Rob Andrews: “My understanding is my friend, the chairman's objection is based on the principle of germaneness. The underlying bill…”

“My understanding is my friend, the chairman's objection is based on the principle of germaneness. The underlying bill, by its very title, purports to protect Americans who have received a cancelation notice for a policy that they want to keep. Now, there is a disagreement here over how to protect those Americans. The underlying bill does not have requirements that State insurance commissioners act to protect those individuals. Our plan does. Our plan does. This is a disagreement over the means to protect American consumers. The underlying bill says we will trust the insurance industry. Our bill says, no, we will enforce the insurance laws. I would respectfully submit this does not rise to a difference in germaneness. This is a difference of opinion. The bill on the floor purports to protect the Americans that I talked about. We think it doesn't. Our plan does protect those Americans in a different way. The underlying subject matter of this bill is how do you protect Americans who wish to keep the insurance plan that they have. We believe we have a more effective way of doing that. The majority disagrees. The House deserves a vote on that. No technicality, no procedural nicety should deny us the chance to take a vote on whose plan is right. We should proceed with this vote. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to speak to the point of order? Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.…”