[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 169 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12984-H12985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial by 
David Broder, Friday, November 13, and the title is ``Half Done on 
Health Reform.''
  Madam Speaker, I'm reading from this editorial some points that I 
would like to share with the House tonight:
  ``At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the Web and 
airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply postpones the cost 
controls needed to finance the vast expansion of insurance coverage and 
Medicare benefits envisaged by its sponsors.
  ``One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker, the former 
head of the Government Accountability Office, the auditing and 
investigating arm of Congress, told me in an interview on Wednesday 
that the lawmakers are `punting on the tough choices rather than making 
sure they can deliver on the promises they're making.'
  ``In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House acted, 
Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, laid out the 
tests that buttress his conclusion.
  ``Acknowledging that `clearly we need radical reconstructive surgery 
to make our health care system effective, affordable, and sustainable', 
Walker cautioned that `what we should not do is merely tack new 
programs onto a system that is fundamentally flawed and rapidly driving 
the national budget into ruin.' ''
  I further read from the editorial: ``A separate Lewin Group study of 
the Finance Committee bill from which Majority Leader Harry Reid is 
working on in the Senate shows it is almost as much of a fiscal failure 
as the House bill.
  ``Walker, a close observer and former employee of Congress, calls 
that assumption `totally unrealistic.' In reading his analysis and the 
comments of the many others who have appraised the House handiwork, it 
becomes clear that unless something intervenes, Congress is headed 
toward repeating a familiar pattern. Just as it did under Republican 
control in the George W. Bush years when it passed but did not pay for 
a Medicare prescription drug benefit, it is about to hand out the 
goodies

[[Page H12985]]

and leave it to the next generation to pick up the bill.''
  Madam Speaker, before closing, as I always do on the floor because my 
heart aches for those who have given their lives in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and those who have been wounded, I ask God to please bless our men 
and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of our men 
and women in uniform. I ask God in His loving arms to hold the families 
who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I 
ask God to please bless the House and Senate, that we would do what is 
right in the eyes of God. And I ask God to give strength, wisdom, and 
courage to the President of the United States that he will do what is 
right in the eyes of God for this country.
  I close three times by asking God please, God please, God please 
continue to bless America.

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2009]

                       Half Done on Health Reform

                          (By David S. Broder)

       While House Democrats spent the week congratulating 
     themselves for squeezing out the midnight passage of their 
     version of health-care reform, neutral observers were 
     reminding them: You've left the job half done.
       Having watched Hillary and Bill Clinton try and fail even 
     to bring their version of health reform to a vote, I can 
     certainly join in saluting Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her 
     leadership team and the Obama White House for maneuvering the 
     1,990-page behemoth to harbor.
       But, as many sympathetic voices have been telling them: 
     Unless you find more realistic ways of paying for the 
     promises included in the bill, you are simply setting up the 
     public for more frustration--and yourselves for a political 
     backlash.
       At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the 
     Web and the airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply 
     postpones the cost controls needed to finance the vast 
     expansion of insurance coverage and Medicaid benefits 
     envisaged by its sponsors.
       One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker, 
     the former head of the Government Accountability Office--the 
     auditing and investigative arm of Congress--told me in an 
     interview on Wednesday that the lawmakers are ``punting on 
     the tough choices, rather than making sure they can deliver 
     on the promises they're making.''
       In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House 
     acted, Walker, now president of the Peter G. Peterson 
     Foundation, laid out the tests that buttress his conclusion.
       Acknowledging that ``clearly, we need radical 
     reconstructive surgery to make our health-care system 
     effective, affordable and sustainable,'' Walker cautioned 
     that ``what we should not do is merely tack new programs onto 
     a system that is fundamentally flawed''--and rapidly driving 
     the national budget into ruin.
       He proposes a four-part test of fiscal responsibility for 
     any health reform plan: ``First, the reform should pay for 
     itself over 10 years. Second, it should not add to deficits 
     beyond 10 years. Third, it should significantly reduce the 
     tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded health promises that 
     we already have. Fourth, it should bend down--not up--the 
     total health-care cost curve as a percentage of'' gross 
     domestic product.
       An analysis by the Lewin Group shows that the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee bill that was the basic blueprint for the 
     House measure comes close to meeting the first of those tests 
     and fails the other three, according to Walker, ``by a wide 
     margin.''
       A separate Lewin Group study of the Finance Committee bill 
     from which Majority Leader Harry Reid is working on the 
     Senate legislation shows it is almost as much of a fiscal 
     failure. It fails the fourth test, falls short on the third, 
     and passes the first two only by assuming that future 
     Congresses will force reductions in reimbursements to doctors 
     and hospitals that lawmakers in the past have refused to 
     impose.
       Walker, a close observer and former employee of Congress, 
     calls that assumption ``totally unrealistic.''
       In reading his analysis--and the comments of the many 
     others who have appraised the House's handiwork--it becomes 
     clear that unless something intervenes, Congress is headed 
     toward repeating a familiar pattern. Just as it did under 
     Republican control in the George W. Bush years, when it 
     passed but did not pay for a Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit, it is about to hand out the goodies and leave it to 
     the next generation to pick up the bill.
       The Senate could still reduce the damage. If it began to 
     move away from the fee-for-service payment system that 
     rewards doctors and hospitals on the quantity of procedures 
     they perform, rather than on the results of the treatment, 
     that would help. If it reduced the biggest single loophole in 
     the revenue system--the tax-exempt status of employer-
     provided health benefits--that would help a lot.
       Otherwise, while congratulating one another for an overdue 
     piece of social legislation, lawmakers could end up 
     condemning our children to a far worse financial future than 
     they deserve.

                          ____________________