Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, just to reiterate that there are no Federal funds in this bill to cover abortion, there was an amendment in the Senate by Senator Nelson which made that clear. It is crystal clear. There should be no debate about it, and anybody here on the floor who is saying that somehow it does is just plain wrong. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I don't know how to respond to that tirade. Let me just say this. The reason why this bill is good is because it insures 32 million people right now in this country who don't have insurance. The reason why this bill is good is it's going to ultimately contain the costs that average families and small businesses have to deal with right now with the rising cost of health care. The reason why this bill is good is it prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. We have heard story after story where people were denied insurance because their preexisting condition was acne. I mean, we have heard stories where insurance companies have cut people off from insurance because their weight was wrong on the application. I mean, we have heard stories where women have been denied insurance because their preexisting condition was they were a victim of domestic violence. I mean, give me a break. We are supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in this country. We should be talking about how we solve these problems, not all these rhetorical flourishes that are just misinformation, blatant misinformation. Enough. Let's get down to what matters, and that is doing something for the American people. I know it may not be convenient for your elections in November. I know, you know, you're all trying to figure out how do you deny President Obama any victory. How do we obstruct the process? You here in this House, your friends over in the Senate who used the filibuster over and over and over again. People are sick of that. People want us to help deal with this issue that, quite frankly, is becoming an issue that they can not handle because the costs are going up and up and up. Small businesses aren't hiring people because their health insurance costs are going up. Average families are going bankrupt when someone gets sick. So let's do the right thing. I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. I think the gentleman from Georgia nicely summed up the tone of the opposition. They'd rather engage in name-calling than at finding solutions. Grand Old Party, indeed. Let me tell you what I think incompetence and ignorance is, Madam Speaker. That's allowing 46 million Americans to go without health insurance. It's putting profits over patients. It's allowing insurance companies to discriminate for preexisting conditions. We can do better. This is the United States of America. We can do better for our people. At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. McGOVERN. Give me a break. That somehow Republican ideas have helped anybody in this country dealing with the high cost of insurance, it's ridiculous. In California alone, 8 million people last year went without health insurance. That's about 25 percent of all Californians under the age of 65; 25 percent in California, where they have some of the strongest malpractice laws in place. I mean, this is crazy. The fact is that people are struggling to pay for their health insurance. And people who pay for it ought to be able to get the insurance that they think they're going to get. We have a situation now where it's not just we have to worry about the uninsured; we have to worry about people with insurance who all of a sudden find themselves sick or a loved one sick and find for crazy reasons that they are somehow going to be denied coverage. This is the United States of America. We could do better. We can have the best for everybody. Why not? At this point I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just state for the record that this has been an incredibly open process. And when I contrast it to the way my friends on the other side of the aisle handled a similar bill related to health care, and that was the prescription drug bill, I don't know what they are complaining about. When they brought up the prescription drug bill, this is what it looked like, and it was given to the Rules Committee less than an hour before we were asked to vote on it, and then it was rushed to the floor a total of 27 hours between the time it was brought to the Rules Committee and the time Members were asked to vote on this bill. Contrast that to what we have done on this health insurance reform effort. President Obama began with a health care summit at the beginning of 2009. Republicans and Democrats were invited and participated. Over the past year and a half, the House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. We heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrat and Republican. Two hundred thirty-nine amendments were considered, 121 amendments were adopted. You know, this is the big lie that we are hearing from the other side that somehow this has been a closed process. The Rules Committee will convene on the health insurance reform bill with C-SPAN cameras present. So this has been an incredibly open process. And I want to commend the Speaker of the House and the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for this open process, in contrast to the way they did their prescription drug bill, and just shoved it before the Rules Committee without anyone being able to read it. So I think that this has been an open process, and we stand by it. But do you want to talk about process? Let's talk about the process by some of the big insurance companies in this country that routinely deny people coverage for the most silly reasons. They do it because they can. In some States, Madam Speaker, believe it or not, insurance companies consider domestic violence as a preexisting condition. I mean, does anybody here think that is acceptable? And the gentlelady's home State of North Carolina, they are one of the States that still allow domestic violence against women to be used as an excuse to deny somebody health insurance. That is unconscionable, and the bill that we are talking about will fix that. They were in charge for a lot of years, too many years, if you ask me. They drove this economy into a ditch. And during all that time, they did nothing, nothing, to deal with the rising cost of health insurance that families and small businesses face each and every day. They did nothing about the insurance companies denying people insurance because of preexisting conditions. They did nothing to deal with this issue that domestic violence in some States, including the State of North Carolina, can be used as a preexisting condition to deny somebody health care. So we need to do what is right for the American people, and enough of the misinformation and enough of the lies and enough of the distortions. We need to do what the people want, and that is, fix this health insurance industry that we have in this country that, quite frankly, has denied millions and millions of people in this country insurance. And even those who have insurance have found out as they have been wheeled to the operating room that their insurance didn't cover what they thought. The time is now for reform, and we are going to do that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1190 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through the calendar day of Sunday, March 21, 2010. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. The rule also provides that the Speaker shall consult with the minority leader on the designation of any matter considered for suspension. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions. And I want to remind my colleagues that any legislation passed under suspension of the rules still must receive at least a two-thirds vote. This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we recess for the upcoming district work period. A list of suspension bills will be provided by the majority leader at the appropriate time. We expect a number of important bills to be considered. Additionally, we expect the Rules Committee to meet again to make several other rules in order. Before I reserve my time, let me just state the obvious. We are waiting for the health care bill to ripen and be ready for floor consideration. While we wait, there is business that this House must attend to, and this rule helps us do that. But let me be clear. We will vote on the health care bill in the next few days. We will do so with a publicly released CBO score that shows the health care bill does not increase the deficit; in fact, it reduces the deficit. And we will do so while allowing 72 hours for anyone who wants to read and analyze the bill before we vote on it, and we will do so knowing that we will insure 32 million people, 32 million people who currently lack health insurance today. Madam Speaker, this rule simply allows the House to conduct business until that health care bill is ready to come to the floor for a final vote, a vote which I am confident will prevail. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1190.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just yield myself 30 seconds to remind my colleagues that there's a cost to doing nothing. There's a cost to embracing the status quo, as my Republican colleagues have suggested. For middle-income families alone, the number of uninsured people in this income group would increase by 7.3 million people. That's in the middle-income categories. Is that the direction we want to go? To force millions and millions of more people into the ranks of the uninsured, which will ultimately add to our deficit and to our debt? I don't think so. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. You want to talk about process? Over the past year and a half the House held nearly 100 hours of hearings. In 83 hours of committee markups we heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrat and Republican. Two hundred thirty-nine amendments were considered, and 121 were adopted. I think that's a pretty good process. I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm the final speaker, so I would yield to the gentlelady to give her closing, and I'll reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that there won't be a vote on health care in the next few days. Nothing could be further from the truth. My friends on the other side of the aisle are very good at making things up. Let me be clear: This House will vote to move the Senate bill forward. The process will work. The President will have a bill to sign and the Senate will have a set of corrections and improvements to the bill, much of what we have done here in this Congress. We will have corrections and improvements to the bill that President Obama will sign into law. This idea that the House will not vote on the health care bill is simply not true. It is I guess a good smoke screen, but it is simply not true. Madam Speaker, our friends are using this previous question to hide the fact that they simply do not want to improve the health care system, that they prefer to leave 32 million people uninsured. Because that is what will happen if we do nothing. And that they are happy to have skyrocketing insurance premiums and health care costs drive our country into further economic distress. No one in this Chamber, no Member of Congress has to worry about their health insurance. Why can't the American people have the same plan and the same choices and the same assurances as us? Why do my Republican friends think that somehow we should have some sort of special privilege? You know, if it is good enough for us, the American people ought to have the same thing. And that is what this bill would do. For political purposes, Republicans have been against this important reform from the start. Remember, it was Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican, who said that Republicans must oppose this plan at all costs, and that its defeat will be President Obama's, quote, ``Waterloo.'' The debate and votes that we are going to have are simple. You are either on the side of the patients or on the side of the big insurance companies. You are either on the side of people who no longer want insurance companies to discriminate against them because of preexisting conditions or you are on the side of the status quo and the special interests. Let me close with one example. Eight States, including North Carolina and the District of Columbia, do not have laws that specifically bar insurance companies from using domestic violence as a preexisting condition to deny health coverage. Now, just think about that for a minute. In 2010 in the United States of America a woman can be denied health care because she has gotten beat up by a husband or a boyfriend. That is wrong. That is unconscionable. That has to change. And we are going to change it. I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Stand with the American people who are sick and tired of waiting for Congress to act on health care. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that properly belongs before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with demanding our troops come home, including forcing that debate by using the privileges of the war powers resolution. There is nothing unpatriotic in demanding that our troops and their families, their neighbors and their communities be told when they are coming home. And Mr. Speaker, there is every reason to debate how we go after al Qaeda and how we create a flexible, mobile, global strategy able to track, find, counter, and strike al Qaeda cells wherever they might be. And there is no reason to run away from a debate over whether 100,000 boots on the ground in Afghanistan is the best strategy to eliminating al Qaeda once and for all. I do not doubt that our brave military men and women can and will achieve military successes in battle after battle after battle. But are Afghanistan's tribal disputes going to be solved on the battlefield or at the political negotiating table? And if it is going to take a political solution to resolve centuries of grievances, then who is willing to stand at the front of this Chamber and declare how many American lives that is worth? Mr. Speaker, President Obama has said he will begin to bring our troops home next July, but he didn't say when the job will be complete. Representative Kucinich says let's bring them home by New Year's Eve, this year. We must continue to debate this issue, debate it today, debate it on the supplemental, debate it on defense bills. Let's debate it when we are begging for resources so our kids can go to quality schools, when we are trying to find the money so every American has a decent job and affordable health care, so we can maintain our roads and our bridges and our waterways, so we can guard our ports and our borders, so we can keep our cops on the beat and our seniors safe in their homes. Let's debate the war in Afghanistan, how we will pay for it, how it will end, when it will end, and when our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors will be able to come home. Let us continue to ask the hard questions and demand straight answers until we get it right and all our troops are safely home. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the author of the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.