House Republicans Play Games with Children's Health Care on the Floor
Lauren Brooks
Editor's note: Today, Lauren Brooks joins our regular cast and crew. Next month, Lauren will be graduating from Willamette University - where she's the opinion editor for the university newspaper. She'll be reporting regularly from the hallways of the State Capitol for the rest of the session.
Tensions were high over at the Capitol today during the House debate on the Healthy Kids Plan, House Bill 2201. The bill, which creates the Healthy Kids Program by increasing tobacco taxes, would provide funding to expand health insurance coverage for eligible children in households with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level. There are currently over 100,000 children in Oregon without health insurance, perhaps explaining why there were so many people in attendance to support the bill, many sporting shirts that read “Affordable Health Care - the Time is Now!”
The debate took an interesting turn, however, when the House came to a deadlock after Rep. Lim refused to vote. The Republicans had already spent a substantial amount of time obstructing the vote, beginning with Rep. Girod moving to re-refer the bill back into the Ways and Means committee and continuing when Rep. Krummel moved to adjourn until Friday morning. At one point many of the Republicans walked out, causing a lack of quorum and the need for a call to the House (where the sergeant-at-arms must look for absent members). Long after Rep. Barnhart’s initial move to vote on the bill, everyone eventually came together.
But when Rep. Lim refused to vote, everything came to a halt. Every member on the floor is required to vote in order for things to move forward, but when the Speaker reminded him that voting was mandatory, Rep. Lim maintained that his right to speak to the bill had been denied. Both sides had apparently previously discussed limiting debates on bills in the interest of time, but despite this and the fact that Rep. Lim would still be able to speak during remonstrances, he still wouldn’t vote. This essentially caused a House lockdown in which no one was allowed to leave the floor.
So what was the purpose of all this? There were only 32 “yea” votes, and the bill needed 36 votes to pass, so clearly Rep. Lim’s vote one way or another made no difference. But by refusing to vote he effectively caused a standstill, wasting everyone’s time and putting other important bills and committee meetings on hold. Given the fact that the Republicans were caucusing in the bathroom, this underhanded tactic most likely had all of their support.
Additionally, because of their delay on the vote, Republicans caused Rep. Holvey to miss his scheduled flight to attend the wedding of his son, an Iraq veteran. Although Rep. Holvey’s office didn’t want to comment on the rumors, it was said that those in the House knew what was going on and yet Rep. Lim still didn’t vote, effectively forcing Holvey to remain at the Capitol. Additionally, Rep. Chris Edwards was scheduled to film a commercial with the Boy Scouts and was also prevented from doing so.
In the end, Rep. Lim was found to be in violation of House rules, and the House moved on without his vote. What this experience ultimately demonstrates is that the House Republicans are willing to do more than just deny Oregon’s children affordable access to health care. In addition to interfering with important events in the lives of their colleagues, they are also willing to undermine the effectiveness of the parliamentary process, and all at the cost of important public policy. While it’s true that politics may be a game, it’s always disappointing to discover just how little some people play by the rules.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 26, '07
To make matters worse today, R's were playing cards and one representative pulled out a bed roll, pillow, suitcase and ear plugs and took a nap on the House floor.
I doubt this is the type of "leadership" Oregonians expect.
117,000 children, in fact every Oregonian, deserves more.
7:41 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
R- Representative Sal Esquivel (HD6) voted No to providing health care to Oregon's uninsured children. How could he vote to protect the profits of big tocacco before protecting the health of over 100,000 uninsured Oregon children? Call him up and ask him. (503 986 1406)
Apr 27, '07
However, this is the worst possible health care policy. Period.
You don't fund provide health care for one group whose health care is unfunded by shifting the financial burden onto the health-damaging behavior of another group whose health care costs will continue to grow and be increasingly unfunded. Period.
Apr 27, '07
All Lim asked for was the right to speak on the bill, then he would cast his vote.
If Merkley had given Lim five minutes to address the Chamber, he could have spared all of the members three agonizing hours on the floor doing nothing.
Make no mistake: it was Jeff Merkley who made the conscious decision to obstruct the operations of the chamber and waste the "people's" time.
Merkley even got so gavel-happy at the end, that he closed the vote before Greenlick could perform a procedural maneuver to bring the bill back.
Merkley's zealotry yesterday guaranteed that HB 2201 is dead, and cannot be brought back. All in all, it was a pretty embarassing day to be a House Democrat.
Apr 27, '07
I would congratulate Speaker Merkley on his role yesterday. Those situation are stressful and he handled it like a pro.
8:21 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
Kevin: You are completely incorrect. The House rules do NOT allow anyone to speak while a vote is in progress. While Lim demonstrated a clear contempt for the House rules, Merkley does not share his disdain. After a vote has begun, the rules demand that every member vote--they do not allow for speeches. Parliamentary rules are by their nature very clear-cut and unambiguous, so any attempt to blame the Speaker is transparently goofy as all hell.
Furthermore, if you think Healthy Kids is dead, you are mistaken. The concept will be amended into another bill or developed as a priority draft. Democrats actually care about healthcare, so they won't give up just because the Republicans gave everybody a headache for an afternoon. You won't find them napping or playing cards while 117,000 kids go without health insurance.
8:26 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
Even though I am disgusted by the Republican tactics (especially Lim's refusal to vote), I'm going to look at the silver lining in all of this. By forcing a second look at this, new methods and new sources for funding will be considered and proposed. This forces Republicans to put their money where their mouth is as far as identifying new funding sources besides the tobacco tax. This is turn makes for more bipartisan consensus which will help the insure the eventual passage of this sorely needed legislation.
This is another reminder for Oregon Democrats to get started now to help increase the Democratic majority in the legislature. Washington State recently passed its own version of Healthy Kids and because of their Democratic majorities in the legislature, it flew threw into law.
Apr 27, '07
It's only a matter of time before Merkley interprets the rules to allow the Sergeant-at-Arms and OSP to compel a legislator to vote.
Apr 27, '07
welcome aboard, Lauren. Thanks for providing news from the capitol. keep it coming!
Apr 27, '07
Fonzie:
Except that the Speaker has the power to select speakers in the queue out of order.
The House rules grant so much power to the Speaker that any attempt to deflect responsibility from the Speaker for what happened is "transparently goofy as all hell" as you so eloquently write.
Even though the concept may not be dead, a new bill will now have to be drafted, wasting considerably taxpayer-paid staff time, all thanks to Merkley's gavel.
9:23 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
Kevin: The House Speaker has no power at all to "select speakers in the queue" during a vote. What are you talking about? No speeches during a vote. That isn't really very complicated, you know.
Nice try. The voting queue had been opened. The House rules do not allow anyone to speak at that time. How much more clear could it be? The Speaker does not have the ability to just change House rules--though I could see how a Republican could get that impression from Karen Minnis' past performance. The Speaker is not a dictator. Furthermore, that our current speaker has demonstrated actual appreciation for and deference to the rules of the institution over which he presides is quite respectable.
How much staff time do you think will really be required to cut-and-paste the entire text of a bill? As much as was required to keep the House up and running while the Republicans napped and played poker?
9:30 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
Except that the Speaker has the power to select speakers in the queue out of order.
Why change house precedent to allow a member to grandstand? Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about the House Republican Caucus' puerile abuse of parliamentary procedure, but one of the reasons why Oregonians voted them out of power is because they refused, in more than a decade of control, to do something about health care.
Their actions yesterday show that their members still don't get it.
Even though the concept may not be dead, a new bill will now have to be drafted, wasting considerably taxpayer-paid staff time, all thanks to Merkley's gavel.
The House Republicans showed yesterday that they were not negotiating in good faith.
My suggestion to House and Senate leadership remains the same. Remove any and all concessions that were made to the bill in an effort bring members of the GOP caucus on board and dis-intermediate the GOP caucus entirely by referring the matter to Oregon voters.
Let their candidates explain in 2008 why they voted against recouping unreimbursed health care from smokers and why they voted against health care for kids.
Apr 27, '07
As said above, the rule is quite clear, if you are inside the bar of the House when the vote is called, you must vote. You may only answer yes or no and may not make a speech if the Speaker has to call your name because your vote was not recorded. The motion to call the previous question was well in order and is established parliamentary procedure. I agree with those above, the Speaker handled this like a pro.
Apr 27, '07
Merkely exhibited enormous patience with the chaos wrought by the right wing; he never raised his voice, never pounded the gavel. Can anyone imagine if Vera Katz were speaker how she'd have handled that? The only thing the Speaker should have done differently was keep everyone there all night, all weekend, until June if necessary, until Lim voted. If anything, the Speaker is too nice to people who don't deserve it. Lim is an idiot acting like a spoiled brat and embarrassing Gresham. A motion to move the question and end debate is 100% legal and 100% appropriate, and by the way it's not a new invention. Lim is one of the longest serving members of the legislature - it's not as though he's never seen a move to call the question happen before, since it has happened in both chambers in every session I'm sure. Life, and politics, is tough. If you're in the queue, and someone ahead of you uses their position in the queue to move the previous question, those are the breaks.
If he can't live by the rules that have existed as long as he's been serving and do his job, he should stop feeding his ego by serving - because ego feeding is all he's ever accomplished. He's a poster child for term limits, unless you think the most pressing need of the state is creation of a Lt. Governor.
Apr 27, '07
Some of us in Gresham have been trying to find someone to challenge Lim in the next election...anyone know a strong Dem in District 50 that might be willing to run?
11:16 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
I wasn't there, but I heard that John Lim wasn't even in the queue... and if so, his complaint is even more ridiculous. True?
To me, the even bigger deal is all the ridiculous game-playing (literal and figurative) by the GOP caucus. They had the votes to win - why not just let everyone discuss their views and have a straight-up vote?
Apr 27, '07
Hate to post twice, but presumably Wayne Scott's comments on another matter (below) will be applied to Rep. Lim? How will he be punished? What punishment does Rep. Scott intend to mete out as the R leader?
“Republicans and Democrats supported rules changes at the beginning of the session to improve the integrity of the House of Representatives,” Rep. Scott said. “I consider any violation of the Rules of the House to be a very serious matter and I believe the Speaker and Chief Clerk would be remiss in their duties if they did not take action to investigate this matter.”
11:35 a.m.
Apr 27, '07
Apparently Lim pouted and sought to martyr himself in some way by holing up in the House Chamber after session, by himself, into the evening. He wasn't there by this morning, but he did spend an extended time in there for no as-yet specified reason.
Apr 27, '07
Fonzie said, "Democrats actually care about healthcare".
Wrong answer -- Democrats actually care about dependency.
Most folks who call themselves Democrats are actually just good ordinary people who are scared. This world is just too big and complicated, so much information and misery, some arbiter is needed to insure that things are all equal -- this is why one sees so much dependence on institutions like state and federal governments and unions.
Ask yourself this, if the Democrats cared so much about healthcare, then why are they trying to fund it in such a contrary and immoral way?
My .02
rightOregon.org
12:10 p.m.
Apr 27, '07
What's contrary and immoral about asking the people who cost taxpayers $3.00 every time they buy a pack of cigarettes to chip $.84 of it back into the health care pool? It makes perfect sense, which is of course why the Republicans are scared to vote against it.
Apr 27, '07
torpidjoe --
I'm not sure where you got your figures even if we assume they were not "made-up", the immorality of tying this scheme to the sick, cancerous behavior of smokers remains.
Think of the twisted incentives. Will we soon see pro-smoking advertisements on television akin to lottery advertising, telling us where our "smoking dollars" go?
Surely you now agree that the Democrat's policy of dependence is wrong.
rightOregon.org
1:09 p.m.
Apr 27, '07
The figures are the accepted numbers on health care costs to Oregon from smoking. The actual cost is $11 per pack, but all except $2.90 are covered by private insurance. The rest is what we pick up the tab for.
You can say it remains, but you have yet to describe what the immorality is. It would seem it's immoral to allow children to live (and die) without basic health care, because allowing people who cannot advocate for themselves to fall sick and die needlessly is immoral IMO.
I've explained why NOT acting in this way is immoral, why is doing something about it immoral?
I'm pretty sure we won't see pro-smoking advertisements on television...since they've been banned since the 70s. (!!)
I don't understand your attempted point about incentives. Why would we need to incentivize smoking? The anticipated reduction in smoking is built into the .84 figure.
1:13 p.m.
Apr 27, '07
As smoking rates decline, health care costs associated with smoking will also decline, leaving more money to deal with health care for kids.
It's a win-win.
Using this thread as an astroturfing vehicle for your crappy blog is beyond lame.