[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 42 (Saturday, March 20, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1805-H1810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2130
                           HEALTH CARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have been on 
the floor and heard from my colleague, my physician colleague from 
Texas, in fact, my OB-GYN colleague from Texas, who talked about the 
opinion and read the letters from the Texas Medical Society and also 
the Governor of Texas in regard to their opposition to this bill that 
we are going to be voting on tomorrow, H.R. 3590. In fact, I don't have 
any letters tonight from the State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, but indeed, 
it was the Georgia Medical Association and the Texas Medical 
Association that came together months and months ago, an organized 
effort in many, many other State medical societies and special 
societies across this country, I think, representing some 500,000 
physicians who are in opposition to this legislation, in contrast, Mr. 
Speaker, to the support, I'm still quite astounded by that, the support 
of the American Medical Association.
  But it is important to know, while I respect the American Medical 
Association and their leadership, they represent probably less than 20 
percent of the physicians in this country. And so I think we need to 
always put that in perspective. And again, I'm glad to hear from 
Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess from the State of Texas regarding that.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Democratic majority had the previous 
hour. I had an opportunity both while at home a few minutes ago and 
here on the floor in the more recent moments to hear some of the 
discussion. And it's real interesting to hear some of the comments. And 
I jotted down quickly some of those, and I would like to go over it a 
little bit so my colleagues can understand and get maybe a different, 
more possibly, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, more accurate perspective on 
some of that.
  The gentlelady from California indicated in her remarks that in this 
bill, in this health care reform, that there is absolutely no deficit 
spending. In fact, she talks about something like $100 billion savings 
in the first 10 years, I guess it's calculated by the CBO. Of course, 
Mr. Speaker, we all know the CBO can only work on the numbers given to 
them. And they do a great job. And we are not here to denigrate the 
hardworking men and women of the CBO. They've been working hard for 
over a year and a half now. Every time there's a change, they have to 
re-crunch numbers.
  It's kind of interesting from the historical perspective of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Remember when Medicare, the 
program, was passed in 1965? The CBO and the number crunchers at that 
time said by the year 2010, based on all of the information that we 
have, demographics and how long people live and that sort of thing, by 
the year 2010, this program, although not nearly as costly in 1965, 
will cost about $60 billion in 2010. Well, Mr. Speaker, you and, I 
think, everybody in this Chamber and everybody listening knows that we 
are in the process now on an annual basis in the Medicare program of 
spending about $480 billion, $480 billion a year. We are spending more 
on Medicare than we are spending on our national defense, $480 billion.
  Well, the number crunchers didn't miss it too much, did they? They 
only missed it by $420 billion, just a little small accounting error, I 
guess, you round it off maybe in government speak. So, for the 
gentlelady from California, and I respect my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, but no deficit spending indeed, and to suggest that there 
will be $1 trillion worth of savings in the second 10 years, don't hold 
your breath, colleagues. Don't hold your breath.
  Well, it has been interesting today. It has been real interesting. I 
told the men and women on the west steps and the Mall earlier today, I 
don't know how many were there, Mr. Speaker, but thousands, maybe 
25,000, people from all across the country, who came, I had an 
opportunity to ask some of them how they got here. Some drove, some 
came on buses, some flew, indeed, yes, there were even some from 
California. But God bless them, Mr. Speaker. The Member of the majority 
party in the previous hour referred to them as ``tea baggers.'' He 
called them ``tea baggers.'' I found that highly insulting, Mr. 
Speaker, to these men and women who made that effort to be here. ``We, 
the People,'' another gentleman in the majority party talked about 
``We, the People,'' and referred to ``We, the People'' and talked about 
the Declaration of Independence in order to form a more perfect union 
and that this is a result, this bill, was going to give us a more 
perfect union.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I know you have many on your side of the aisle who 
say we have been trying to pass comprehensive health care health care 
reform for 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. President Theodore Roosevelt 
tried to do it. President Woodrow Wilson tried to do it. President 
Franklin Roosevelt tried to do it. President Kennedy and President 
Johnson tried to do it. More recently, of course, President Clinton 
back in 1993 tried to do it. We almost did it, they said, Mr. Speaker. 
We almost got there, and now here we are right on the cusp of victory, 
as they describe, and tomorrow we are going to get over the finish 
line, we are going to do it for We, the People.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you and my colleagues why we 
have never done it over the past 40, 50 or 60 years, because We, the 
People don't want it. We, the People hate it. They did then, and they 
do now. We, the People have rejected this in every poll that has been 
taken for the last year and a half. And the Democratic majority and the 
Democratic leadership and the President of the United States, they know 
that. They know that. We, the People don't want it. We, the People 
don't want what Otto Von Bismarck had to offer 150 years ago. We don't 
want Western European socialism for this country. We, the People like 
what is written in the Constitution, and that is what we want. And we 
want to make sure that We, the People know that there are some sensible 
men and women in this Congress, in both the House and the Senate, that 
will continue to stand up, right to the 11th hour, with our last 
breath, to stand up for We, the People and to fight off this socialism 
that this administration and this majority is insisting on.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize some of my colleagues who 
are on the floor with me tonight that I think feel just as strongly as 
I do. And We, the People would like to hear from them as well. At this 
point, I would like to yield some time to my colleague from Georgia, my 
good friend from the Third Congressional District of west Georgia, the 
Honorable Lynn Westmoreland.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my fellow Georgian for taking this 
hour so we can come straighten out some of the things that have been 
said in the previous hour. And I listened to them with great interest. 
And I believe that they believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and 
the Tooth Fairy. I was going along with them pretty well until they got 
down to the ``free'' part, free wellness screening, free preventative 
and free test.
  I want to ask the people, Mr. Speaker, of America, have you ever 
gotten anything free from the government? The American people pay for 
everything that this government does with their taxes or with penalties 
or interest. What every American pays is what pays for everything this 
government does. There are no free lunches here. And for our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to get up and say that these things were 
free, they've got to believe in the Tooth Fairy. They've got to believe 
in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to believe that.
  The gentleman, our colleague from Ohio, is talking about the things 
that he will campaign for in November, and what we will be campaigning 
for and

[[Page H1806]]

what he will be campaigning for. I welcome, I welcome those campaigns 
because even though they haven't heard the people on this third 
Saturday in March, they will hear from the people on the first Tuesday 
of November.
  There are some facts that I would like to just get straight while we 
are talking about ``free'' things, free what the government is going to 
do. This bill is not free. And as the gentleman, my colleague from 
Georgia, explained, the costs that come with it.
  Let me tell you some things that are going to be on the campaign and 
is going to be ahead of this Congress for the next 7 months. Let's talk 
about the $1.2 trillion, the total cost of the bill between 2010 and 
2020. Though the real cost, as the gentleman stated, doesn't go until 
2014. This includes $940 billion in coverage subsidies. Those aren't 
going to be free. That's what your tax dollars are going to be paying 
for in coverage subsidies. Those are not free, $144.2 billion in 
additional mandatory spending. That's going to come out of your tax 
dollars, $70 billion in discretionary spending in the Senate bill and 
$41.6 billion in unrelated education spending. Yeah, they included 
education in this health care reform because they could not, under any 
other way, get it passed through the Senate, $208 billion, and both my 
colleagues here tonight are doctors.
  This is the cost of a 10-year patch for the SGR, the sustainable 
growth rate, to prevent reduction in Medicare physicians payments, 
which is 21 percent right now. This cost is hidden because it was 
included in the earlier Democratic bill, but was dropped to better 
provide a cost estimate. This is your tax dollars. This is not free, 
$569.2 billion tax increases in the legislation, including $48.9 
billion in new taxes in the reconciliation bill alone. That's not free. 
That's coming from your tax dollars, $52 billion, the amount of new 
taxes on employers, $52 billion of new taxes on employers who can't 
afford to give their employees health care. And that's going to be 
imposed when unemployment right now is at 9.7 percent.
  Twelve is the number of new taxes in the bill that violate President 
Obama's pledge that under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a 
year will see any form of tax increase; 46 percent is the percentage of 
families making less than $66,150 who will be forced to pay the 
individual mandate tax, which, by the way, I believe is 
unconstitutional; 16,500 is the estimated number of IRS auditors, 
agents, and other employees that will be needed to collect the hundreds 
of billions of dollars in new taxes levied on the American people.

  There is nothing free in this bill. There's nothing free. You've got 
to believe in the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus 
all rolled into one to think that you're going to get something free 
out of this.
  Twenty billion dollars is the estimated amount of money that the IRS 
and the HHS will need for the cost of additional regulations, 
bureaucracy, and redtape over the next 10 years. This spending is not 
included in the CBO's cost estimate. Fifty-three billion dollars is the 
amount of revenue this bill raids from Social Security to make it 
appear as if it actually reduces the deficit; $202.3 billion the amount 
of money cut from Medicare Advantage program for seniors to help offset 
the cost of a new entitlement.
  Now we have heard over and over that if you have the insurance you 
like, you can keep it. Have we not heard that? You can keep the 
insurance that you have. These seniors on Medicare Advantage are not 
going to be able to keep the insurance that they have. Where does that 
come from? $436 billion dollars is the amount of Federal subsidies in 
the bill that will go directly to insurance companies to provide health 
care in the exchange, $436 billion to pay to these evil insurance 
companies. No wonder they don't mind getting cut out of a little bit of 
money on Medicare Advantage by providing additional coverage these 
seniors pay for when they're going to get another $436 billion. One out 
of 22, the number of times the Senate has not somehow amended a 
reconciliation bill passed by the House and thus required further 
action.
  Like I said, these people have been convinced that there is a Santa 
Claus, a Tooth Fairy, and an Easter Bunny to believe that the Senate is 
going to take this reconciliation bill that they are sending over. 
Sixty-three percent is the percentage of physicians surveyed who feel 
that health reform is needed but are opposed to this sweeping overhaul 
legislation.
  Nine billion dollars is the amount that the Ways and Means Committee 
estimated Medicare would spend annually after 25 years when it was 
passed in 1965. To my two colleagues here, in reality, Medicare spent 
$67 billion, or seven times the initial cost estimate.
  If you believe that this is a deficit reduction bill, then you 
certainly believe in these people I have mentioned prior. $1.55 
trillion the projected fiscal year 2010 deficit--11 times the 10-year 
savings that the Democrats claim that this bill will provide by 
spending more than $1 trillion for this government health care 
takeover.

                              {time}  2145

  If you think the government is going to be giving things for free, 
you are kidding yourself. If you think this thing is going to cost what 
they say it is going to cost, you are kidding yourself. If you think 
this is going to reduce our deficit, you are kidding yourself.
  The American people are smarter than this, and I think our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle need to realize this. If they don't 
realize it now, they will realize it in a very short time to come. This 
is not going to be behind them. It is going to be in front of them. I 
welcome the opportunity to campaign on this issue, alone, which will 
provide that they have failed to promise and keep the promises that we 
have made to the American people in this last election.
  So I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for doing this. I thank 
you for giving me the opportunity to come and share this. And, 
hopefully, tomorrow we will be able to make our case to the American 
people and to change some hearts and minds of some of our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my 
colleague from Georgia, for being with us this hour and hopefully he 
will be with us for the entire hour, as long as he can stay.
  We also have the gentleman from Texas, as I referred to previously, 
who did the special 5-minute talking about the Texas Medical Society 
and the way the Governor in Texas and the medical society have written 
letters to him to share with all of us, Mr. Speaker, in opposition, in 
strong opposition to the passage of this bill tomorrow. And I would 
like to refer to Dr. Burgess at this time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him 
for the recognition.
  The gentleman and I spent some time this afternoon up in the Rules 
Committee, a little hideaway up on the third floor of the Capitol. I 
don't think the air condition was working today. It is always an 
interesting time when you get to spend a little time in the Rules 
Committee. And we heard several people sort of lead off their 
soliloquies as they were talking and extolling the virtues of this bill 
and that it is going to try to come through the House tomorrow and they 
say we are going to go down in history. And I think the gentleman from 
Georgia said, and it certainly ran through my mind, I don't know if you 
are going to go down in history, but you are very likely to go down in 
November.
  With that, let me just refer--the gentleman talked about the people 
who have been here all day around the Capitol. And it has been 
impressive. And I think back to a year ago, my town halls, people were 
so frustrated with what they saw happening. They didn't know how bad it 
was going to get, but they were very frustrated with the direction they 
saw from this Congress and from this administration. And they kept 
saying, Well, we want to do something. What can we do? We want to stop 
this. We want you to stop this. And if you can't stop it, we want to 
stop it.
  And a year ago it seemed like we were so far away from a fall 
election; but that unease, that energy kept building and building 
through the spring and through the summer and through the fall. And we 
saw it here on July 4, when the people came and

[[Page H1807]]

camped out on the Washington Mall. We saw it again on September 12 when 
people flooded to the Capitol to make their voices heard. And we 
certainly heard it today.
  And you might ask, does this do any good, this sort of outpouring of 
angst and emotion and energy to surround the Capitol with living, 
breathing Americans who want to press the point of, hey, look. It is 
supposed to be governed with the consent of the governed--government 
with the consent of the governed--and we didn't give you our consent 
for this. We don't want it. We want you to take it back.
  So you do wonder if it does any good to have people around the 
Capitol all day, all of that energy, all of that enthusiasm, all of 
that pushback against what they see as a very bad health care bill, and 
I will tell you that it does. Because as we started the day today--we 
just refer to my little friend from School House Rock. I brought him 
out earlier in the week.
  This is a bill who is on Capitol Hill and one day he wants to become 
a law. This bill looks mad, and I wonder why this bill is mad. Well, 
you look at what he is thinking and he says, I don't want to be deemed 
or Slaughtered. He is referring of course to the Slaughter rule. The 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Louise Slaughter, had put 
forward the Slaughter rule that said we wouldn't even have to vote on 
this Senate bill that no one wants to vote on. We will just deem its 
passage and then send it on to the President for signature.
  Well, that is kind of a big deal in this body. It kind of might not 
really be in accordance with all of the rules laid down by the Founders 
in the Constitution.
  So the bill was mad. He didn't want to be ``Deemed or Slaughtered.'' 
Well, guess what happened. About the middle of the afternoon up in the 
Rules Committee--and I don't know if it was because of all the people 
who were here or not. I don't know if it was because their voices were 
heard and folks on that Rules Committee felt the heat that was being 
generated around the Capitol outside; but somewhere or another in the 
middle of the afternoon, they said, You know what? This guy is right. 
We will just have an up-or-down vote. So tomorrow, although the outcome 
may not be what I want, we are going to at least have an up-or-down 
vote on H.R. 3590, the Senate bill.
  I do want to tell people what is at stake here. This bill, H.R. 3590, 
is a bill that actually originated in the House of Representatives. It 
was not a health care bill; it was a housing bill, through the Ways and 
Means Committee, voted on on the House of Representatives floor, went 
over to the Senate as a housing bill. It languished over there. When 
the Senate needed a vehicle for a health reform bill, they took up that 
bill that had already been passed by the House, stripped all the 
language out of it, just like coring out the inside of an apple or 
something, pushed their health care language into this bill, passed 
that bill in the Senate with 60 votes.
  And now that they no longer have 60 votes in the Senate and do not 
want to go--they had the opportunity to go to a conference committee 
right after Christmas. They still had 60 votes. To heck with the notion 
that Republicans were blocking a conference committee. That is a fairy 
tale. They had 60 votes on December 26. They could have named 
conferees. They could have gone to a conference committee and done it 
the right way and tried to put those two bills together and bring that 
product back to the House, but they didn't want to do that. They wanted 
to do something smoother or something easier.
  Scott Brown won an election in Massachusetts; they don't have 60 
votes anymore. Now they really can't go to a conference committee. 
Their only way forward is to pass the Senate bill or take the Senate 
bill that has passed the Senate and bring it back to the House. And 
then the question will be for the House of Representatives: Will the 
House now concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 3590?
  If the answer to that is ``yes,'' the bill is passed. It does not go 
to the Senate. There is no further finagling or adjustments on it. It 
is what the Senate bill is with no changes. That goes down to the White 
House or the President comes here, it is signed, and within a matter of 
20 minutes that bill has become law.
  Now, all the people in this House who say, yeah, but I want to tweak 
things a little bit, I want to change some language here, I want to 
adjust this some over here, maybe there is something we can do for the 
doctors over here, maybe there is something we can do for seniors over 
here--and we will do this in a reconciliation bill that only takes 51 
votes.
  Yeah, have fun with that. Because you are going to make all of those 
adjustments, we are going to pass that bill in the House, however it 
looks it will go over to the Senate. And there is no guarantee that the 
majority leader of the Senate will ever pick that bill up and even look 
at it because they don't have to. This Congress was charged with 
passing a health care bill, and, hey, that happened March 22 on the 
floor of this House when we passed H.R. 3490.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back to me for 
just a second.
  I agree with him completely in regard to that so-called ``fix it 
bill,'' the reconciliation bill. It very likely could ping-pong back 
and forth forever, and nothing in that so-called fix it bill that maybe 
many of the Members, Mr. Speaker, on the majority side of the aisle are 
counting on as they make that difficult decision possibly to vote 
``yes'' tomorrow. That ping-ponging back and forth could result in no 
changes to this bill that they vote on tomorrow, H.R. 3590, the 
gentleman from Texas just described, and that is it. The President will 
sign that, that will be the law for better or for worse, and they 
indeed will be stuck with that bill with having voted to support it, 
Mr. Speaker, and that is what they will have to go back into their 
districts in this fall campaign right up until November 2nd, and that 
is what is going to be hung around their neck. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, 
that every Member in this body understands what the gentleman from 
Texas is talking about in regard to that.
  And I yield back to him at this time.
  Mr. BURGESS. An important point is that is a Senate bill. It never 
went through any House committee. There was never any House input or 
imprint upon that bill. All of that language was derived over in the 
Senate. And the House of Representatives, although will go down in 
history as having passed sweeping health care reform if that bill 
passes tomorrow, the reality is that is all a product of the Senate. 
The House will have no fingerprints on that bill but will--but will--
have that bill hung around their neck.
  Nobody knows what is in that stupid bill, I beg your pardon. Nobody 
knows the degree and the depth of the intricacies of the legislative 
language contained therein within that bill. And we will be learning. 
The press will then suddenly become very interested in this bill, and 
we will learn in great detail over the next several months how many bad 
things were hidden within the dark recesses of that 2,700-page bill.
  I am going to finish up in just a minute. If I could, I want to just 
reiterate the letter from Greg Abbott, the attorney general in the 
State of Texas, in dealing with the issue of constitutionality of this 
bill. Because if this bill passes tomorrow, then all eyes go to the 
States, and what are they going to do? Are they simply going to accept 
this new unfunded mandate from the Federal Government, or will there be 
some pushback from the States? Greg Abbott has indicated that they have 
serious concerns with the bill and told me today on a conference call 
that Texas will be ready to lead when the time comes if this bill is 
passed.
  But just his thoughts on the individual mandate. And quoting from 
Greg Abbott here: ``The individual mandate is constitutionally suspect 
because it does not fall within any of the normal categories. The 
mandate provision of H.R. 3590 attempts to regulate a nonactivity. The 
legislation actually imposes a financial penalty upon Americans who 
choose not to engage in interstate commerce because they choose not to 
enter into a contract for health insurance.

  ``In other words, the proposed mandate''--continuing to quote--``In 
other words, the proposed mandate would compel nearly every American to 
engage in commerce by forcing them to purchase insurance and then use 
that

[[Page H1808]]

coerced transaction as the basis for claiming authority under the 
commerce clause.
  ``If there are ever to be any limitations on the Federal Government, 
then commerce cannot be construed to cover every possible human 
activity under the sun, including mere human existence. The act of 
doing absolutely nothing does not constitute an act of commerce that 
Congress is authorized to regulate.''
  And I thank the gentleman for his indulgence, and I will yield back 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas. He is absolutely right. I have the pocket Constitution; I keep 
it with me all the time. I think my colleagues here on the floor do as 
well. And he was making reference, of course, to the Democratic 
majority and the chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee, the 
gentlewoman from New York, Louise Slaughter, saying that, okay, we have 
finally decided that we are not going to do the Slaughter solution, 
that we are not going to do the ``scheme and deem,'' we are not going 
to try to sneak this by the American people by not having our 
fingerprints on it. We are going to actually vote on the real bill 
tomorrow. We will vote on the rule, and we will vote on the bill.
  Well, I don't know what caused that change of heart, Mr. Speaker, but 
I think the gentleman from Texas is very likely right on that. We, the 
people, all of these folks from all across the country that the 
gentleman from Ohio on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, referred to 
as ``tea baggers,'' they are the ones that were up here today. And I am 
sure that every Member of this body and the other body, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, you couldn't miss them. No matter how hard some 
Members may have wanted to not walk that gauntlet, they couldn't get 
away from them. So I think we, the people, had a lot to do with it.
  It may be because former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Bill 
Barr said very recently in an article that they fully believe--I 
believe that article was in the Wall Street Journal--that it is totally 
unconstitutional according to article 1, section 7. I have it right 
here in front of me, Mr. Speaker. But for whatever the reason, I think 
it probably is a combination of both. I thank ``we, the people.''
  With that, I refer back to my colleague from Georgia, the Honorable 
Lynn Westmoreland.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. And I want to thank my fellow Georgian for 
yielding. And we, the people, are the ones that are going to be paying 
for these free preventive care wellness screenings. It is the ``we, the 
people.'' It is those tea baggers, as they were called by the gentleman 
from Ohio, that are going to be paying for these free government 
things, much like some of the stuff that we pay for now, some of the 
entitlements that are robbing our children and our grandchildren 
because of their escalation.
  But the gentleman from Texas mentioned something about not knowing 
what was in the 2,700-page bill. And we had the gentleman today talk 
about that we had this bill for 72 hours now to look at, and that we 
should know what is in it. I believe it was the gentleman from New 
York.
  Well, you know, we had a three-page motion to recommit today on the 
floor that the gentlelady from Wyoming offered on a forest or 
maintaining the forest lands and kind of allows the AmeriCorps, the 
volunteers to be able to do this, a three-page motion to recommit that 
the Reading Clerk read. And it talked about that if you were a sexual 
predator that you would not be able to do this volunteer work; that you 
would be screened and that you couldn't do it. And I believe the count 
on the board was 178 Members voted against that. And then, all of a 
sudden there was 175, and then 170. And then it went on for about 30 
minutes, and it got down to where there were only 39 people who voted 
against that.
  Now, that was a three-page bill that was read by the Reading Clerk, 
and many people had not heard it or not understood it but just knew to 
vote the party line.
  If that is true with a three-page motion to recommit that was read by 
the Reading Clerk, think what the unintended consequences are in that 
2,700-page bill, plus I believe it is a 700-page reconciliation bill, 
and we haven't even seen the manager's amendment yet.

                              {time}  2200

  So that's something that we don't even have. I'm telling you that 
there's a story about a gentleman--and my colleague from Georgia knows 
this, that we do a lot of hunting at night down there, and we use dogs. 
We hunt raccoons. It's a very good sport. A very big sport down there.
  There was a gentleman that served in World War II that had lost the 
bottom part of his leg. He had a peg leg, a wooden peg leg put in. And 
so he was there with some of the guys and they were laying around the 
campfire. It was kind of cool. And his leg was a little too close, and 
it burned about 8 inches off of that wooden peg leg. But all of a 
sudden the dogs started howling, so everybody got up to run to go 
follow the dogs. The old Navy veteran got up first and he ran. And he 
ran about 20 yards and he turned around and said, Watch out, boys. 
There's a hole every other step.
  Well, I'm telling my colleague from Georgia, there's some holes in 
this bill, and I believe they're about every other step. And so we need 
to be very cautious of that and understand that I'm telling you there 
are more unintended consequences than we can ever believe in this bill.
  So I want to warn my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Watch 
out, boys, because there's a hole about every other step.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, indeed, indeed, there's a hole 
every other step. I had not heard that story, but I'm very glad the 
gentleman from Georgia related it to us, because the analogy is 
perfect.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the Democratic majority party 
who did their hour Special Order I guess 30 minutes or so ago and some 
of the comments that were made. One of the gentlemen made the comment 
that when they pass--the Democratic majority passes this bill tomorrow, 
H.R. 3590, if indeed they do, but he felt confident that they would, 
that he welcomed, Mr. Speaker, the debate as we go into the fall and as 
we all stand, as we do in every even year, every 2 years, for 
reelection to the House of Representatives, this great body, that he 
welcomed that opportunity to have that debate. In fact, he suggested 
that the Republican Party, our side of the aisle, none of whom will be 
voting for this bill tomorrow, would be campaigning on how we can win 
back the majority and do away with everything in the bill, all 2,700 
pages of H.R. 3590, and the changes and the manager's amendment and 
whatever else we don't get to see but get to vote on.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority party has had lots of ideas on how to 
reform the health care system so that we bring down the costs and give 
I don't know how many million--maybe it's 15 to 20 million people that 
don't get health insurance because they cannot afford it and they're 
not eligible. Their income is not low enough that they qualify for a 
safety net program like Medicaid or the CHIP program, Children's Health 
Insurance Program, for their families.
  And when the President, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and my colleagues 
know, when he invited both Republicans and Democrats 2 weeks ago to 
come over to the Blair House and meet with him, I don't know that they 
realized that it would be 6\1/2\ hours, much of it filibustering. A lot 
of hot air in that room. A lot of oxygen sucked out of the room. But 
the President controlled it, and he recognized speakers when he wanted 
to and he made them yield back when he wanted to. But we had so many 
good ideas presented. And as we go forward and when we do regain the 
majority, we're not going to strike down every single provision of H.R. 
3590. There are things in that bill that I, as a physician member, and 
many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree with and we think 
that they are good.
  The gentlelady from California mentioned the expansion of community 
health centers. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Someone else 
in the majority party mentioned allowing our children to stay on a 
family policy until they're 26 years old. Many of them, of course, are 
still in college or graduate school, and, heretofore, insurance 
companies have required at age

[[Page H1809]]

21, maybe in some instances even at age 18, unless they were in school, 
that these children no longer could be covered under the family policy, 
and that was wrong. And we're changing that. I'm glad that we're 
changing that.
  So the gentleman from Ohio and others on your side of the aisle, Mr. 
Speaker, I think they misspoke in regard to that. We can, should have 
worked together and come up with a solution that doesn't cost a 
trillion dollars, doesn't allow the Federal Government to take over our 
health care system--one-sixth of our economy, $2.5 trillion. Goodness 
knows, the Federal Government already controls about 60 percent of that 
when you think about Medicare and Medicaid and TRICARE, veterans' 
health care. For some reason, the Democratic majority and this 
President are not going to be satisfied until the Federal Government 
controls it all, lock, stock, and barrel, just like they said they have 
been trying to do for the last 40, 50, or 60 years. And I said in my 
earlier remarks, it's no surprise to me that it's had difficulty 
passing. I don't care how close it came, we the people didn't want it.

  And as the gentleman from Ohio talks about, let's tee it up. We're 
ready. We're ready for those fall elections and we're ready to run on 
H.R. 3590, and we're going to beat these mean old stingy Republicans.
  I want to, Mr. Speaker, give him a little history lesson. Thirty-four 
Democrat incumbents were defeated in 1994. Thirty-four incumbents were 
defeated. When was 1994? Well, it was one year after the latest and 
last great attempt for the Federal Government to take over our health 
care system. And that was known, my colleagues, as HillaryCare.
  Let me just mention to my colleagues a few names, and I think it will 
be quite instructive because, I think, men and women, you will 
recognize some of these names who were among the 34 that went into that 
election cycle, I'm sure, very confident, having voted for HillaryCare 
and the takeover by the government of our health care system.
  Speaker Tom Foley. Speaker of the House Tom Foley from the State of 
Washington, first elected in 1964. Tom Foley represented the Spokane 
area for 30 years. Thirty years. This was the first time since 1862 
that a sitting Speaker was defeated in a reelection bid. Speaker Foley 
in 1992, Mr. Speaker, won by 11 points. In 1994, Speaker Tom Foley was 
defeated by 2 points, a 13-point shift.
  Colleagues, Mr. Speaker, does the name Dan Rostenkowski sound 
familiar? The gentleman from Illinois, Fifth District of Illinois, 
first elected in 1958. He lost his seat in 1994, despite being a 36-
year veteran of this House and chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee. In 1992, I say to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, from Ohio, in 
1992, Dan Rostenkowski won by 18 points. In 1994, he lost by 13 points. 
Just a little 31-point shift. What happened? What happened? We the 
people decided to put him in the ranks of the unemployed.
  I'm not going to read all of the names. Let me just mention one from 
my own State. Again, 1992. Donald Johnson from the 10th District of 
Georgia. He was first elected to his first term in 1992. He won by 8 
points. He represented my hometown, Mr. Speaker, Augusta, Georgia, home 
of the Masters. Great area. It's always home to me.
  Well, Donald Johnson was one of the last votes for the massive, 
massive takeover of our health care system, and also, Mr. Speaker, 
voted for the Clinton increase in taxes. People back home said, Don't 
vote for that. Don't vote for it and come back and expect us to reelect 
you, Don Johnson. Don't vote for that bill. But yet I think our former 
colleague Don Johnson may have been the 117th vote. In 1992, he won by 
8 points. In 1994, the gentleman from Georgia lost by 30, Mr. Speaker, 
lost by a 38-point shift. He was replaced by our great and late, I 
sadly say, colleague, Dr. Charlie Norwood, who served so honorably in 
this body until his death about a year and a half ago. He died in 
office, God rest his soul. Don Johnson wasn't a bad man, Mr. Speaker. I 
didn't know him personally, but he made a bad vote and he didn't listen 
to we the people.
  Let me mention one other, because I saw her on television earlier 
today and she was recommending to her Democratic colleagues that they 
vote for this health care reform, this massive takeover of one-sixth of 
our economy. She was recommending, indeed, that her Democratic 
colleagues tomorrow vote ``yes'' because it was the right thing to do. 
Well, Ms. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky at the time. Today, I think her 
name is Marjorie Margolies. She represented the 13th District of 
Pennsylvania. She was elected in 1992. And it was her decisive vote on 
Bill Clinton's controversial 1993 budget; it was often argued to be the 
cause of her downfall. In 1992, she won by about a point. In 1994, she 
lost by 13 points, and she indeed was the deciding vote. And the people 
in Pennsylvania said, Marjorie, honey, it's time for you to come on 
home because you're not listening to we the people.
  She said this afternoon on television that she has no regrets. That 
was 1994. So we're talking 16 years ago. I'm glad she has no regrets, 
but I don't think she ever intended, Mr. Speaker, to just serve one 2-
year term. I don't think a lot of my Democratic colleagues in the 
majority party, particularly the freshmen and sophomores, had any 
intention or have any intention of going through the rigors and the 
expense and the agony and the stress of running to be elected to this 
House of Representatives to only serve one term.

                              {time}  2215

  I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly the fate that is 
going to befall them as they listen to some of their colleagues and 
listen to their leadership and listen to the President of the United 
States, and they make a decision that maybe the pressure from the 
leadership or maybe the offers from the leadership are so attractive, 
the promises, the arm twisting, that they come down here tomorrow, and 
they forget what we, the people, want them to do, and they make a 
career-ending vote.
  I think it's important that if you don't know your history, you're 
going to repeat it. And that's why I spend the time talking about--
there are many more here that I could mention. But tomorrow is going to 
be a crucial, critical vote for many Members, and I hope and pray that 
those who know we, the people, from their district want them to vote 
``no,'' Mr. Speaker, I hope they have the courage to do that. And then 
as long as you're responding to we, the people, you can't go wrong.
  You know, when the bill started in the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce in the House--and I am proud to serve on that committee. I've 
got a few posters that I would like to share with my colleagues to 
express to you why it is on this side of the aisle and why we, the 
people--60 percent, 70 percent across this country--are so opposed to 
this takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government.
  On this first slide, would you just look at the additional 
bureaucracy that is created as the Federal Government begins to take 
over. I don't know that in any of the congressional budget scoring that 
any expense item was assigned to the creation of some 32 additional 
bureaucratic czars. The health choices administrator, as an example, is 
every bit as powerful as the Social Security administrator. We talked 
about today the fact that there are going to be 17,000 new IRS agents 
so they can peruse everybody's tax return to make sure that they have 
purchased a health insurance policy. Now not any health insurance 
policy but one prescribed by the Federal Government. Not maybe a health 
savings account with a policy that has a low premium and high 
deductible. But yes, catastrophic coverage that's so popular with our 
young people because that's what they can best afford. No, that's not 
going to be permitted. We the people want it, but the health choices 
administrator is probably not going to allow that to occur.
  There will be 32 new bureaucratic agencies and growing all the time. 
And add to that, as I said, 17,000 additional IRS agents. How did this 
bill get to the point that we find this at this time? It wasn't easy, I 
can tell you that. It couldn't get through the Senate until, as I show 
you on this second slide, many, many political payoffs that are still 
in this bill.
  Remember the Cornhusker kickback? Well, that wasn't taken out. The 
original bill on the Senate side, this was a special favor granted to 
one particular

[[Page H1810]]

Senator from one particular State, the Cornhusker State. And instead of 
taking it out, when we, the people, complained, what did the Democratic 
majority do? They extended the Cornhusker kickback to every State in 
the Union, so all 50 States will now get this expansion of Medicaid and 
an unfunded mandate that the States cannot possibly survive with.
  The Louisiana purchase. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Senator from 
Louisiana yesterday on television explaining why she asked for and 
received the Louisiana purchase payoff--of course, Mr. Speaker, she 
said it wasn't a payoff. I believe it was in an interview with Greta 
Van Susteren that the Senator said that, Well, Louisiana has to pay 70 
percent of the price of the cost of Medicaid in her State, and the 
Federal Government pays 30 percent. And that wasn't fair. Well, I was 
astounded, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to hear that, because it's just 
the opposite. The State of Louisiana pays 30 percent, and the Federal 
Government pays 70 percent. And in fact, they've been doing that for 
many, many years and probably the State of Louisiana pays less into the 
Medicaid program than almost any other State in the country. 
Mississippi may be a little bit less. And the reason for that, this 
FMAP-matching is done based on the average income in the State. So a 
state that is suffering in poverty, they pay less in the Medicaid 
program, and we, the people, help them with the Federal match.
  Louisiana for many years deserved to only pay 30 percent. But after 
Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many hundreds of 
billions of dollars have been given to the State of Louisiana to help 
them recover, and in particular in the New Orleans area. They needed 
it. They deserved it. A natural disaster, mostly through no fault of 
their own.
  But the economy in Louisiana has improved drastically in the last 4, 
5 years since Hurricane Katrina and income has gone up. People are 
making a better wage because of all the construction and all the money 
that has been poured into Louisiana. And the State of Louisiana and its 
representatives continue to ask for more. It's like my dad said to me 
one time, Mr. Speaker, How much more money does a rich person need to 
be happy? Well, the answer, Mr. Speaker, is just a little bit more, 
just a little bit more. So I suspect that the ask-fors will never end. 
But I'm glad--I am very thankful that the State of Louisiana is doing 
well now, and the average income has gone up. And they are supposed to, 
by the formula, by fairness, they're supposed to pay a little bit more 
into the Medicaid program than 30 percent. And yet the Senator insists 
that, no, that's unfair to Louisiana, and that's what is known now as 
the Louisiana purchase. It's still in there. Gator aid is still in 
there. Federal funding of abortion is still in there. And $500 billion 
worth of Medicare cuts are still in there.

  Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we look seniors in the eye and say 
to them, We're going to cut this program $500 billion? What could 
possibly be the justification for doing that? This program, started in 
1965, has an unfunded liability of $35 trillion over the next 50 years, 
and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, in the 
previous hour talked about how cutting $500 billion out of the Medicare 
program was going to save the program, even suggesting that that $500 
billion was waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet $120 billion of it is in the 
Medicare Advantage Program. Cutting Medicare Advantage 18 percent per 
year for the next 10 years--and really by 2014, there will be no 
Medicare Advantage Program.
  Why is it that one-fourth of our seniors on Medicare sign up for 
Medicare Advantage? Because it's cheaper for them, and they get a 
better benefit. It covers wellness. It covers many preventive screening 
tests that fee-for-service Medicare does not cover. It gives them an 
opportunity to have a professional or a nurse practitioner call and 
make sure that they're taking their medications and they're seen on a 
regular basis, and yet we're going to eliminate that program. How does 
that make sense? Mr. Speaker, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense.
  So as my colleague from Ohio was talking about, some of the things in 
this bill that they may pass tomorrow, they may pass with some of the 
tactics that have been used, like the Cornhusker kickback and the 
Louisiana purchase and ambassadorship here and ambassadorship there, 
and you name it and whatever promise, they may pass it. But Mr. 
Speaker, it's going to be a catastrophe, I think, for our seniors.
  Let me just tell you why I think so. And I spoke to the--I call them 
Tea Party patriots, Mr. Speaker. I don't call them tea baggers. And 
they're not a bunch of angry white men, as I have heard a lot of folks 
say. Indeed, the two or three couples who asked me to sign their 
posters and to pose for a picture with them were African American 
families. And I was so proud to be asked to do that. I mean, again, all 
ages, men, and women, white, black, Asian. We, the people, were there 
today, and I think, Mr. Speaker, they'll be there tomorrow.
  But here's what's happening to our seniors, and I had a few minutes 
to speak to the assemblage of maybe 20,000 people, and I reminded them 
of the stimulus package of over a year and a half ago. I guess it was 
maybe February of last year when that massive American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, whatever it was called. But we call it the stimulus 
bill. I think everybody understands. It was about $820 billion worth, 
and a significant portion of that package, Mr. Speaker, was--remember, 
it was for shovel-ready projects. If the project was not shovel-ready 
in reference to some of these construction projects in the various 
States, then the States couldn't draw down that money from the economic 
stimulus package; it had to be shovel-ready.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, Mr. Speaker, when you're having fun, 
time really flies. And even when you're not having fun, it flies.

                          ____________________