Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of the time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, just appeared on the floor and made a statement that there was a provision relating to Davis-Bacon in the amendment the Democrats sought in order. I have consulted the Committee on Ways and Means staff. That is not true. There is nothing in the amendment that was offered by the Democrats relating to Davis-Bacon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a classic case of caveat emptor, or perhaps it is a pig in a poke. Whatever it is, this rule is a not-too-cleverly- disguised attempt by the Republican leadership to derail meaningful reforms in the managed care industry, reforms that will benefit millions of Americans who are counting on us to help them. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has told the House that this is a fair rule, a rule which will allow the House to debate a full range of health care issues. Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully disagree with my friend. While this rule may well allow the House to debate both managed care and a means to expand health care to some 44 million Americans who today have none, this rule is purposefully structured to keep either of those goals from being reached. It is therefore my intention to oppose the rule. I would hope that the House will defeat this rule so that the Committee on Rules can adopt a new rule to permit the House to pass a real managed care reform package that stands a real chance of becoming law. Mr. Speaker, clever packaging is often used to disguise the fact that consumers get much less than they pay for, and this rule is just as deceptive. Thus, I must repeat that this rule is a case of caveat emptor. In this case, Members may think they are getting two for the price of one, but I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this rule is designed to cheat those of us who are looking for real value. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules has recommended to the House a very peculiar procedure which was never supported by the minority. This very peculiar procedure ties together two vastly different topics under the guise of a wide-ranging reform of health care in this country. Members have to follow the bouncing ball of what they have done. After passage of both bills, presuming both pass, the access bill and HMO reform, the rule provides that the two bills will be combined in the engrossment, thus making the two bills one, without a vote to do that. Let me repeat, after these two separate bills have been passed on separate days, then the Republicans, by operation of this rule, would tie them all together and send them to conference with the Senate, without actually voting on that proposition. They know, they know that by doing this, this will jeopardize any piece of legislation from ever emerging from a conference with the Senate. They do so in a very cynical way. Mr. Speaker, over and above this question about tying the two bills together without a vote to do that, the rule does not allow the House to consider an amendment which would pay for the costs associated with managed care reform. The authors of the Patients' Bill of Rights, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have proposed an amendment to their bill which would offset the cost of higher employer deductions for worker health insurance. Mr. Speaker, this should be a very simple proposition. Republicans have for days and days on the floor of the House been crying great crocodile tears about not wanting to invade the social security surplus. What happens? Democrats and Republicans who support this bill come to the Committee on Rules and say, make in order an amendment so we do not have to invade the social security surplus, and the Republicans say no. No, we cannot do that. We do not want to invade the social security surplus, and we say that every day four or five times here on the floor, but if you actually give us the chance to vote on that subject, we do not want to vote on it, and we will prevent the House from voting on that. That is why this is a flawed rule, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the reasoning in all of this is somewhat tortured. I do not want to belabor the House. I would only point out that last night on the subject of tying the two bills together, I asked the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), I said, why are we doing this? Why are we combining these two bills at the end without a vote? Is there some rule of the House that requires us to do that? The chairman said, no, there is not a rule of the House, we just want to do it.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his comments, because the question I raised last night was, is there some reason, some legal reason here on the House floor that we have to do this, in the rules of the House? He said no, it is because they want to. I would suggest that wanting to may well doom final passage out of a conference committee of either one of these provisions, which may well have merits on their own as separate pieces of legislation, but when combined under one package, no, particularly because the access bill is also not paid for. The Republicans have done nothing to provide the money to pay for the access bill. The estimates are that that bill could wind up costing $40 billion or $50 billion. So we are not paying for anything under the rule that is presented here today. All we are doing is voting on some very nice pieces of legislation. Democrats are asking that the Patients' Bill of Rights that we have been advocating for years now, and it is final reaching the floor, that we be given the opportunity to offer an amendment which would pay for this bill so that the Republicans could honor their word and honor their pleas of not invading the social security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of Members who wish to speak at this point. Members I know feel very strongly about passage of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. We are to the point hopefully where we can do that, but we should do it in an honest way. We should be honest with the American public. I would urge defeat of this rule so we may have an honest procedure here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, knows that the Committee on Rules can waive germaneness at any time and often does when it is to the convenience of the majority. We are only asking that it be waived once for the minority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, all we ask is for an opportunity to consider this legislation under a fair rule. For months and months and months the other side has decried and shed great tears about efforts to invade the Social Security trust fund. All we ask is for an honest approach to this legislation, which would permit this legislation not to take a penny out of the Social Security trust fund. This is a good bill. Everyone agrees this is a good bill. Let us have this bill considered under a fair procedure so that we can get to the merits of the legislation. Let us not take money away from Social Security in so doing, and let us pass a strong patient protection piece of legislation. We will oppose the rule and ask for a fair rule on this floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. 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.