[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H72-H73]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. This coming Wednesday, in really the first order of real 
business of the House, we are voting on health care reform repeal. The 
new Republican majority has decided that this is the most important 
issue, even though they know that it's political theater, a charade. It 
may pass the House, but it won't pass the Senate, and certainly the 
President would veto it. So this is not becoming law.

[[Page H73]]

  At a time when we have so many pressing issues, I am really saddened 
that the majority wants to conduct this political charade. If there are 
problems with the health care law, we don't have to repeal it. We could 
change parts of it. We could tweak it. We could put out of the bill 
what we don't like and keep in the bill what we do like. But, 
unfortunately, the attitude and the decision has been made to try to 
repeal the whole bill.
  My constituents understand that as we speak now the Rules Committee 
is discussing what kind of amendments to allow. And we know no real 
meaningful amendments, if anything, are going to be allowed. The 
Republican majority coming in says they're going to have open rules. 
And we're not going to have really an open rule on the first bill that 
they're going to attempt to pass, which is a repeal of health care 
reform. I think that's wrong. I think there are many of us who feel 
strongly that there ought to be some amendments that we can put in to 
ensure that the good coverage that we have achieved in the health care 
bill is kept.
  Surely, it's not everything that's wrong with the health care bill 
which my colleagues oppose. I want to ask them, since they want to 
repeal the bill, are they against the part of the bill which says that 
you can keep your child on your health care coverage until age 26? I 
think my constituents like that, and I think theirs do as well. Do they 
want to repeal the part that says that an insurance company can no 
longer deny you coverage because of a so-called preexisting condition? 
I think that's something that all constituents like and appreciate. Do 
the people that want to repeal the health care reform bill want to say 
to insurance companies that it's okay to put caps on people, so when 
they pay their premium year in and year out and then they finally get 
sick and ask for coverage, the insurance companies can tell them, Well, 
sorry. Not only do you have a preexisting condition, but there's also a 
cap on benefits, either an annual cap or a lifetime cap. So, therefore, 
we're not going to cover you at all. I don't think anybody's 
constituents want that part to be repealed.
  And what about the doughnut hole for seniors in Medicare part D? 
Seniors have found it very, very difficult. They get part of their 
prescription drugs paid for and then there's a doughnut hole which is 
for a long time. They have to pay for everything themselves while at 
the same time still paying their monthly premiums to the government. 
And then, at the end, they get the government to come in and help them. 
That has put a tremendous burden on seniors. And what the health care 
bill which was passed by the last Congress does is it eventually 
removes that doughnut hole for seniors. Seniors can get back money, and 
it starts right away, where they can get back money to pay for those 
prescription drugs.
  So I think that we hear a lot about the lame-duck session and how we 
all work together and how the big question of the new Congress is going 
to be: Is it going to be a stalemate; is it going to be gridlock; or is 
it going to be people coming together in a bipartisan fashion to try to 
work together? If the first bill that the Republican majority is 
putting on the floor is any indication, it seems to me that they have 
chosen gridlock. And I'm really sorry about that. Because I will admit 
there are some things in the new health care law that should be 
changed, and that we should work across the aisle together to make sure 
that changes. But to repeal the provisions that benefit my constituents 
and everyone else's constituents all across America, to me makes no 
sense whatsoever.
  The big insurance companies have had it too big, too long. And my 
Republican colleagues, unfortunately, are right in bed with them. And I 
think that is something that the American people ought to see. Who do 
we care about, the big insurance companies? Or do we care about the 
average American who is struggling day in and day out to get health 
care coverage? We have almost 50 million Americans without coverage. 
And it's not only the people who are not covered now, but it's working 
people who will find out in the days and months ahead if there is no 
health care bill, that they will be added to the rolls of people who 
are uncovered, and that people working hard will find out that the 50 
million will swell to 60 million, 70 million, and maybe even more.

                              {time}  1420

  So it is going to affect all of us because the health care costs have 
been rising way, way beyond the rate of inflation, and that is why we 
needed to have health care reform.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's not 
posture politically. Let's try to put our heads together and work in a 
bipartisan fashion to do something for the American people. If there is 
something in the bill that needs to be changed, then we should change 
it, but repeal is not the answer.
  Every major bill, from Social Security, to the Civil Rights bills of 
the 1960s, to Medicare and Medicaid, all had to be tweaked after they 
were passed. All had to be changed a little bit. It is the same thing 
with this bill. We should not repeal it. We should fix it.

                          ____________________