[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 46 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2260-H2263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               OBAMACARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a while ago, one of my colleagues 
was down here talking about ObamaCare and what a problem it was going 
to cause for this country from a financial standpoint as well as 
causing rationing of health care and a whole host of other things. But 
what I want to do right now is bring to the attention of my colleagues 
and anybody else that's paying attention a decision that was just made 
by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer that affects everybody on 
Social Security who wants to have a health care plan besides Medicare.
  I'm going to read you an op-ed that just was in the Washington 
Examiner and also in The Wall Street Journal that I think every single 
American ought to be aware of because this has wide-ranging impact on 
everybody in this country. Here's what it says. ``A recent court ruling 
has helped President Obama push ahead with a mandate that all citizens 
be required to have government health care. This court ruling would 
mandate that every citizen in this country has government health 
care.'' Socialized medicine.
  ``In a March 16 decision, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who 
previously served as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations 
Board, ruled that seniors who elect to opt out of Medicare coverage 
must forfeit their Social Security benefits as well and repay all past 
Social Security benefits prior to opting out.''
  I hope everybody is getting that in their offices. If you don't take 
Medicare coverage and you're a senior and you opt out of Medicare 
coverage because you want another form of health care, maybe a better 
form of health care, then you have got to lose your Social Security 
payments and pay back all the Social Security payments that you 
received in the past.

                              {time}  1620

  Now, anybody who is paying attention is going to say, ``You know, 
that didn't really happen,'' but I'm telling you that decision was made 
on March 16 by Judge Rosemary Collyer, a U.S. district judge here in 
this area.
  The ruling relates to a lawsuit that was filed in 2008 in--and this 
is the name of the case--Hall v. Sebelius. Several senior citizens 
challenged a 1993 Clinton administration program rule, and they sued 
the Federal Government for their right to opt out of Medicare without 
losing their Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs all paid their 
Medicare taxes throughout their employment histories and did not 
request reimbursement of the money.
  So they'd paid into Medicare for the entire time that they'd been 
working. These individuals simply wished to engage other health 
insurance plans. They wanted to get some other health insurance plans 
besides Medicare. They'd paid into Medicare and they'd paid into Social 
Security, but they wanted to get other health insurance besides 
Medicare.
  It goes on to say that they believed it would provide better coverage 
than that of the government's Medicare program.
  In addition, these seniors contributed to Social Security while they 
were working, and accepted these benefits upon retirement. Now, here is 
what the seniors' lawsuit argued:
  Both the Social Security and Medicare acts state that the application 
for Social Security benefits and Medicare are voluntary and that 
applications for each program are not dependent upon each other. Forced 
participation in Medicare violates an individual's constitutional right 
to privacy. The Clinton-era rules were promulgated without undergoing 
the required notice and comment rulemaking requirements, which is a 
violation of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.
  The judge stated that, in its arguments, the Obama administration 
``extols the benefits of Medicare and suggests that plaintiffs would 
agree that they are not truly injured if they were to learn more about 
Medicare, perhaps through discovery.'' Note the familiar condescending 
Obama administration tone: Take the Medicare, and then find out what's 
in it. You'll like it when you do.
  We had that problem before on legislation. You'll remember the 
previous Speaker of the House. When asked about ObamaCare, she said, 
Well, we've got to pass the bill. Then we'll find out what's in it.
  That really made a lot of sense--but once again, this is pretty much 
the attitude of the administration.
  Here is what the judge went on to say:
  ``The parties use a lot of ink disputing whether plaintiffs' desire 
to avoid Medicare part A is sensible.''
  Translation: If Americans don't want government-run health care, 
well, they just don't have much sense. After all, the government knows 
what's best for them, and they don't.
  What is most astounding about this case is that, as of late 2009, 
this same judge, Judge Collyer, supported the plaintiffs' claim and 
even refused the Obama administration's request to dismiss the suit. 
Her ruling then was that neither the statute nor the regulation 
specifies that plaintiffs must withdraw from Social Security and repay 
retirement benefits in order to withdraw from Medicare, which means 
simply that, if they decide not to take Medicare, they can continue to 
get their Social Security that they paid into, as they should, and they 
wouldn't have to pay back the Social Security benefits they'd received 
in the past. That makes sense.
  She changed her mind. This judge made this ruling in 2009. Now she 
changes her mind, and she argues in her stunning reversal, ``Requiring 
a mechanism for plaintiffs and others in their situation to `dis-
enroll' would be contrary to congressional intent, which was to provide 
`mandatory' benefits under Medicare part A and for those receiving 
Social Security retirement benefits. Plaintiffs are trapped in a 
government program intended for their benefit. They disagree and wish 
to escape,'' Collyer wrote. ``The court can find no loophole or 
requirement that the Secretary provide such a pathway.''
  According to Collyer, an ``entitlement'' is mandatory. You have to 
take it. Now, here is the government saying you have to take Medicare, 
and her opinion will undoubtedly be relied upon by the Obama 
administration as support for claims of mandatory entitlements, such as 
that which is the crux of ObamaCare, which could be Medicare for 
everyone. Everyone would have to be covered, not by their own 
individual health care plans that they have or by their employers' 
health care plans or a group plan they're on, but everyone would have 
to be covered by Medicare, which is a government-run, socialized 
medicine approach, which ultimately would ration health care and cost a 
great deal more. ObamaCare, when you run it out for 10 years, you'll 
find is going to cost literally trillions of dollars at a time when we 
have a $14 trillion national debt. This year alone, we're exceeding our 
revenues by $1.4 trillion.

  The Wall Street Journal reported that Kent Masterson Brown, the lead 
attorney for the seniors, commented that, if Americans wonder how 
bureaucrats will write ObamaCare's rules, they need look only to this 
ruling. ``When they do,'' he said, ``they will realize nothing will be 
optional.''
  This is an alarming decision that came about in a disturbing manner. 
Collyer's ruling is a danger to freedom-loving Americans. Let's look to 
the plaintiffs' appeal--they're appealing--to the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals for more favorable results.
  That's where we are today. If she is not reversed, that means anybody 
who gets Social Security, who may have another health care plan and who 
may not want to be on Medicare, will either have to take Medicare or 
will have to pay all their Social Security benefits back; plus, they 
don't get Social Security in the future.
  Now think about that. You don't want to take Medicare for whatever 
reason, and you've been paying into Social Security all of your life. 
You're

[[Page H2261]]

getting Social Security benefits, and because you won't take Medicare, 
they say, Uh-oh. You've got to pay all your Social Security benefits 
back to when you received them, and you can't get any more in the 
future.
  That is just absolutely crazy.
  I want to read to you some information that I have from the actual 
wording of the statute, and this is very, very important because it can 
only be interpreted one way. Yet this judge and the Obama 
administration are changing it so that it will fit their desired 
objective. Let me read this to you. Be patient with me while I read 
this and get all the information before me.
  Here is what the Medicare statute says. My colleagues in your 
offices, see if you get from this that the people have to take Medicare 
if they're getting Social Security or if they have to pay the payments 
back and not get any more of their Social Security benefits. Here is 
what the Medicare statute says:
  The Medicare statute provides that only individuals who are 
entitled--entitled--to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. If 
you're ``entitled'' to Social Security. You have to be entitled to 
Social Security in order to be entitled to Medicare, but it does not 
say if you're entitled to Social Security that you have to take 
Medicare. It only says, if you're entitled to Social Security, you're 
entitled, if you want to, to take Medicare.
  This judge is changing the words that are in the statute to mean, if 
you take Social Security, you have to take Medicare; but the law does 
not say that. She is making law on the Federal bench, but that's not 
what our Founders contemplated when they wrote the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution.
  Listen to this again: The Medicare statute says that only individuals 
who are entitled to Social Security are entitled to Medicare.
  Therefore, the judge is arguing the only way to avoid entitlement to 
Medicare part A at age 65 is to forgo the source of that entitlement, 
i.e., Social Security retirement benefits. So she is standing the law 
of the country, the Medicare law and the Social Security law, on their 
heads. This will mean to every single citizen of this country that, if 
the government says, ``Here is something we want you to do. If you 
don't do it, we're going to take away another benefit you have or 
another government program,'' you will have to do it, because that's 
what this judge's ruling simply means.

                              {time}  1630

  If the government is giving you a benefit like Social Security and 
they decide that there's another benefit that you're entitled to, then 
say you have to take it, but you don't take it, they will be able to 
withdraw your Social Security and say you have to pay back all of the 
benefits of the past. This is absolutely insane. It is government run 
amuck, government run out of control.
  And this judge, if I had the ability, would be fired. I can't 
remember the exact date, but in 2008 she ruled in favor of the 
plaintiffs saying if you have got Social Security and you don't want 
Medicare because you have got another health care plan, you don't have 
to take it; and now she's reversed herself and said if you get Social 
Security, you have to take Medicare.
  And once again, before I give up the floor, Mr. Speaker--and I see my 
good friend's here, I'm going to yield to you the balance of my time--
this is what the law says: the law says that only individuals who are 
entitled to Social Security are entitled to Medicare. But that does not 
say if you're entitled to Social Security you have to take Medicare, 
and she's saying--and I hope everybody's getting this--she's saying 
that if you're getting Social Security, you have to take Medicare. 
You've got another health plan, if your employer has another health 
plan, doesn't matter; you've got to get rid of those, and you have to 
join Medicare or you lose your benefits.
  Now, this case is on appeal, and I hope it goes all the way to the 
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will reverse it because, if it does 
not repeal this decision by Judge Collier, then what's going to happen 
is that everything that government says will have to be done, and you 
will have almost complete government control over every aspect of our 
life. If they can say you get Social Security, you've got to take 
Medicare and if you have got a separate health care plan, to heck with 
it; and if they can go far enough to say that, they can say anything 
they want to to make you jump through a hoop. And that is just dead 
wrong, and it flies in the face of everything that we believe as far as 
the free people and a free government is concerned.
  I just can't believe some of the things that are happening around 
here; and the thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is the American 
people who are involved in so many things that they can't pay attention 
to all the things that are going on. They rely upon their elected 
Representatives because we have a democratic Republic to study these 
bills and make decisions that are best for the entire country. And 
that's the reason they do this, because we've got 300 million people 
here, and they can't read every bill or watch every court decision.
  But the fact of the matter is, these courts, a separate part of our 
government, our Forefathers said we've got a judicial branch, a 
legislative branch, and an executive branch, and they're supposed to be 
coequal. But here you have a Federal judge making a law that will 
transcend laws that we have on the books and change the way of life for 
every single American.
  Remember what this does. The law says if you're getting Social 
Security, you may take Medicare, and what the judge is saying, if you 
get Social Security, you have to take Medicare, no matter what other 
health care plan you have; and if you don't do what the government 
tells you, you have to do it, then you're going to lose your Social 
Security benefits; and not only that, you have to pay back, probably 
with interest, every Social Security check you received.
  That is horrible. This administration and this judge ought to be 
taken to task for it; and with that, I'd like to yield to my colleague 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my good friend for yielding.
  You know, we hear so often from this administration they're concerned 
about the little guy, but we know that Wall Street executives gave 
contributions four times more for the present President than they did 
for his Republican opponent; and so it kind of tells you where you see 
where the contributions come from for a particular candidate, who they 
really care about.
  We're told that they really care about the working poor; and yet the 
very thing we're talking about under the ObamaCare bill is almost 
inconceivable except that it was pushed through by this President and 
two Democratic majorities, that there's a provision that if you are 
just above the poverty line and you can't afford the health insurance 
that this administration dictates--as I understand, we will be 
including pregnancy, say you're a young single person, no plans of 
getting pregnant, no ability to get pregnant, other things that will 
not affect you at all but have been mandated by the administration--
instead of being able to buy a cheaper insurance policy you can afford, 
this administration will have made it so expensive that people just 
above the poverty line won't be able to afford it.

  And how the bill deals with those working poor just above the poverty 
line, it requires a 2 percent additional income tax if you cannot 
afford the insurance that they mandate.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Can I just say one thing. My colleague, a good 
friend of mine, Representative Gohmert points out the fallacy and the 
problems with the ObamaCare bill, and that is bad, very bad and it 
should not be in law, and that's why we moved H.R. 1 to repeal it.
  But this decision that I was talking about, Louie, even goes further 
than that. It says if you're getting Social Security, you have to take 
Medicare, and what they're doing is they're saying everybody in this 
country is ultimately going to have to be under a government-run 
program, Medicare or ObamaCare, which means socialized medicine and an 
entirely different approach to medicine which will be controlled by 
government bureaucrats.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I understood where my friend was going, and I had not 
heard about that opinion, and I'm so glad the smart gentleman had 
brought that to our attention because that is

[[Page H2262]]

just incredible except that it is exactly what the Democratic 
proponents of ObamaCare and the President himself had said before they 
wanted to get to.
  The goal was to use this to get to a complete government-run health 
care, a single-payer system, where everybody is required to be under 
it, and so this decision speeds that process up dramatically; but it is 
ultimately where they said they wanted to get anyway.
  Now, having seen socialized medicine firsthand in the Soviet Union as 
an exchange student back in 1973, and having seen another form of 
socialized medicine for 4 years in the United States Army, I don't want 
to go there. I don't want the government in charge of my health care. I 
saw that in the Army. We have some incredible medics. We have some 
folks that shouldn't be practicing medicine that were working there; 
and, in fact, I'm hopeful that I was helpful in getting rid of some of 
those.
  But that's not where we need to be going. People deserve better. But 
the fact is that in the bill itself there is retribution for the 
working poor who can't even afford to do what the administration has 
dictated.
  So between a judge saying if you've got Social Security, you're going 
to be crammed into this policy, and this administration and former 
Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid saying that we're going to penalize you 
because you're working poor and can't afford the luxuries of the policy 
we're mandating, the working guy just doesn't have much of a chance 
unless we are able to turn some of those things around.
  And the working poor is what I often saw at Ft. Benning when people 
were not getting paid what they should have under President Carter; but 
now the military is paid better, and yet I wanted to bring up the 
situation that exists. There is an attempt to use the military as pawns 
even while they're out there fighting to protect us in foreign areas, 
combat theaters. The last thing those people should have to worry about 
is whether or not their money arrives in their account so their family 
can be taken care of. Yet we're hearing from military people, they 
understand if there's a shutdown, sure, they will get their pay 
eventually when the shutdown is over and maybe they will be lucky and 
Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate won't force a shutdown for 
very long.

                              {time}  1640

  We know they want to force it because they keep saying they do. And 
of course we heard from Senator Schumer himself that this is a 
political game to them. They are going to force a shutdown and 
basically blame the tea party. The military are the ones who are going 
to get hurt there. This from the Democratic Party that says all they 
care about is those working to protect us; and yet when you see what 
they are really doing behind the scenes, it is no such thing.
  We have a report from CRS here that says: ``Even though uniformed 
personnel have been excepted from furloughs during a lapse in funding, 
no special provision allows the Defense Department to provide pay when 
appropriated funds are not available to do so. In this regard, 
uniformed personnel are treated no differently than excepted civilian 
Federal employees who are similarly expected to continue working during 
a shutdown but whose pay will be delayed until appropriations are 
enacted.''
  Well, I know my friend from Indiana feels, as I do--and we've got, I 
don't know, around 50 other people just in a matter of an hour or so 
that have signed on to this bill, H.R. 1297, that says--and I will get 
over right to the meat of this thing--it says, During a funding gap 
impacting the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make 
available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, out of any amounts in the 
general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts 
as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
the case of the Coast Guard, determines to be necessary to continue to 
provide pay and allowances without interruption to members of the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Reserve 
components thereof who perform active service during the funding gap.''
  So we hope that the majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and 
Senator Schumer and those who have been saying privately, which got 
exposed--like the Bible says, What's done in the dark will be exposed, 
and it has been. They are out to shut down the government, try to blame 
the tea party.
  And they have expected that one of the things they will, I'm sure, be 
able to do is have the ``lamestream media'' that run out and try to do 
anything they can to support that party go try to find spouses of 
military in harm's way who are scared to death because now the 
government has been shut down and there is no check coming for the next 
pay period. This will address that, and we can take our military off 
the table as pawns and let them be about concentrating on protecting us 
and saving their own lives.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Louie, but one 
thing I think that my colleagues and anybody that is paying attention 
ought to know is, first of all, I have heard that the Republicans don't 
have an alternative health care plan. We've had one for 2 years, and 
the media keeps saying that we haven't provided an alternative. We do, 
one that will work and won't cost the taxpayers and the future 
generations almost everything that they will ever expect to earn. 
That's number one.
  The other thing that concerns me is that the administration and now 
their complicit persons in the court and the media are trying to do 
everything they can to move this country in a direction that nobody has 
ever anticipated and that is complete government control over our 
lives. And I know that you and all of our colleagues from this side of 
the aisle are very committed to making sure that doesn't happen.
  The last thing I would like to say is, we need to cut government 
spending. You know this. And we're sending legislation over there to 
try to cut $100 billion or $61 billion out of this year's spending, $61 
billion. The projected deficit this year is $1.4 trillion, so $61 
billion is a drop in the ocean. It's nothing. Yet they don't want to 
cut anything or any programs. And if we don't cut spending, this 
country will not only be bankrupt, but we'll be giving a legacy to our 
kids and grandkids that they will never forgive us for.
  So I just hope my colleagues are really aware of that. We don't want 
to shut the government down. We are committed to cutting spending. They 
are the ones that, when we send a spending cut over there, won't let 
the bill pass; and we're cutting in a responsible way. So they're the 
ones that are causing the problem. We do not want the government shut 
down.
  Mr. GOHMERT. One of the things that is being said is, But what about 
the children? I welcome that question, because those of us who are 
standing so firmly in trying to cut this runaway spending are the ones 
who are standing for the children and the children's grandchildren 
because what has been done--and in truth, I remember getting beat up in 
'05, '06 for $160 billion in deficit spending. It was wrong. We 
shouldn't have been there. But now for the last 3 years, 2\1/2\, to be 
over a trillion dollars each year is just reprehensible. It is wrapping 
such a heavy weight and chains around the necks of the children--some 
not even born yet--that it is unthinkable that somebody would invoke 
for the children to keep the self-aggrandizing spending going when it 
is going to come out of the children and their grandchildren's pockets.

  We've got some that say, It's all going to work out. Don't worry 
about it. Look, just let the spending go. Don't rock the boat.
  I saw this prayer from Peter Marshall back when he was Chaplain of 
the Senate. And just for historical purposes, in one of his prayers in 
the Senate, he said, ``Our Father, give us the faith to believe that it 
is possible for us to live victoriously even in the midst of dangerous 
opportunity that we call crisis. Help us to see that there is something 
better than patient endurance or keeping a stiff upper lip, and that 
whistling in the dark is not really bravery.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my colleague for coming down to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2263]]



                          ____________________