John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a trinity of health care bills, the Prescription Drug bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and this modest antitrust exemption for doctors. Now, please remember, this is a labor exemption. The antitrust legislation was written for capital corrections and guidance. But what we are doing here is doing what the doctors need to be able to discuss how between HMO administrators and other professionals that they are now being restricted in their ability to make decisions for their patients. We all know about this problem. We now have the opportunity to deal with this question, and all I would like my colleagues to keep in mind is that the time has come. For several years now we have brought this measure forward. We are now debating it. Most Americans receive their health insurance coverage through managed care plans, but we have seen the massive coalitions and consolidations of the managed care market to just a dozen health insurance competitors. As a result of this market concentration, we need to give some relief to these doctors. They are really feeling the pinch. They are depending on us. And, by the way, so are the patients. The decisions that the doctors make in the patient-doctor relationship are under a severe test at this present point. So we respond to this problem by allowing medical professionals to jointly negotiate the terms of their contract with health care plans. There is a 3-year sunset on the bill. Please support it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. In the spirit of us moving as rapidly as we can, is it correct that the Chair is now going to roll the votes? Has that been arrived at?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House of Representatives.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this is another example of the kind of gamesmanship that we have been subjected to. The bill says nothing about abortion. This anti-choice gag rule is a poison pill designed only to kill another bill to provide quality health care to all Americans. How many Members have told me on the floor tonight if this amendment passes, they will vote against the bill? It is very simple. It is very obvious. To talk about leaving a rape victim without medical guidance. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. The Cox amendment is nothing less than a last-minute attack on the rights of health care professionals and patients in particular. Now, notice, this is a nongermane amendment that had the rule prescribed that all points of order had not been waived would not even be in order. It is a last-grasp effort on the part of the opponents of the bill to change the subject matter of the bill and turn pro-labor Members against the measure. The practical impact of the amendment would be devastating to the ability of health care professionals to collectively bargain and protect patients' rights. Let us not pass tonight inadvertently the first Federal right-to-work law in our country's history. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, June 29, 2000. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Conyers: The AFL-CIO opposes the Cox amendment to H.R. 1304, Quality Health Care Coalition Act. This amendment is clearly an attempt at passing a federal ``right to work'' law for doctors and health professionals. We strenuously oppose this amendment and urge Members to vote against it. Sincerely, Peggy Taylor, Director, Department of Legislation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the word ``abortion'' does not appear. I wrote this with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). We can assure our colleagues that in no place does the word ``abortion'' appear. I just want to emphasize that.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this may be one of the most incredible amendments of the evening, because we are now talking about mandating a Federal right-to-work law with respect to health care professionals. I say to my colleagues, we have never considered that before in any particular field, and the practical impact of the amendment would be to harm the ability of health care professionals to collectively bargain and protect patients' rights. This is an amendment that would seek to turn pro-labor Members against H.R. 1306. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our distinguished whip.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to admit that we are now on the horns of a dilemma in terms of the rule. We have a rule that presents an obstacle course of poison pills designed to drag the bill down. Virtually all of the amendments that have been allowed by the Committee on Rules are hostile, in many cases unrelated, amendments. For example, the Coburn amendment is an anti-choice amendment that would prevent doctors from making referrals for abortion-related services for victims of rape and incest. The Cox amendment is an insult to the collective bargaining idea and would constitute the first-ever Federal right-to-work mandate on the States. Neither of these amendments have anything to do with the underlying bill, of course, and the Committee on Rules have waived all points of order to leave these poison bills intact. We know the game. It is to split 220 cosponsors of a very important and fine bill. And so my solution that I propose to my colleagues tonight is that since we have been gamed, I am going to oppose the previous question on the adoption of the rule and ask the Members to support me in opposition to the previous question so that I can offer an amendment that would remove the Cox amendment and also make in order the amendment submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) to the Committee on Rules. This would allow us to have a clean debate on the underlying legislation, free of the poison pill amendments. And my amendment is supported by NARAL, the Pro-Choice Caucus, the AFL-CIO, and AFSCME. So a vote to defeat the previous question may well be the only chance Members have in this Congress to vote for the right of health care professionals to collectively bargain on behalf of their patients. It is a tough choice. We have been split on this, but I hope it will bring us back together again.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time. My colleagues, this bill is so incredibly important that enough Members are cosponsors that could normally pass the bill, 220 Members. We have a rule that is laden with poison pills. Solution: defeat the previous question and vote ``no.'' I have an amendment that will cure the problem, I think quite well, but this will give those of us who are definitely pro-choice a way out to get this measure to the floor. Believe me, if this bill does not come up tonight, my colleagues will not see this measure again in the 106th Congress. So I urge all of my colleagues, the cosponsors and the friends of Campbell-Conyers, to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONYERS. Does the Speaker have the authority to roll the votes in the interest of saving time tonight?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent during consideration of H.R. 1304 to reduce the time for general debate to 10 minutes on each side, and I ask unanimous consent to reduce the time for debate on each amendment to 5 minutes for the proponent and 5 minutes for the opponents, except for the Coburn amendment, I ask for 7\1/2\ minutes on each side.