Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

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

Madam Speaker, here's the bill. Here is the health care bill folks have been talking about. Do you know what's in it? Most Members don't.

Under the guise of children's health, there is a hidden tax on every single private health insurance policy in the Nation. Every one. Why? Because the desire of those on the left to gradually move every American to Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care is so strong they will stop at nothing.

Their desire is to end the ability of patients and their doctors to make independent choices and decisions. As a physician, I know how detrimental the government can be to quality health care.

In addition, this bill will end the choices and freedoms that 8 million seniors currently have on Medicare Advantage, cutting Medicare to 8 million seniors.

Now, the left will pass this bill today because they can under a gag rule. That doesn't make the process or the policy correct. This is not what the American people want nor what they deserve, and they are watching.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wonder if my friend is aware of the fact that the letter she is submitting to the Record or asking the House to allow for submission into the Record has significant conflicts.

Madam Speaker, I am not certain that she recognizes that, in fact, AARP, which is the letter that she provided earlier for the record, in fact, AARP is in competition for health insurance policies with Medicare Advantage. That's the dirty little secret that nobody wants you to appreciate.

So when these letters are put in the Record, it may seem that there are wonderful endorsements out there for this program. However, in fact, that isn't the case. It isn't the case with the AARP letter that was provided, and it likely isn't the case with the letter that has been provided right here.

So I think it's incumbent upon all Members of this Chamber to appreciate where people stand, and where we stand is to make certain that Medicare recipients receive the Medicare policies that they currently have. Under Medicare Advantage, we believe that those individuals ought to be able to continue to receive those policies.

In fact, what the other side is trying to do is to cut Medicare. That's exactly what they are doing, is cutting Medicare. They are doing it under the guise of covering children. That's not we believe is appropriate. We believe that individuals ought to have the flexibility

and choices in their health care policies, in their Medicare policies.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that that was the letter that was requested to be inserted earlier, and the gentleman himself objected to it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity.

I have in my hand here a letter from the American Association for Homecare, Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis, the COPD Alert, the Council for Quality Respiratory Care, and the National Emphysema/COPD Association asking us not to vote for this bill that would enact cuts in their programs.

As a physician, I understand the negative consequences of greater governmental involvement in health care.

This bill will cut Medicare benefits. It will tax every single American with private health insurance.

Now, why would they do this? Why would they pass a bill like this? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is because they can. But their motives are laid bare. Their motives are laid today.

The true desire of those on the left is to gradually and enticingly move all Americans to Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care. Read the bill. Read the bill. It's right there.

It's not what we ought to be doing. It's not what Americans want. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for accepting the amendment. It is a commonsense way to begin this process that lacks a lot of common sense.

I wish to commend my colleague from Georgia for beginning the process of fiscal responsibility on this next appropriations bill. I would point out, however, that this bill spends $1.04 billion more than last year, an increase of 5.9 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there aren't many folks across this Nation who got a 5.9 percent increase in their budget this year. So, I think that the amendment of my colleague from Georgia is an appropriate effort to try to begin the process of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here supporting this amendment because as we attempt, and thank goodness we have the support of the majority on this small attempt, to begin to decrease bureaucracy, we are faced with a significant and huge increase in bureaucracy coming later this week.

I say that because my friend, the chairman of the committee, says, well, our goal here is to not finish the business. No, Mr. Chairman, our goal is to bring focus to an issue and to a bill that will not be allowed to get the focus that this bill gets. Because, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House that will bring bills to the floor later this week will be of such a nature that Members of the House won't be able to come to the floor and talk about it. They won't be able to come to the floor and offer amendments in an open and deliberative process. They won't be able to exercise the right that they felt, and certainly their constituents felt, they would be given by being elected to this august body.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Does the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my friend yielding.

Isn't it true that the reason you are concerned about this bill is because of the amount of spending in this bill puts in jeopardy health care for our seniors?

Madam Chairman, point of order.

As I understand the Chair's ruling before, individual Members must confine their comments to the amendment at hand.

Is there a ruling from the Chair?

Parliamentary inquiry.

I have noticed that the Chair has qualitatively ruled on the nature of Members' comments on the floor as it relates to confining their comments to the amendment. I would suggest that is not an appropriate compliance with the rules of the House.

I thank the Chair.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 36: Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 31: Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 32: Page 2, line 23, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 33: Page 2, line 26, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 34: Page 4, line 4, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 35: Page 5, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.