[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E508-E510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3590, SERVICE 
MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
   OF H.R: 4872, HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JEB HENSARLING

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Sunday, March 21, 2010

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this rule and the underlying health care legislation it is attempting 
to impose upon the American people. Despite the claim often made by my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans agree that we must 
reform health care in America. The current system is unsustainable, and 
simply doing nothing is not an option.
  While I strongly oppose the underlying legislation and the direction 
it proposes to take health care in America, I do not support inaction 
to reform health care. Simply doing nothing is not an option. My vision 
of health care reform will ensure that Americans can get the health 
care that you need, when you need it, and at a price you can afford. I 
want to provide all Americans with access to health care that is 
affordable, portable, accessible, of high quality, and preserves choice 
for Americans.
  In the health care reform debate, I believe it is critical that we 
remember the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm. Health care reform 
should also respect the sacredness of the doctor-patient relationship 
and ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the 
ability of patients and their doctors to make decisions about care. 
Health care reform should also lower costs for patients, and bend the 
overall health care cost curve downward. Health care in the United 
States represents one-sixth of our economy, and ultimately affects 
every man, woman, and child. Any health care reforms made will have an 
impact that is far and wide throughout America. It is critical that we 
ensure the reforms we pursue are the right reforms that will improve 
health care, because the wrong reforms could have devastating and long-
lasting consequences for the greatest health care system in the world. 
As important as it is to reform health care quickly, it is more 
important to reform health care correctly.
  I believe five principles should guide any health reform effort. One, 
every American, regardless of health or financial status, should have 
access to affordable health care coverage of their choice. Nobody 
should go bankrupt because they get sick. Two, health care in America 
should be family-focused and patient-centered. It must put patients, in 
consultation with their doctors, in control of their health care. Your 
health care decisions should not be made by your employer, a health 
care plan selected by your employer, or the government. Three, people 
should own and control their health care plan, and it should be 
personal and portable. Four, Americans who are

[[Page E509]]

happy with their current plan should be allowed to keep it. Five, 
forcing Americans into a government health care program will not solve 
America's health care challenges.
  There are many ideas that I truly believe will help bring down the 
cost of health care for Americans without a government take-over. 
However, the only way to truly lower costs is to empower a competitive 
health care market for health care. Despite what you think we don't 
have a competitive marketplace today. To help spur the creation of one, 
several ideas stand out. First, Congress should pass meaningful medical 
liability reform. I have cosponsored legislation that would provide 
meaningful medical liability reform, the Help Efficient, Accessible, 
Low-cost, Timely Health Care Act (H.R. 1086), and medical liability 
reform was included as part of the Republican substitute I voted for 
when the House debated its health care legislation in November 2009. 
Precious health care resources are wasted because physicians have to 
over-utilize health care and practice defensive medicine when treating 
patients in order to protect themselves from junk lawsuits pursued by 
trial lawyers. Enacting medical liability reforms would lower health 
care costs by cutting down on the practice of defensive medicine. 
Additionally, medical liability reform would help bring doctors back to 
those areas where junk lawsuits and high malpractice insurance has 
chased them away. Since 2003, when Texas enacted medical liability 
reform, the state has been flooded with applications of new physicians 
seeking to practice in Texas. In areas where specialists, such as OB/
GYN physicians, had long ago quit practicing, you now have an OB/GYN 
delivering babies once again.
  Additionally, I believe that Americans should be able to shop across 
state lines to find the health care plan that best suits their needs. 
Why can Americans buy car insurance across state lines, but they can't 
buy health insurance across state lines. By forcing health plan 
providers to compete, not only within their respective states for 
customers, but across the nation, competition will force insurers to 
deliver health care plans at competitive costs or see business go 
elsewhere. I have cosponsored legislation that would permit Americans 
to purchase health insurance across state lines, the Health Care Choice 
Act (H.R. 3217), and this commonsense reform was included in the 
Republican substitute considered during consideration of the House-
passed health care bill.
  To further empower a competitive marketplace, individuals should be 
given the same tax incentive to go out into the marketplace to purchase 
their own health insurance that businesses are to provide health care 
for their employees. This current disparity in our tax laws leaves 
individuals tethered to employer-provided health care plans and the 
jobs that provide them. By empowering individuals to purchase 
individual health coverage and have the same tax-advantaged basis as 
employer-provided coverage, we can free employees to shop around for 
coverage that best suits them, instead of simply taking what their 
employers offer.
  Additionally, I have cosponsored Representative Paul Ryan's Roadmap 
for America's Future Act (H.R. 4529). This sweeping piece of 
legislation takes our nation's toughest fiscal challenges head on and 
solves them. In addition to making both Medicare and Social Security 
solvent for future generations, this legislation would also reform our 
health care system in a patient-centered manner that harnesses the 
power of the marketplace--not government--to provide Americans with 
access to high-quality, affordable health care. It does so without 
raising taxes or inserting a federal bureaucrat between you and your 
doctor.
  When it comes to health care reform, the American people want a tune-
up, they don't want repossession. The massive power grab that the 
underlying health care legislation represents will fundamentally change 
the relationship between the government and its citizens. For example, 
the Senate-passed health care legislation requires all Americans 
to have bureaucrat-approved health insurance or else be subject to 
criminal penalties. I believe such a requirement to be unconstitutional 
to begin with. However, even if it is one day ruled constitutional by 
our nation's judiciary, if the federal government requires you to buy 
health insurance today, what is it going to require you to buy 
tomorrow? Such a provision significantly moves us towards waking up one 
day and finding that the sovereign power in our nation rests not with 
``we the people'' but with ``we the government.''

  I also oppose the underlying health care legislation because of its 
blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life. Despite the fig-leaf 
attempts to cloud the issue, fundamentally, this is the most pro-
abortion piece of legislation to be considered by Congress since the 
tragic Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. The Senate-passed bill 
does nothing more than set up an accounting gimmick for government-
subsidized health care plans that cover elective abortions 
participating in the exchanges. If the legislation truly embodied the 
principle that no federal funds would be used to subsidize elective 
abortions, the Stupak-Pitts amendment that this House approved as part 
of the House-passed health care bill on November 7, 2009 would be in 
the legislation today.
  To the glaring absence of the Stupak-Pitts language, my friends on 
the other side of the aisle are now pointing to the promise of an 
Executive Order from President Obama. While such an Executive Order may 
seem to be a protection for the unborn, it is nothing of the sort. 
First, the underlying Senate-passed bill that will become law if passed 
by this House and signed into law by President Obama contains 
provisions that specifically set up mechanisms whereby federal taxpayer 
money could be used to subsidize or pay for elective abortions. Supreme 
Court decisions have reaffirmed that an Executive Order cannot override 
a statue in law. Secondly, just as easily as an Executive Order is 
given, an Executive Order can be taken away. Even if you believed that 
President Obama's Executive Order protected the rights of the unborn, 
it would have no lasting permanence. To overturn this Executive Order, 
a future president--or even President Obama himself--need only issue an 
Executive Order canceling it, leaving the protection of the unborn up 
to the stroke of a pen.
  I also oppose the underlying legislation for the provisions that 
threaten the health care of our seniors and the future of Medicare. The 
underlying legislation contains over one-half trillion dollars in 
Medicare cuts. Within those cuts, Medicare Advantage plans are 
particularly hit hard. Medicare Advantage plans are currently providing 
quality health care coverage to millions of American seniors. These 
plans have grown in popularity over the years, demonstrating their 
appeal as seniors have voted with their feet to enroll in them. The 
cuts to Medicare Advantage in the Senate-passed bill would endanger the 
current health care coverage of seniors who have it, breaking a 
fundamental promise made by Democrats throughout this debate that if 
you like your current health care coverage, you could keep it.
  The Medicare cuts are also troubling to me because, instead of being 
reinvested in the Medicare benefit to improve the solvency and future 
of Medicare, they are used to help pay for the new health care 
entitlement created in the underlying legislation. Medicare is already 
on the road to insolvency in the near future. According to the 2009 
Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare has $38 trillion in unfunded 
liabilities--promises made already that we can't pay for--and the 
Medicare Trust Fund will go broke in 2017. Since we will already have 
challenges paying for the Medicare benefits we've already promised, why 
are we taking money from Medicare and spending it elsewhere, instead of 
working to increase the solvency of Medicare to protect it for future 
beneficiaries?
  On top of the reasons I've stated previously, I also oppose this 
legislation because it contains jobs-killing tax increases. The 
underlying legislation also includes approximately one-half trillion 
dollars in tax increases. While I believe that raising taxes is never 
the solution, how can anyone believe that raising taxes during our 
current economic troubles is a good idea? Despite the unprecedented 
spending spree that President Obama and Congressional Democrats 
embarked upon in February 2009, the United States continues to have an 
unemployment rate that is near double digits and the economy continues 
to shed jobs. At the outset of this year, the majority announced that 
jobs were their number one legislative priority. Yet, how can jobs be 
the number one priority when legislation that contains jobs-killing tax 
increases is being brought before us today?
  The final reason that I oppose this rule and the underlying 
legislation is that, simply put, the United States cannot afford this 
new entitlement. Do my friends on the other side of the aisle know that 
our country is going broke? Before President Obama took office, America 
was headed toward a fiscal cliff. However, instead of working to 
improve our fiscal situation, President Obama and Congressional 
Democrats have stepped upon the accelerator hastening the day of fiscal 
reckoning. Overall, under honest accounting standards, this legislation 
will cost $2.6 trillion--or over $22,000 per household. It is a bill 
that is filled with budget gimmicks, and the true cost obfuscated by 
smoke and mirrors accounting that would make Bernie Madoff blush. This 
legislation takes the half-trillion in Medicare cuts and uses them to 
pay for the new spending in the bill. Yet, somehow it also claims to 
use the savings from Medicare to increase Medicare's solvency. How can 
one set of Medicare savings be used twice?
  The underlying legislation also raids the Social Security Trust Fund 
to the tune of $53 billion, taking funds that would be destined to pay 
future Social Security benefits and instead uses them to reduce the 
overall cost of the bill. The benefits those funds were supposed

[[Page E510]]

to pay for will still have to paid for eventually, requiring taxpayers 
to make up the difference.
  This legislation also creates a new entitlement program known as the 
CLASS Act, which is supposed to be supported by premiums. However, to 
help bring the cost of the underlying legislation down, Democrats take 
the premiums from this program and spend them elsewhere. Thus, premiums 
that should be supporting this program are used elsewhere, leaving 
taxpayers to make up the lost funds in the future. This accounting 
gimmick is so bad, that even Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent 
Conrad has called this ``a ponzi scheme.''
  This legislation is also fiscally dishonest because it attempts to 
hide its true cost through manipulation of congressional scoring 
procedures. The underlying legislation will collect 10 years of 
revenues to pay for 6 years of spending. By delaying the onset of 
benefits, Democrats are attempting to hide the cost of their health 
care legislation. Do Democrats intend for the health care bill to be 
turned off every decade for 4 years? Certainly not, but this setup is 
not by chance, as its purpose is to get the 10 year cost of the bill 
down.
  In order to draw attention away from the fiscal flaws with this 
legislation, Democrats have been waiving estimates from CBO claiming 
their bill reduces the deficit. The dirty Washington secret is that CBO 
estimates are based on what is put in front of them. If you give CBO 
garbage on one side, garbage comes out the other. For instance, the 
underlying legislation assumes that physicians will receive a 21 
percent Medicare reimbursement cut later this year. However, prior to 
today, Speaker Pelosi has already announced her support for passing 
what Washington calls the ``doc fix.'' Yet, the underlying bill assumes 
a 21 percent physician reimbursement cut. Instead of putting the ``doc 
fix'' in the underlying legislation, it was left out to ensure that the 
overall cost of the bill officially was lower. However, this does 
nothing to lower the overall cost to the American people. In fact, when 
you assume the ``doc fix'' will occur as well, CBO says the deficit 
will actually be increased as a result of passing the underlying 
legislation. In a March 19, 2010 letter to Representative Paul Ryan, 
CBO writes, ``You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting 
the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-
passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment 
Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three 
pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 
2010-2019 period.'' Democrats are either going to cut physician 
payments by 21 percent, or they're not going to and increase the 
deficit. They can't have it both ways.
  Despite the protests of my friends across the aisle, the bill before 
us today cannot be mistaken for anything other than what is it is: a 
government take-over of our health care. This legislation takes health 
care in our nation in a fundamentally different direction as it puts a 
federal bureaucrat or politician between you and you doctor by 
empowering the federal government to substitute its decision-making 
regarding your health care decisions in place of that of you and your 
doctor. If you love the way the federal government has run AIG, our 
banks, and our auto companies, you'll love the way they run your health 
care.
  But even more than cost, this is really a debate about who will 
control the health care resources of this Nation and who will control 
the health care decisions of our families. If we pass this bill, we 
will wake up one day only to find that when our loved ones become ill, 
they will wait weeks, perhaps months, to see a mediocre doctor of the 
government's choosing, only to be told by that same doctor that he 
cannot help because his treatment must be limited by the government 
protocol.
  To see what health care in America could look like in the years to 
come, we need only look to those systems in the United Kingdom and 
Canada that the underlying health care legislation before us today 
tries to take us in the direction of. After hearing the stories of how 
those systems provide health care, I can't imagine any American who 
would want our health care experiences to be like those of the British 
and Canadians.
  Would you want you or your loved ones to have the experience of Linda 
O'Boyle from Great Britain? Linda was a 64 year old mother of 3 and 
grandmother of 4 who was fighting cancer. After weeks of chemotherapy, 
doctors told her there wasn't much they could do for her. However, her 
consultant suggested a new drug called Cetuximab, which he applied for 
permission from the National Institute for Health and Clinical 
Excellence (NICE) to treat her with this drug, but was denied. Linda 
and her husband decided to pay for the drug themselves out of their 
savings. However, this was a violation of National Health Service 
policy and Linda was denied the ``free'' treatment by the NHS because 
she had privately paid for a cancer medication that prolonged her life. 
The NHS completely withdrew treatment, including chemotherapy. Linda 
died in March 2008. The Southend University Hospital NHS foundation 
trust, where Linda was getting her treatment said in a statement: ``A 
patient can choose whether to continue with the treatment available 
under the NHS or opt to go privately for a different treatment regime. 
It is explained to the patient that they can either have their 
treatment under the NHS or privately, but not both or in parallel.''
  Would you want you or your loved ones to have the experience that 
David Malleau of Canada did? David was a 44 year old truck driver who 
was in a bad car accident in 2004. Doctors were forced to remove a 
fist-piece size of bone from his skull to relieve pressure on his 
brain. After the swelling subsided, he was ready for surgery in March 
2005. He was sent home and placed on a waiting list for surgery to 
replace the removed portion of his skull. Because of the threat of 
something hitting the exposed side of his brain, David was confined to 
his home while waiting on the surgery. Ultimately, he waited nearly a 
year for skull replacement surgery.
  Would you want you or your loved ones to have the experience of 
Lindsay McCreith? Lindsay is a man in his 60s who went to the ER and a 
CT scan showed a large wedge-shaped brain tumor. He was discharged from 
the hospital 4 days later with a diagnosis of a stroke and given anti-
seizure medication. Wanting to see if the tumor was cancerous, Lindsay 
wanted an MRI. He was given an appointment for one 4 months later. Not 
wanting to wait that long, Lindsay came to the United States and paid 
$494.67 for the MRI. He took the results to his Canadian family doctor, 
who referred him to a neurologist. He was examined by the neurologist 
and referred to a neurosurgeon. However, to see the neurosurgeon, 
Lindsay would have to wait 3 months. Not wanting to wait that long to 
determine if he had cancer, Lindsay returned to the US and a biopsy 
found the tumor was malignant, and the tumor was subsequently 
surgically removed.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle think that won't and can't 
happen in America. If the underlying bill becomes law, I hope and pray 
they are right. Unfortunately, I have low expectations that the 
experiences of patients in the United Kingdom and Canada can be avoided 
in the United States if this health care legislation becomes law.
  I think another indication of the future of health care in America 
can be found in career paths that current physicians recommend to their 
own children. Since the health care reform debate began in 2009, I had 
the opportunity to meet with dozens of physicians throughout the Fifth 
Congressional District of Texas, which I have the privilege to 
represent. In my discussions with these physicians, I asked them 
whether or not they would recommend to their children a career in 
medicine as a physician. With very few exceptions, these physicians 
told me that they have encouraged their children to seek careers 
elsewhere, as they believe physicians in the future will not be able to 
provide the care that is right for their patients, but will be limited 
to providing the care that is approved by the government. This 
anecdotal evidence is of great concern to me, because if current 
physicians won't even encourage their own children to practice 
medicine, will Americans continue to see our best and brightest 
students continue to choose medicine? My fear is that we will not, and 
in the future you will be seeing the doctor who was a ``C'' student, 
instead of seeing a doctor who was an ``A'' student, like you can 
today.
  In America, we must never confuse the social safety net with the 
slippery slope to socialism. When it comes to the health care of my 
family, when it comes to the health care of my country, I reject the 
hubris and arrogance of government social engineering, and I embrace 
the affordability and portability that comes by preserving the 
liberties of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes and becomes law, Americans 
will not stop being Americans. Each generation of Americans before us 
has passed on a legacy of more freedom and opportunity than the one it 
was left. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to make their 
pursuit of happiness easier than our own. This legislation takes us in 
the exact opposite direction.
  But despite the obstacles that Washington places along their paths in 
pursuit of their own happiness, Americans will continue to work hard, 
think hard, and employ the exceptionalism that has made our nation the 
beacon of freedom that we are today. Americans will find a way, Madam 
Speaker, to overcome the new taxes, the new spending, and the new 
mandates that are contained in this legislation. They will find a way--
they must find a way--if we are to keep the Republic that we inherited 
from our forefathers.