled out by over six thousand residents of the 13th
District showed that, at nearly 47 percent, rising costs were far and
away the number one concern when it comes to health care. Families in
my district simply cannot keep pace with ever-mounting health care
bills. And it's no wonder when over the past year, health care costs
rose at twice the rate of inflation.
Unfortunately, this bill would do absolutely nothing to address this
pressing concern. Instead, it cuts seniors' Medicare benefits, taxes
small businesses struggling to stay afloat, and places government
bureaucracy between you and your doctor.
Fortunately, we're offering a better, commonsense alternative to
increase competition, improve portability for those between jobs, and
expand coverage for pre-existing conditions--without job-threatening
tax increases.
That is why I am very pleased that according to experts at the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, our Republican
alternative will reduce your premiums by as much as 10 percent. In
addition, the bill would save the government $68 billion. You heard
that right--it would save the government--your tax dollars--money.
And this bill doesn't have any complicated budgetary gimmicks that
will inflate numbers or circumvent accurate analysis. This bill has
real reforms like association health plans for small businesses,
allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines, and
medical malpractice reform.
In addition, the bill would change current law to ensure that
insurance companies can't drop Americans who play by the rules just
because they get sick. And no one can be denied treatment because of
annual or lifetime benefit caps.
Mr. Speaker, we need reform, not revolution. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting an alternative that will provide real help to
struggling Americans.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by a 15-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 903, if
ordered, and a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on
House Resolution 892, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 187, not voting 0, as follows:
[Roll No. 881]
AYES--247
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
[[Page H12622]]
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--187
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1327
Messrs. LUCAS and LAMBORN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 192, not voting 0, as follows:
[Roll No. 882]
AYES--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--192
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1344
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________