[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.
____________________