Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as I am sitting here listening to this, I am thinking this must be something like Alice in Wonderland. This is the most bizarre debate I have heard in a long, long time.

We need jobs. We need to be focusing on the American economy. This particular resolution has no sense of reality. I have heard debates here and discussions on the floor about association health plans. I know about association health plans. I was the insurance commissioner for 8 years in California, having to deal with these non-insurance programs that left hundreds, indeed thousands of people, holding the bag when the association health plans went belly up. It doesn't make any sense.

California has had tort reform for 30 years. We have in the law today in America a protection for every individual in America from the onerous hands of the insurance companies that have continued over the years to deny benefits, to make the doctor decisions, and to literally put people's lives at risk--it's called the Patients' Bill of Rights, and our Republican colleagues want to repeal that. We have a law that is in place. It should be implemented.

The cost issues that have been discussed here on the floor are really a discussion about what has taken place in the past. The law has yet to be implemented with regard to cost containment, the oversight of the insurance companies. All of those things are in the days ahead, and a market system is available with the exchanges. You want to talk about market, that is how you get there, with exchanges.

Replace, repeal--how bizarre is that? Americans have a protection. Yesterday, our Republican colleagues voted to remove their protections. They gave to the insurance companies once again the power to regulate their lives. We cannot allow that to happen. This step today is just Alice in Wonderland.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, Members, yesterday we lost a great American, a real hero when Sargent Shriver passed away.

My wife, Patti, and I were honored to be able to call Sarge our friend. He was a great mentor to both of us. Our lives were shaped, inspired, improved by the extraordinary vision and talent of Sargent Shriver when he built the Peace Corps.

We had the awesome experience to join the Peace Corps in its third year and to be assigned to Ethiopia. Were it not for Shriver's leadership, this iconic and pure American program would never exist.

Sargent Shriver became our close friend as the years went by. With each meeting, our love for Sarge grew, as did our respect for his endless enthusiasm and desire to improve the status of all.

In the 1990s, Patti had the opportunity to work closely with Sargent Shriver to spread the Peace Corps to Eastern Europe, Asia, and South Africa. His enthusiasm once again motivated Americans to join the Peace Corps and serve men, women, and children in every part of the globe.

America and the world will miss this compassionate and talented man.

Patti and I send our prayers and condolences to his family, and we will personally miss this amazing individual.

Madam Speaker, this is the most remarkable of all Chambers where discussions take place, because in this Chamber if you say something that is not true, often enough somebody will believe that it's actually true. What I have heard today on the floor I am just going, well, that's a marvelous thing, when in fact our colleagues on the Republican side want to enact reforms that are already in place. Already in place is the Patients' Bill of Rights. No rescisions. No preexisting conditions. Children being able to stay, or young adults being able to stay on their parents' policies until the age of 26. They say they want it--it's already the law of America. Wow. What are we going to repeal? You are going to repeal that?

You want small businesses to be well taken care of? Well, so do we. That's why, if you employ less than 50 people as a small business you don't have any requirements at all. But if you want to provide health insurance to your employees, wow, the government's going to give you a subsidy, 35 percent now, building to 50 percent in the years ahead. What's wrong with that? Where's the harm to small business? What in the world are our colleagues talking about here? I don't get it. It's in the law already.

Everything I have heard here in the last half hour is the law of America. So why are you repealing it? So you can have the insurance companies get another shot at taking over the care of patients, which is exactly what they do, and exactly what I know because I was the insurance commissioner for 8 years in California, and I know what the insurance companies do. They are the ones that make the decisions. We don't want that to happen. That's why the Patients' Bill of Rights is the law in America today. The Patients' Bill of Rights would be repealed by this H.R. 2. Not good for Americans. Not good. Some 30 million people would lose their opportunity for insurance.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to discuss health care this evening.

But before I get to health care, I was notified early this afternoon that a unique, iconic American had died today; Sargent Shriver is no longer with us.

This individual has had an impact on America and the world around us that will last for centuries. He literally created the United States Peace Corps. The idea was developed by him and his brother-in-law, JFK, and put into effect in the first year of the Jack Kennedy administration.

Thousands, indeed over nearly 200,000 Americans, have joined the Peace Corps in the ensuing years. For my wife and I, it changed our life; it changed the path upon which we have traveled. We were the third iteration of the Peace Corps back in the 1960s. We were sent to Ethiopia. We served in a village out in the boondocks of southwestern Ethiopia, and it put in place in our lives the vision that we could and should continue to serve.

We are not alone. Thousands upon thousands of Americans, those that were in the Peace Corps and those that were affected by the Peace Corps here in this Nation, found that same mission of being a life of service.

In the 1990s, Sargent Shriver returned once again to assist the Peace Corps as the Clinton administration undertook the rebuilding and expansion of the Peace Corps. My wife was then working at the Peace Corps as the associate director, and together they and the other staff opened the Peace Corps to the former Soviet Union nations, Eastern Europe and beyond and also to South Africa. It was a period of growth, and once again it was a period in which the Shriver enthusiasm and the Shriver determination to reach out to everyone in this world so that they could have a better life created these opportunities.

We mourn his passage. Our prayers go out to his family and to remind all of us that we too in any way possible should be serving our fellow man.

Sergeant Shriver, we miss you and we know that America and millions of people around the world that were affected by your programs will miss you also.

Let me now turn to another issue that affects every American, their well being, their lives, their ability to get the care that they need when they have health care problems.

On this floor today we began the debate of the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, an extraordinary law that will affect each and every one of us in this Nation; and as it affects us, it will also affect people around the world because this law will help America finally join the other industrialized nations in the world and provide health care to all of our people, not just those who are fortunate enough to be employed by an employer who has found it useful, wise or even correct to provide health care for their employees, but for those individuals that are not so fortunate to be with an employer that does not provide health care, and for those who are unemployed.

This is an extremely important debate going on here on the floor of the House. It's a debate about all of our lives.

It was estimated before this law went into effect that some 30,000 to 40,000 Americans every year lost their lives because they did not have health care. It was too late for them to get their blood pressure under control. It was too late for them to deal with their diabetic situation or their cancer had

run its course so that it was not treatable, 30,000 to 40,000 Americans every year.

That is not the way America should be. We should be providing insurance to all Americans.

On the floor today, the debate commenced, and I was pleased and a bit curious to hear my colleagues on the Republican side talk about repeal and replace. And as they talked about what they would replace, I began to say, Excuse me. Wait a minute. What you're replacing is already the law in America. The health care bill that became law this year deals with every American from birth through their school years, through their years of building a family, in their employment and through their retirement. It deals with the entire cycle of life by providing the opportunity for health insurance, improved health insurance, at every stage of life.

Let me show you how that works. It's the Patient's Bill of Rights, which apparently our Republican colleagues want to repeal. The Patient's Bill of Rights is a fundamental reform of the insurance industry. I was insurance commissioner for 8 years in California, and I understand the insurance industry very, very well. And it's about profit. All too often, the health insurance industry puts profit before people. In doing so, they deny coverage. The Patient's Bill of Rights goes directly to this issue of insurance companies putting profit before people.

Let me show you where this works. Children. My very first speech here on the floor as the health care debate came up in 2009, in November of 2009, I spoke to an individual, a friend of ours who lives here in Washington, whose child was born with a very serious kidney problem. The mother was covered by insurance through the pregnancy and through the delivery. The moment it was discovered that that child had this preexisting kidney ailment, they dropped the coverage on the child. The family struggled and continues to struggle to provide care for that child, limping along trying to get the money together for the next procedure to provide the services that are necessary--the transplant.

All of those things should have been covered by insurance, but with the insurance company putting profit before people, they denied that child coverage. The Patient's Bill of Rights stops that and says that every child has a right to coverage, no longer the kind of discrimination that took place here with my friend's family.

Secondly, young adults. I happen to have had six young adults. All of them have passed through the age 23, and that period where their coverage stopped was the scary time for us in our family, and it is for every other family in America. At the age of 23, insurance companies were allowed to drop patients' coverage. And if you're a 23-year-old and you have any kind of a preexisting condition, you're out of luck. The Patient's Bill of Rights guarantees that that young woman or man will be able to get coverage until the age of 26. And if they have a preexisting condition, that can no longer be a reason to deny coverage. The Patient's Bill of Rights would be repealed by the piece of legislation that will be brought to this floor tomorrow.

If you are a woman, you have a preexisting condition. It is called being a female. And routinely--and I've seen this during my tenure as insurance commissioner. Routinely, the insurance companies would deny coverage because you are a woman and you might get pregnant or you might have any number of conditions. That will no longer be the case.

If you happen to have cancer, you cannot be denied coverage. The Patient's Bill of Rights protects every single American when it comes to getting insurance and keeping insurance.

Many other provisions are in this bill, and I find it astounding that our colleagues on the Republican side would repeal the Patient's Bill of Rights and literally open every single American up to the gross discrimination that the insurance companies have foisted upon Americans for decades putting profits before people.

There are many other parts of the Patient's Bill of Rights, but I want to just take a moment and invite to this conversation my colleague from the great State of New Jersey, Frank Pallone, who has been fighting this fight for decades both as a Member of Congress and as a concerned citizen.

Mr. Pallone, if you will join with us, share with us your thoughts and your experiences, and we will continue on with this discussion. I yield.

Crush. Crush jobs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone.

If it's about jobs, then why are we doing all of this? It's interesting to note, and I heard this debate earlier on the floor here, that this is a job crusher, to be politically correct now, and that businesses are going to lose jobs, when in fact since the bill became law, over 932,000 private sector jobs have been created. So there's no evidence in the large job market that this legislation, the health care reform, has harmed jobs, crushed jobs. It hasn't happened. In fact nearly a million new jobs have been created; 932,000.

In addition to that, this is an extremely important bill for small businesses. This bill, as you said, actually subsidizes the cost of health care for small businesses. If you have less than 50 employees, you can get a subsidy, up to 35 percent, for buying health care for your employees. And if you don't want to buy health care, you don't have to if you have less than 50 employees.

I don't understand this debate about small businesses being harmed. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation has shown that in the last year, probably as a result of this bill--that's their conclusion--the number of small businesses providing health insurance has grown from 46 percent to 59 percent.

That is similar in every district, Republican or Democrat, across the Nation. The number of small businesses may vary district to district, but the point is that every small business has an opportunity to reduce by more than one-third the cost of health care by simply providing health care. And that will grow to 50 percent in just 3 years. It climbs up 35 and then 50 percent in 2014. And in 2014, every State will have an exchange, an insurance marketplace, where small businesses, individuals, can buy health insurance on a marketplace that talks about the quality and the cost so there is competition.

Once again, why would you want to repeal that, where individuals can shop for health insurance in a competitive market? We talk about competition here. Well, let's let it happen. Right now it doesn't really occur because many insurance companies don't compete. There are many, many aspects of this.

I notice that our friend from the great State of Tennessee has joined us. Mr. Cohen, if you will, what is going on in Tennessee? Do they want to repeal this? Do they really want to do away with the patients' bill of rights? The preventative care that seniors are able to get under this bill? The closing of the doughnut hole? Is that what the Tennessee folks want?

Mr. Cohen, thank you very much. You pointed out the nature of the debate taking place on the floor. I listened to much of the debate this afternoon as it was going on, and tomorrow it is probably going to be the same. Like you, I was surprised and in many cases disappointed with the rhetoric that I heard. It simply wasn't based on fact.

They talked about the government takeover of health care. You used the word ``big lie.'' Well, in fact it is not going to happen. This is not the government takeover of health care. There are many who said we simply should take Medicare and expand it to all. Now that is a program that is government collection of the money, but the services are provided by individual doctors, hospitals, and other provider groups. It is not a government takeover; it is a government finance program.

You mentioned the uninsured. Actually, it is about 42 million uninsured in America. They get sick. Who pays for them when they go to the emergency room? They don't have an insurance policy. They are certainly not going to be able to afford the cost of an emergency room and any procedure. Those people who are uninsured do get sick. They do go to the emergency room, and they do get medical care. And who pays, the taxpayer.

In Tennessee, the property tax base. In California, the general tax base and the Federal Government. Here is the clincher: every health insurance policy in the Nation pays for the uninsured. So we have health care coverage. In fact, this law requires that the three of us and all 435 Members of Congress and 100 Members of the Senate will get the exact same kind of insurance that every American gets. We don't get a special deal. In fact, we get to pay for part of it ourselves. That is a fact.

So what about those people that are out there uninsured that get sick. We get to pay for it through our health insurance policies because that cost is shifted over to us, the taxpayer. There is no free lunch here. The question we have is should everybody participate in this insurance pool. I think it is only fair to say that we all participate.

I don't know what I said, Mr. Pallone, that made you come to your feet, but please proceed.

You are quite correct. It is some very simple things which I think all Americans understand. Blood pressure, high blood pressure, the silent killer, people don't know that they have high blood pressure until they get the stroke. And then if they survive, they may very well be paralyzed or incapacitated the rest of their life and take an enormous expenditure every day, every month, every year caring for them in a nursing home or in an extended care situation. That is a very simple thing to understand.

And this piece of legislation provides free preventive care for seniors. Is that what they really want to repeal, that free preventive care for seniors where most high blood pressure cases are found and where most strokes are found? It is a preventive cost.

Mr. Cohen.

If you will yield for a moment, there is a place where the bill can be read, the Web site www.healthcare.gov. It gives the bill. It gives a detailed description of every item in the bill. We have only talked about maybe one-third of the bill here today, and maybe we will go into some of the other parts.

It also talks about the timeline in which the various elements of the bill will go into effect. For example, the senior population: The doughnut hole begins to close. Last year a $250 rebate check to those seniors who are in the doughnut hole, and then, in the next 8 years, that doughnut hole is squeezed shut. And, as Mr. Pallone said earlier, seniors would then have all of their prescriptions covered. It also shrinks the cost of prescription drugs.

That wasn't talked about here earlier today. And if they want to read the bill, they can talk about the coverage options in every part of America--in California, Tennessee, New Jersey, wherever--and specific detail about seniors, about women, those kinds of pieces of information: www.healthcare.gov. You want to read the bill? You want to understand it? I would suggest that our colleagues on the other side, the Republicans, take a look at the bill, itself, and what it does.

Please continue, Mr. Cohen.

Last week, on this floor, many of us tried to put an amendment on this piece of legislation that would read: If the repeal occurs, then every Member of Congress would lose his health care, keeping in mind that 31 million Americans will not have health insurance if the repeal takes place.

So, 435 of us. If the bill is repealed, we should join the 31 million Americans who will not have health insurance if the bill is repealed. It seems to be the least we could do. If we want to harm 31 million Americans, if we want to take away the insurance from 31 million Americans, then, surely, 435 of us should be willing to go without insurance also. It turns out that not one Republican voted for that amendment. I wonder why. They want something that they are going to deny to 31 million Americans.

Mr. Pallone.

Well, I will do my best, and along the way, if my colleagues would join in on any one of these issues, I'd appreciate it.

Health care reform means security and stability for America's seniors.

First of all, despite all the rhetoric on the floor, this legislation actually improves the financial status of Medicare. It extends the solvency of Medicare, I think, by almost a decade.

So it pushes it back to 2023.

Let's just continue on here.

We talked about prescription drugs. It's not only the doughnut hole, but there are certain kinds of generic prescription drugs that would also benefit as a result of this legislation and, of course, the doughnut hole issue, which we've discussed here in some detail.

The doughnut hole is squeezed shut, and initially, this last year, $250. Now, I don't imagine the repeal would force the seniors to refund the $250 check they had. Nonetheless, that doughnut hole would remain wide open if the repeal were to take place. We've talked about the improvement of the quality of senior care, and both of my colleagues here have spoken to this, I think, very correctly.

Preventative care.

Now, we talked a moment ago about high blood pressure--clearly, the silent killer and a major problem for seniors. Okay. You're going to get, free of charge, an annual blood pressure test. You know, it's very simple, very cheap, and the drugs to treat high blood pressure are cheap also, but the cost of not treating it is extraordinary.

There is another one that affects not only seniors but others around this Nation, and that is diabetes. This is an enormous cost. It can be treated. It can be taken care of, but if you ignore it, you are in for a world of harm and a very, very great expense to all of the people, including, in this case, to the taxpayers.

This is an interesting one. Primary care doctors.

Nobody has really talked about this much on the floor, but in the legislation, there is a significant increase in medical education opportunities, not only for doctors but also for others in primary care--nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurses. There is an enormous increase.

This one happens to be really, really important to me. Our daughter graduated from medical school just 3 days ago, and we go, Yes.

She says, I want to do primary care.

I'm going, Terrific. How about geriatric care?--my wife and I are looking to the future here.

This is really important. She has an opportunity under this piece of legislation, as do all other primary care doctors who choose to serve in underserved areas--and she may very well decide to do that--to have their medical loans reduced as they provide service in underserved areas, and some of those underserved areas are in our urban communities.

Now, that brought Mr. Cohen to his feet and Mr. Pallone, so please share, gentlemen.

That has not been discussed.

In every part of America, people need to know about the enormous increase in the community clinics that will be available. That's in the legislation. It costs money, but it saves money because, once again, people will be able to get care early.

Please.

You raised another point. And I recall a conversation with Mr. Cohen in the past where we talked about medical technology, which is also not only in the Affordable Health Care Act, the health care reform, but also in the stimulus bill. And part of what you talked about is the use of electronic medical technology to provide continuity of care; whether you are in this clinic or that hospital, you could be able to get that information across from one to another.

Mr. Cohen, do you want to carry on? You talked to me about this some time ago, and you had some pretty good notions of what would happen in Tennessee.

Some of this, if I might for a moment, sir, already exists.

I've been with Kaiser for three decades. They have put all of the records, all of my history, all of their patients, millions of patients, on the electronic information system. I could present myself at any Kaiser facility across this Nation in an emergency situation and they could take my number and immediately call up my entire history so that they don't have to start at the beginning with blood tests and all of the other procedures that are common in today's emergency room simply to know about the individual's health circumstances. All they need to do is enter that number, bingo, they've got my information. That's where the electronic medical records would be found. And it's interesting that our Republican colleagues want to repeal that? I don't think so.

Finally, at last we're going to hear from a woman. We need that perspective here. Please join us. Thank you so very much for coming in.

I thank the gentlewoman for her insight into the way in which the bill affects her home and her community because that's what all this is about; it's really about the community.

Mr. Pallone, if you would like to take a few moments and wrap, and then I will provide the final wrap here as we close down this 1-hour discussion.

Well, it has become just that.

I think I will wrap with where I started. The health care reform, the Affordable Health Care Act, really is about making life better for every American. From the moment they're born, that young baby, that newborn baby cannot be denied insurance, from the moment they're born, whatever their circumstance is. That's part of the Patient's Bill of Rights, and it starts right at birth. This is where a student, when you graduate from college, you are not only getting a diploma; you are also likely to be losing your health care benefit that you were covered by under your parents.

So it extends coverage to the age of 26. And into a marriage, into a family when you're building a family, you know that you'll be able to get insurance. Thirty-one million Americans are going to be able to get health care insurance as a result of this legislation.

And in the workplace, a lot of talk about this being a job crusher, when in fact it actually creates jobs. And for small businesses, this is an enormous benefit because they will get a subsidy reducing the cost if they choose to provide insurance. If they have 50 employees or less, they don't have to buy insurance. And then later, they'll be able to get insurance through an exchange in 2014. California is probably going to set one up next year.

And for seniors, I've never heard so many inaccurate statements as concerns Medicare and the way in which this bill actually works. It extends Medicare. As you said, Mr. Pallone, for 12 years--the financial solvency's extended for 12 years. Otherwise, it would be just 7 years, and it would be in financial trouble. So this really helps. And for individual seniors, they'll be able to get preventive care; their drug costs are going to be reduced. It is a very, very important part.

So for the circle of life--and all of us would want to go through that circle of life--this health care reform provides a benefit at every stage.

And I'll point out this final thing--and this is an estimate that was made in the last year--some 30,000 to 40,000 Americans every year die because they don't have health insurance. What is that? A stain upon America. Every other industrialized country in the world would do it.

Our Republican friends talk about repeal and replace, but everything I've heard on this floor about replacement is already the law in America. It's already the law.

They talk about lifetime caps; they talk about putting in no rescissions; they talk about no preexisting conditions. That's the law, folks. Our Republican colleagues, read the bill. Go to healthcare.gov. Read the bill. That is already the law. Why in the world would you repeal what is already the law and put this whole thing back at risk?

Don't forget, Americans, the insurance industry, the health insurance industry has dominated American health care for decades. And you think for a moment they're going to let the Republican majority write a bill that is not in their interest; that will force them to provide care; that will force them to pay the bills; that will force the insurance companies to no longer be the death panel? In fact, that's where the death panel is--and this I know.

I was the insurance commissioner. I fought the insurance companies for 8 years of my life when they denied coverage; when they said, You have run out of benefits; when they said, Your policy is going to be rescinded. I fought them. And I know the result when they won that fight: people died.

We need the Patients' Bill of Rights. It should not be repealed.

Tomorrow, our Republican colleagues in H.R. 2--without one committee hearing, with only 2 days of debate on this floor and no committee hearings at all--put Americans at risk. Thirty-one million Americans will not get coverage. That's what this is about.

I look forward to tomorrow's debate, and we will see what happens.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the men and women of the 10th Congressional District, I rise in support of this resolution and bring to this floor their condolences and prayers for the six who were murdered in Tucson and for Gabby and for her speedy recovery.

Patti and I send along our own special prayers and condolences. For those of us that have had the privilege of working with Gabrielle, I add my own special thoughts.

I came to the Committee on Science and Technology where she was the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and immediately saw her incredible intelligence, her charm and wit as she conducted numerous hearings, and came to understand her commitment to America's science and technology and space as she led our committee to the reauthorization of the NASA programs.

I look forward to her speedy recovery and her return to this floor, where she can once again provide her talents and her leadership as she would once again lead us in our efforts to bring about a better understanding, not only of the space and this role of our planet in the cosmos, but also our own personal understanding to each other and to our constituents.

It was a sad day on Saturday, and it will be a bright future when Gabrielle returns to this floor.

Thank you.

There is a lot of talk here on the floor about job killers. Actually this bill, the affordable health care bill, creates some 400,000 jobs. The repeal of it is actually a killer of human beings. Some 40,000 Americans die every year for lack of health insurance. That's the reality. Repeal this bill and you're going to find more Americans dying. Also, you're doing away, with this repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, of the patients' bill of rights. I was the insurance commissioner in California. I know exactly what the insurance companies will do if this repeal goes forward. They will continue to rescind policies. They will continue to deny coverage. They will continue to make sure that those 23-year-old children that have graduated from college will no longer be able to be on their parents' policies.

This repeal is perhaps the worst thing you can do to Americans in their health care. Besides that, you will significantly increase the deficit, by $230 billion.

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 . . .''

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You mentioned the doughnut hole, the prescription drug doughnut hole. Every senior that was in the prescription drug doughnut hole last year, 2010, received a $250 check to help them pay for their drugs. In going forward, the doughnut hole will be lessened and lessened, and eventually, 9 years from now, will disappear. There will be no doughnut hole.

You talked about the quality of care. Extremely important, quality of care. Thank you for bringing that up. More primary doctors, more geriatric care from nurses and doctors, an extraordinary important part of the legislation, not just only for seniors. You also mentioned the community-based and of course the preventative care. All of these things are there, and all of them will disappear if the Republicans are successful with their legislation next Wednesday that will be brought to this floor without one hearing to discuss any of these issues in a relevant policy committee.

Mr. Cohen, please join us.

Well, I'm not sure I heard your question, so please say it again.

Well, I think you are asking me a rhetorical question, because you know the answer and I think most Americans know the answer, that all the industrialized nations--we are not talking about China, but we are talking about Korea, Japan, the European countries, the European Union. All of those countries provide universal health insurance coverage. Universal.

Everyone, including tourists who happen to show up--and this I know from one of my daughters who fell off a stair at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. She fell, went into an emergency room, they took an MRI, bandaged her up, and said, ``Get out of here.'' And she said, ``Well, I haven't paid.'' ``Well, you are covered.'' That was in Italy.

The other countries of the world don't look at it that way. They look at it as a right for their citizens to have access to health care, and they provide the health insurance. There are different ways of doing it. Germany, France, Britain, Canada all do it differently, but they all do it.

Incidentally, the health statistics in all of those countries are considerably better than America, and America is placed at the bottom of the industrialized countries in terms of our health care, how healthy we are, how long we live, how sick we get. We are at the bottom. In fact, we are often with developing countries in the statistics. We spend almost twice as much as any of those other countries.

So the Affordable Health Care Act goes after many, many things beyond the Patients Bill of Rights and the senior issues. Thank you so very much for raising that issue.

We have about maybe 10 more minutes. Mr. Pallone.

We have about, maybe 3 minutes, 4 minutes, and I am going to turn now to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

We are going to wrap this one up. I see the gentleman from Kentucky is here and he will probably carry on with health insurance. Maybe a couple of us will be asked to join him.

We have really today focused on a broad range of issues: The patients' bill of rights; the way in which the repeal would harm individuals who have preexisting conditions; young children from infancy; the 23- to 26-year-old coverage.

We also discussed a little bit about how this affects business and, of course, we went into some detail about senior citizens. All of these are critically important issues. We will be discussing these in the days ahead. I do hope the American public will really pay attention, because this next week, particularly as we move towards Wednesday, is going to be absolutely critical to the American people. It's a question about will all of us in America be able to get health care coverage that is affordable and provides us with the opportunity to have the health care that we need.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.