THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000 -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2000)

   I think it would be a tremendous disservice to those advocates of those bills and, frankly, those opponents of the bill to deny the opportunity for this Congress to do its work, to take these issues important to our times, and to debate them.

   Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

   Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I really agree with a lot of what the gentleman of Pennsylvania (Mr. GREENWOOD) is saying. My concern is, what happens with all of these physicians if we go to debate, if the Coburn amendment passes, and then the bill, then we all have to vote on the bill, and how will those physicians feel if we vote against a bill we support because of this?

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. REYNOLDS), a highly valued member of the Committee on Rules. We only have highly valued members in the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. Today, as I have listened to this debate, we have people supporting this rule, some not in love with it, but in support of it from the most liberal perspective of our viewpoints in this House to some of the most conservative.

   Today, as we have this rule before us, it is an appropriately structured rule. The proposed legislation makes dramatic changes in current law. The rule provides for comprehensive debate. Six amendments of the 12 submitted were included. Everyone but the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GREENWOOD) was granted an amendment. He was not granted an amendment, and he supports the rule this evening.

   The amendments offered cover most of the contentious parts of debate throughout this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and let the debate begin.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the fact that he said that all members of the Committee on Rules are doing a reasonably decent job. I hope it will include me along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. REYNOLDS) in that group.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. There are 220 Members, Mr. Speaker, who are cosponsors of the legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), and a commitment was made that we would move ahead with this bill.

   I know that there are some people who are not ecstatic with the way that this rule has been structured. But the fact of the matter is we have done what we could to move this legislation forward.

   So it sounds like we are going to have a vote on the previous question that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) will be pursuing. I hope very much that we will defeat the previous question and move ahead and pass this rule. We have a responsibility to move legislation.

   The Speaker has said that he hopes very much that Members will vote in support of this rule so that we can move the package forward. Arguments have been made on both sides of the aisle by a number of our colleagues that if one is a supporter of this rule, do not stand behind the procedure and cast a no vote on the rule, because this is the opportunity that we have to move ahead with this legislation.

   So I would also say to Members on both sides regardless of one's position on the issue, even if one is not a supporter of the legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL). Let us have a debate on the measure and then allow the House to work its will.

   So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the previous question, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule so that we can have the opportunity here to have what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT) likes to describe as a full, wholesome, and hard-hitting debate.

    

[Time: 22:00]

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SHIMKUS). For clarification, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. GOSS) has 2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. ROTHMAN).

   Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to rise as a cosponsor and in support of H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act .

   We are here today to restore a sense of balance to a health care system that is now dominated by the health care insurance companies. H.R. 1304 will put doctors on a level playing field with the giant health care companies. Specifically, it will allow doctors to join together and negotiate the terms and conditions of their HMO contracts without violating the antitrust laws. With the power to bargain collectively, doctors will then have the clout to negotiate for fair terms for their services and for their patients rights.

   When large HMOs dictate all the terms to individual doctors, patients suffer. To make up for low HMO payments, doctors are forced to see more patients each day. When doctors see more patients daily, they are not able to spend the kind of time they want to and need to spend with each patient. Their offices often look like assembly lines because the HMOs and the health insurance companies dictate to the doctors how quickly they must move those patients in and out.

   Doctors and other health care professionals need to be able to negotiate health care service contracts with HMOs and health insurance companies on a level playing field so that their patients can receive the quality health care treatment they deserve.

   Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are rights guaranteed in the first amendment for all Americans. How about for doctors? Defeat the previous question; support H.R. 1304.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), the distinguished author of the bill.

   Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise for two purposes. Although colleagues have referred to this as the Campbell bill, this is the Campbell-Conyers bill. There is no one who has fought as hard as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) for this bill, and that includes me from the very start. I understand shorthand and that people say the Campbell bill, but this is the Campbell-Conyers bill. I am proud of my colleague and proud to stand with him. Both of our names are in this effort.

   Lastly, to the fellow pro-choice Members of this body, NARAL, NARAL, has said that the rule is not a key vote. 

[Page: H5625]  GPO's PDF
NARAL has said the rule is not a key vote. NARAL has said final passage is not a key vote. NARAL has said final passage is not a key vote. The Coburn amendment is a key vote, but not the rule. Please support the rule.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. SHADEGG).

   (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, this bill is clearly well-intended. It attempts to address an imbalance that exists because HMOs are too powerful. I have many HMOs in my State of Arizona. Indeed, more HMOs percentage-wise than perhaps any State in the Nation, and I have fought HMOs and I will continue to fight them through the fight on the Patients' Bill of Rights. But this bill is tragically misguided.

   The discussion we have heard here tonight has been about the power of HMOs and the lack of power of doctors. The reality is that there is an omitted party. The omitted party is the patients. If we empower doctors to unionize, there will be one thing that will happen, mark my words. The cost of health care will go up.

   I love doctors, and they will try to protect patients, but their number one motivation will be to negotiate increased fees for them. The cost of care will go up, and patients will not be protected.

   Many of us on the Patients' Bill of Rights Task Force, many of my colleagues on the other side who fought for patients' rights and this side who fought for patients' rights have fought this battle. We need to empower patients by giving them choice, not unionizing doctors and causing prices to go up.

   Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS).

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HALL) for yielding me this time.

   My colleagues, this bill is so incredibly important that enough Members are cosponsors that could normally pass the bill, 220 Members.

   We have a rule that is laden with poison pills. Solution: defeat the previous question and vote ``no.'' I have an amendment that will cure the problem, I think quite well, but this will give those of us who are definitely pro-choice a way out to get this measure to the floor. Believe me, if this bill does not come up tonight, my colleagues will not see this measure again in the 106th Congress.

   So I urge all of my colleagues, the cosponsors and the friends of Campbell-Conyers, to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

   Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   As Members can tell from the debate, this was a hard rule to write. There are many interested in this. The guiding principle was to try to get this matter to the floor for debate because we think there is a compelling need to have this debate. We have heard many facets of it.

   I heard the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) speak of an obstacle course. Authors of bills often refer to amendments to their legislation as obstacles. Obviously, we all understand why.

   The Committee on Rules made a very fair, I think valiant effort to try to make in order all the amendments that came forward, and we did all but one. The gentleman has spoken to that, and that gentleman is going to support this rule tonight.

   I would suggest that it is very important that we pass this rule. I urge we vote ``yes'' on the previous question.

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

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

   The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

   Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, nays 174, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 364]
YEAS--241

   Abercrombie

   Aderholt

   Archer

   Armey

   Bachus

   Baker

   Ballenger

   Barr

   Barrett (NE)

   Bartlett

   Barton

   Bass

   Bateman

   Bereuter

   Berry

   Biggert

   Bilbray

   Bilirakis

   Bliley

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bono

   Borski

   Boucher

   Brady (TX)

   Bryant

   Burr

   Burton

   Buyer

   Callahan

   Calvert

   Camp

   Canady

   Cannon

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chambliss

   Chenoweth-Hage

   Coble

   Coburn

   Collins

   Combest

   Cooksey

   Cox

   Crane

   Cubin

   Cunningham

   Davis (VA)

   Deal

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Diaz-Balart

   Dickey

   Dingell

   Doolittle

   Doyle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Ehlers

   Ehrlich

   Emerson

   English

   Everett

   Ewing

   Fletcher

   Foley

   Forbes

   Fossella

   Fowler

   Franks (NJ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Gallegly

   Gekas

   Gibbons

   Gilchrest

   Gillmor

   Gilman

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Goodling

   Goss

   Graham

   Granger

   Green (WI)

   Gutknecht

   Hall (OH)

   Hall (TX)

   Hansen

   Hastert

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Herger

   Hill (MT)

   Hilleary

   Hobson

   Hoekstra

   Holden

   Horn

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hutchinson

   Hyde

   Isakson

   Istook

   Jenkins

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson, Sam

   Jones (NC)

   Kanjorski

   Kasich

   Kelly

   Kildee

   King (NY)

   Kingston

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   Kuykendall

   LaFalce

   LaHood

   Largent

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Lazio

   Leach

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   LoBiondo

   Lucas (KY)

   Lucas (OK)

   Manzullo

   Martinez

   Mascara

   McCollum

   McCrery

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McIntyre

   McKeon

   Metcalf

   Mica

   Miller (FL)

   Miller, Gary

   Moakley

   Mollohan

   Moran (KS)

   Morella

   Murtha

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Ney

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nussle

   Oberstar

   Ose

   Oxley

   Packard

   Paul

   Pease

   Peterson (MN)

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Pombo

   Porter

   Portman

   Pryce (OH)

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Rahall

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Reynolds

   Riley

   Rogan

   Rogers

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Roukema

   Royce

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Salmon

   Sanford

   Saxton

   Scarborough

   Schaffer

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shows

   Simpson

   Skeen

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Souder

   Spence

   Stark

   Stearns

   Stenholm

   Stump

   Stupak

   Sununu

   Sweeney

   Talent

   Tancredo

   Tauzin

   Terry

   Thornberry

   Thune

   Tiahrt

   Toomey

   Traficant

   Turner

   Upton

   Vitter

   Walden

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Watkins

   Watts (OK)

   Weldon (FL)

   Weller

   Weygand

   Whitfield

   Wicker

   Wilson

   Wolf

   Young (AK)

NAYS--174

   Ackerman

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Baird

   Baldacci

   Baldwin

   Barrett (WI)

   Becerra

   Bentsen

   Berkley

   Berman

   Blagojevich

   Blumenauer

   Bonior

   Boswell

   Boyd

   Brady (PA)

   Brown (FL)

   Brown (OH)

   Campbell

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Carson

   Clayton

   Clement

   Clyburn 

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents