Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank him for his leadership on issues that relate to the health and well-being of the American people. I also commend the leadership of the previous speaker, Mr WAXMAN, and our ranking member on the Ways and Means committee, Mr. Levin. They have been two champions on the subject of health care in America--and doing so in a fiscally sound way.

While I appreciate and share the concerns here--and I will speak to that--I do think that we have to think carefully about the decision that we make. I know that they have.

The leadership is bringing this bill to the floor on a short fuse, with an expiration date of March 31, without most people in this room having ever seen what is in the bill, which is a missed opportunity.

We should be considering right now a bill that would permanently speak to the SGR. For those in the public, I know it is inside baseball talk, SGR. That is the rate that docs are compensated for treating Medicare patients.

So don't think of SGR--think of the patients. That is what we are doing here. Think of the certainty that they need in terms of their health care, and that is our seniors. Think of the certainty that a permanent fix, paid for or not--but let's say paid for--would mean to remove the uncertainty from this debate.

The American Medical Association is opposed to this bill that is on the floor today because it is a patch.

How many times have you heard people talk about a Band-Aid? We are just putting a Band-Aid on it. We are not getting to the underlying challenge that we face. This is a Band-Aid, and that is why the docs oppose this patch.

I did hear the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) say, If you don't like these pay-fors, suggest your own. Well, we have suggested our own. It is called OCO. It is the Overseas Contingency Operations. The Republicans said that is a gimmick, but it wasn't a gimmick when you put it in the Ryan budget. It is in the Ryan budget. So it works for you where it works for you, but you don't want to put it to work for America's seniors.

So here is the thing. The Senate majority and the House majority came together to produce this patch--this Band-Aid. It is the wrong way to go. It does not address the underlying problem.

We could have done that. We have been trying to do it for 10 years, and it is always, always, always something that the Republican majority has backed away from and limited and done on a short fuse.

There are so many things that are wrong with this bill, but the simple fact is that the clock is ticking, and on March 31, it is bad news for seniors and for the doctors who treat them and the Medicare program.

Our seniors depend on Medicare. They depend on Medicare, and this is a weakening of it. It is just the same old-same old let's see what we can do to find some pay-fors that really undermine the health and well-being of the American people.

Those same pay-fors, done properly, could be part of a permanent fix, but instead, they are part of the Band-Aid. So this is all to say to my colleagues: you are going to have to make your decision as you weigh the equities.

Is it better to just succumb to what we have, no matter how mediocre and how missed an opportunity it is? Or is it better to say: Let's hold out until our Republican colleagues agree to the full SGR, essentially, a fix forever, paid for by OCO?

It is really important to note the following: the shorter the fix, the more expensive it is. We have been seeing that year in and year out. If we had dealt with this, say, 6, 7 years ago, it would have cost much less than it is to patch 1 year to the next, sometimes less than a year to the next.

This is not about reducing the deficit. It is not about the good health of the American people. It is just an ideological reality that we have to deal with from the Republican side of the aisle.

So when the docs--the AMA--says, We are opposed to this, vote it down, that is important to us. I say to them, Talk to your Republican friends, they have the power to do a permanent fix paid for by OCO; they refuse to do it.

So we have something less good that we can do for the American people, and if this sounds a little confusing, it is because it is; and Members have to make the decision as to whether they will vote for this, just because we are forced into it, or whether they want to hold out for something much better.

This would be a more appropriate debate a month ago, where the clock does not run out over the weekend, but this is a tactic. It is a technique used by the majority to force the hand without the proper weighing of equities in all of it.

So, my colleagues, I just urge you to try to weigh those equities. I, myself, come down on the side of supporting the legislation because, frankly, I believe that any uncertainty in the minds of our seniors about their ability to see their doctors will certainly be--the Republicans will say this is because of the Affordable Care Act, and I just don't want to give them another opportunity to misrepresent what this is about.

If the Affordable Care Act never existed, we would still be here debating SGR. They are two separate subjects; but as we know, any excuse will do to undermine the great legislation that the Affordable Care Act was about, life, a healthier life, the liberty of people to pursue their happiness because they had the freedom to do so--better quality, lower cost, more accessibility.

So that is how I come to the conclusion of let's not give them another false claim. Let's just get this done, but let us not give up on the prospect, even before this expires, of having a long-term, permanent fix to SGR.

It makes all the sense in the world. It has no partisanship about it. It is sensible, and it will cost less to do more for our seniors. The challenge is there. The solution is clear. The Republicans have rejected it, so we are at their mercy.

My conclusion is to vote ``yes.'' Members will have to come to their own conclusions on it. I, frankly, wish that the Republicans, in their power, would have brought the bill to the floor under a rule, so we could have a proper debate on it, instead of requiring a 290-vote requirement to pass it.

With the shortness of receiving this information, only this morning, Members are finding out what it is. It is really hard to predict who will vote pro, who will vote con, who will vote ``aye,'' who will vote ``no.'' This is really a silly decision to bring this to the floor in this form when we know the path that is much better.

I am not going to give you another reason to go out there and make your claims about the Affordable Care Act, which have no basis in fact.

With that, I urge my colleagues to pray over it, as I will.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source