John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, Mr. Cohen, it just happens that we prepared this little blue chart here. Actually, it probably ought to be in the red. The repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act obviously deals with the Patients' Bill of Rights, but it also deals with the deficit. This week, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, not Democrat, not Republican, they answer to neither party. They answer to the general public. They said that the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act will increase the deficit by $230 billion, $230 billion in the next 9 years, and in the out years, the next 10 years, well over 1 trillion, $200 billion increase in the deficit.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I do have some experience on that. I wanted to deal with that. It's called the medical loss ratio, and the insurance companies have cut a fat check for themselves over the years by taking a big premium and then paying a very small amount of it out for the medical coverages. In this legislation, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and in the Affordable Health Care Act, they can't do that. They've got to pay, for the individual policies, 80 percent and, for the group policies, 85 percent for medical services. So what was the very first thing they did after this bill was signed into law? We passed it last year, and the President signed it. The very first thing they did was to run down to the Health and Human Services Department and say, Oh, but our advertising ought to be included as a medical expense, and, Oh, these expenses for these kinds of employees, mostly statisticians and the like, that's a medical expense. Fortunately, the administration said, No, we think not. So what we're trying to do with this legislation is make sure that when we pay a dollar, at least we get 80 cents back in medical services. Our friends on the other side would repeal that and allow the insurance companies to take that money--or at least a larger portion of that money--put it in their pockets, give it to their CEOs, whatever, but not use it for medical services. Medical loss ratio is really important. And the other thing you mentioned needs to be understood also, and that is the ability of the governments to review, not to say ``no,'' but to shine that big, bright spotlight onto the insurance company premium increases. Is it justified? Yes? No? What are your costs and so forth? What ratios are you using in medical losses and the like? So that spotlight of information is required under the law. Many, many things in the law. Mr. Cohen, I see you stood up, anxious to make a comment here, so please do. And then I notice behind you our colleague from Maryland has joined us. And eventually, I want to start talking about seniors. So please, Mr. Cohen, go forth.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I would assume that they will try to go into their interpretation of the Constitution and avoid the very difficult argument of forcing or eliminating the Patient's Bill of Rights and allowing the insurance companies to engage in gross discrimination based upon sex. Clearly, women are discriminated against by the health insurance companies unless the Patient's Bill of Rights is there to protect them. Similarly, the two examples that you gave, pre-existing conditions, I cannot imagine that they would even attempt to successfully or even would be unsuccessful to argue that somehow these protections for the individual are not worth having. I think they will go into some obscure interpretation of the Constitution. We'll see. There's going to be a debate on the floor. Unfortunately, there will be no hearings to precede that, and there will not be a discussion of the details.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, it's a great privilege to be here on the floor with you. Congratulations to you and the other new Members of the Republican Party. We have some extraordinarily important tasks ahead of us. This afternoon, I'm going to be joined by some of my colleagues. We've just heard a very useful discussion on the role of the Constitution and how it plays into it. And indeed, today we did spend about 3 hours reading through the Constitution, and I think it was to all of our benefit. We started off with the new Speaker actually reading the preamble. I think that's a good place for us to start, because we're going to discuss health care today and we're going to discuss an effort by the majority party, the Republicans, to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act that was passed last session. And this issue has become a constitutional issue, so reading the preamble to the Constitution and Article I, section 8 is useful. ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare''--promote the general welfare--``and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.'' And then later, in article I, section 8, ``Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'' It's about the general welfare of the United States that we'll be discussing in this next hour, and that's the welfare of the people of the United States. It speaks to us, the citizens--all of us--whether we are a newborn baby or a senior in the last of life--how do we provide for that general welfare? Last year, in a major step forward, the first time in more than nearly four decades, this Congress, together with the Senate and the President, passed the Affordable Health Care Act, a very, very important and extremely useful step in providing for the welfare--that is, the general welfare--of the American population. It's a law that makes life better from birth to retirement. Part of this law, a very, very important part of it, deals with what we call the Patient's Bill of Rights--the Patient's Bill of Rights, vis-a-vis, the insurance industry. I think all of us can go back to our districts, to our homes, and even to our own lives and find numerous episodes where the insurance industry has said, No, you cannot have this procedure; or, No, you cannot have coverage because you have a preexisting condition. Today, we are going to talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights and the Republican effort that is now underway in the Rules Committee in this building, as we speak, to write a rule that they will bring to the floor next week, without one hearing, to completely wipe out this extraordinarily important effort to provide for the general welfare of the American people. We are going to discuss that in great detail. Now, for me, this is a very important part of my life. I spent 8 years of my life as the insurance commissioner in California, taking on the insurance companies, trying to force them to honor their commitments, to force the insurance companies to pay the claim of a patient who had undergone chemotherapy, to provide insurance that was contracted for and not to rescind that health care policy. I cannot even begin to count the number of cases that came before me as insurance commissioner where the insurance companies would rescind a policy because the person suddenly became ill and had a very expensive episode. The Patients' Bill of Rights prohibits that. We are going to talk about that. I want to start here, and then I'm going to turn this over to my colleagues. I am going to give an example of a very dear friend who lived here in Washington. He was a Peace Corps volunteer, married. He was working here in Washington, DC, as the director of the National Peace Corps Association, the returned volunteers. He had a child. That child had a severe disability--kidneys didn't work. He was insured. His wife was insured. The pregnancy was insured. The delivery was insured. But that child, on the day the child was born with that preexisting condition of kidney failure, was uninsurable under the parents' policy. That kind of action is prohibited by the Patients' Bill of Rights. No more would that happen to men and women, families, pregnant women across this country who deliver babies that have some problem. Those babies will be insured whatever the condition might be. Our colleagues on the Republican side will bring to this floor next Wednesday, without one hearing in any relevant policy committee, a repeal of the Patients' Bill of Rights. What of the babies that are born in the future that have some issue? How will they be provided for? The rest of the story is this family has spent 20 years now struggling to provide the health care services that their child needed. They have been close to bankruptcy many, many times. They have struggled through it. The child is no longer a child--a young adult-- and under the law today, he has health insurance. Is that what the American public wants from the Republican Party--the repeal of that Bill of Rights that guarantees coverage for that young man? I think not. Let me now turn to our colleague from the great State of Virginia. Bobby Scott, would you please share with us your own views and how this is going to affect the general welfare of the American people.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Our children, grandchildren, and indeed those of us that are living for another 10 to 15, 20 years, we're going to pay twice. We're going to pay the insurance cost, the health care cost that's not covered by the insurance programs. The example you gave of the individual with two bouts of cancer going to pay the full cost of that because the limitation goes back into place, so you get to pay for your health care, and you're going to have to pay off the deficit also, makes no sense whatsoever. But, hey, that's what they want to do, without one hearing by any of the relevant committees.

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might interrupt you for just a moment, Mr. Scott. You are into an issue, an area that is profoundly important to the seniors of America. The discussion last year as this bill was passing was that somehow this piece of legislation would harm seniors by taking away Medicare benefits. It was not true last year. It is not true this year. However, if our Republican colleagues are successful in repealing it, they, the seniors, will be seriously harmed. I want to make this point very, very clear and ask my colleagues to join us perhaps from their own personal experience in their districts. You started going through this list here. This legislation actually extends the solvency of Medicare by reining in the costs and by giving seniors specific pre-illness care so that they will be able to get preventative care free, free annual checkups. They can't get it today, but under this legislation seniors can get free annual checkups, which reduces the cost, because you get to the illness quicker.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I notice that our colleague from Maryland has joined us, Ms. Edwards, Ms. Donna Edwards. I know you were interested in this. You were talking about it earlier today on the floor and in committee, so please.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very, very much. Before I turn to our colleague from Virginia, you reminded me of two very quick stories. One, on Monday I was at the inaugural for the Governor of California. Jerry Brown is back again. And a lobbyist that I knew when I was insurance commissioner representing health insurance companies came up to me and he put his finger in my chest and he said, don't let them repeal the law. Now, I'm not going to give his name. He'd lose his job immediately. And I said, I'll do everything I can, but why? You represent them. Why? And he said, I have two children. Both are type 1 diabetics. They're approaching 23 years of age. They will be out of luck. They will never be able to get an insurance policy if this bill is repealed. The Patient's Bill of Rights gives that lobbyist for the health insurance industry an opportunity to see his children get health insurance. Now, I have six children of my own. Patty and I do. All six of them have gone through that age of 23. It is the scariest time for a parent. You graduate, you get a diploma, and you also get an exit from the insurance that you've had perhaps for your entire life. This law provides another 3 years after you graduate, that period of time where it's almost impossible nowadays to find a job that provides insurance to give that insurance. Mr. Scott, please join us once again.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Cohen, thank you so very much. Your closing sentence needs to be repeated. That the very first piece of legislation taken up by the new Republican majority in the 112th Congress is to repeal the Patients Bill of Rights. It's unfathomable. Let me now call on Frank Pallone, our colleague from the great State of--yes, it is--New Jersey.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I don't know if you were a Member of Congress at the time, but we all under this law would have the same policy that every American would have. We wouldn't have any different policy than the American public would have, and the question about rescission, and you're a prime candidate should you lose office, which you shouldn't, to be uninsurable if the Patient's Bill of Rights were repealed. Under the Patient's Bill of Rights, if you were to leave Congress, you could get an insurance policy because the pre-existing condition that you have, polio, and an operation resulting from the polio would go into play as a pre-existing condition, and you would not be able to get an insurance policy.

Mr. GARAMENDI. As you know--I saw you in Rules Committee earlier today--it is my impression that the Rules Committee is going to prohibit any amendments on the floor. We'll see. I mean, that has yet to be decided by the Rules Committee. We don't know, but surely the one amendment I would propose is: don't do it, maintain the Patient's Bill of Rights, maintain these protections that we all need. There's not a person in this Nation that is not subject to the possibility of an incident that would become a reason for rescission. That's my experience. Eight years hammering the insurance industry, you have got to honor your contract. Yet because of the laws, they were able to wiggle out of an expensive incident.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much. You've raised about seven of the major issues that are involved in this repeal that the Republicans will bring to this floor next Wednesday without one hearing in any relevant policy committee, a repeal that will affect every single American--that will affect their well-being, their health, their ability to get health insurance, and their ability to stay healthy. So we have an enormous issue before us and we want the American public to be aware of what's going on here. It is the repeal of the Patient's Bill of Rights. Let me move on to one of our other colleagues from Tennessee. Mr. Steven Cohen, if you will join us, please.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Amendment 23, passed by Congress June 16, 1960; ratified March 29, 1961. Section 1: ``The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct: ``A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State . . .''

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I voice my strong support for the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, H.R. 5116. Unfortunately during a busy legislative day, I missed the rollcall for this important bill, which passed the House of Representatives today. Had I been present on the House Floor, I would have cast an ``aye'' vote in favor of H.R. 5116.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I spoke on the House floor in strong support of the COMPETES Reauthorization. I wish to reinforce these comments. America is in a Global Race to innovate. COMPETES propels us forward, helping us win this race through smart investments. Improvements in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education will result in an educated workforce, who will develop the technology of the future. A strengthening of our research capacity is inherently valuable and will pay huge dividends when this knowledge is leveraged towards technological development. COMPETES helps turn these lab bench discoveries into products that we can buy and sell on the market. By strengthening American manufacturing, COMPETES helps us to make it in America again. Improvements in R&D will grow America's economy and increase our ability to export our products around the world. I express strong support for the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, H.R. 5116.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for an extraordinary piece of work, and Ranking Member Hall and the other members of the committee. I came to this committee halfway through the year, and I was absolutely amazed and delighted to see the intensity of discussions--35 separate hearings. And my colleague from Georgia who thinks we ought to put this off, I cannot imagine leaving a job half done--not half done, but 99 percent done, and then let it go after all the work that's been put together here. This is a good bill. I don't ever like what the other House does to my legislation, and I'm sure all of us feel the same way. But what I'd like to point out here in this bill is that there are basically five things that this Nation needs to do if we're going to succeed economically: best education, best research, make the things that come from that research, have the infrastructure, and then be international. This is about three of those things, three very important things. The education, the STEM education is in this legislation. Without it, we will never be able to compete. And we ought not wait until next year to get that going. Secondly, with regard to the research, it is fundamental. I come from California, the great Silicon Valley and all of those new technologies come from the research at the universities in the surrounding area. This legislation promotes that research agenda across the Nation, not just in California, but at every other research institution throughout the United States. And finally, there is a major piece of this legislation that talks about making it in America. If we are going to have a strong middle class, a strong economy, we must once again make it in America. This legislation provides some fundamental elements necessary for us to do that. For example, the loan guarantee that was degraded just a few moments ago is exceedingly important because that's the valley of death. How does an entrepreneur, how does a new business get through the valley of death? That's what this is about. This legislation also provides a way in which we can coordinate our manufacturing expertise. With that, we ought to pass this bill and acknowledge the enormous amount of work that was done over the last Congress.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor House Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon. Chairman Gordon understands that America is in a race--a race against other nations to invent the most advanced technologies in the world. And the stakes of this competition could not be higher. Only with the most advanced technological innovation can this Nation achieve economic growth, energy independence, and strengthen our national security. For two decades, Chairman Gordon has risen to the challenge of catalyzing American ingenuity by spearheading leading science and technology policies. He requested a complete report on America's global competitiveness, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and has steadfastly charged up this mountain of challenges. Chairman Gordon authored two landmark bills to enhance our competitiveness, the America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007, and its reauthorization, which will be signed into law in these last days of 2010. Through these bills, the Chairman is dramatically improving STEM education, strengthening research and development, and restoring America's scientific edge. The Chairman has also lead initiatives to reuse electronic waste and to harness Nanotechnology, which could transform everything from cancer treatment to computers. In an increasingly partisan atmosphere, Chairman Gordon has kept alive the bi-partisan spirit of the Science committee. I thank Chairman Gordon for his profound service to our Nation, and I urge Congress to carry on his legacy of boldly investing in America's future--science and technology.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday next.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 6523 the Clerk be directed to make conforming amendments to the table of contents.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Etched on the stones in the FDR Memorial are his words that are applicable tonight. He said: The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. President Roosevelt. On December 2, the Democrats in this House honored those words. We passed a middle class tax cut, and we passed unemployment insurance, and we provided for those who have little. Tonight, because of the ransom that's been demanded by our Republican colleagues, we're left with a different option. We're left with the option of providing abundance to those who already have much, $130 billion, every dollar borrowed probably from China. Is that fiscally responsible? I think not. And furthermore, President Roosevelt, we are, in this bill, about to destroy your greatest heritage, the Social Security system. The Republicans are opening the door to the destruction of the Social Security system and thereby carrying out their 74-year task. It cannot happen. We provided an alternative and we must not let that happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chairperson, thank you so very, very much for your leadership and for the change in the rule. Mr. Speaker, the earlier rule presented a significant problem to us in that it had basically a vote on the Pomeroy amendment; and that would be then, if that passed, the vote on the bill without a separate vote. Separation is very, very important to many of us because we see in this particular piece of legislation numerous serious problems. For example, we see that the Social Security payroll tax is being reduced, which, for the first time ever in history, I think, has put Social Security's security in play. In the future, we think this may be a very, very serious detriment to the well-being of the Social Security system. In addition to that, the way in which the taxes are structured, I think, goes basically against some very fundamental principles that were best announced and laid out by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Etched on the marble at his memorial here in Washington, D.C., are the words that speak, I believe, very directly to this piece of legislation. He said that the test of our progress is not whether those who have much get more but, rather, whether those who have little get enough. This piece of legislation that we will be voting on, even with the proposed amendment, the Pomeroy amendment, really does give those who have much even more while those who have little get very, very little. We strongly support the middle class tax cut. That has always been our position. We think President Obama was quite correct in announcing his support for the middle class tax cut. We think that the Republican position of even greater wealth and lower taxes for those who have much--not just a little much but a great, great deal of the wealth of America--is not justified. Therefore, we stand in support of the proposed rule, and we will speak later on the bill.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, later today we're going to vote on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is a personal thing. I know a young gentleman who was in the Army, a graduate of West Point, extraordinary young African American. He's had two tours in Iraq, brought his company back safely from both tours without loss or injury to any member of his company. But he also honored the commitment of the military not to lie and to be honest and straightforward. He was gay, and he was drummed out of the military. It is an enormous loss to America. I have no doubt that this gentleman would be a general and could probably rise to the highest ranks of the military. We have to change the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Later today, we'll have a chance to do that, and I'm sure that our colleagues, in recognition of the need of this Nation for well-qualified men and women in the military, will do away with this policy and set in place an opportunity for every American to serve this country, wherever and whatever their circumstances might be.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Shea-Porter, thank you so very, very much. We have just a minute left. As you were speaking from your heart about the status of Americans today, I was thinking about last fall when I took my family down to the Roosevelt Memorial. On one of the placards carved in the stone is his statement: The test of America's progress is not that those who have much should have more but that those who have little should have enough. Isn't that where we are today? Isn't that what FDR was saying in the 1930s during the Great Depression? Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We appreciate the hour to discuss this very, very important issue.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, once again, you speak with great wisdom and with a sense of history. It is about choices. Apparently, the Republicans and the President want us to take $140 billion, $150 billion, $160 billion and give it to the wealthiest of Americans, to the top 2 percent, as if they need help. What if we took that money and invested it in--oh, I don't know-- green technology? in wind turbines? in solar or in buses and transportation? $150 billion, what would it buy? I would suggest, with the first $70 billion, in year one, invest in teachers and in schools. With the next $70 billion or $80 billion, invest in--well, let's build the great manufacturing sector once again in the great Northeast; 160 years ago, my great, great grandparents left the textile mills in your territory, Ms. Shea-Porter, and moved to California. It was good for them, but it left the great Northeast without the textile industry. You are trying to rebuild your industries--health care technologies and other kinds of advanced technologies--which could use the incentive of $70 billion. Ms. Shea-Porter, we've got another 5 minutes. Why don't you take four of those, and then we'll wrap in the last minute.