[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 49 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1563-H1569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FRESHMAN CLASS ON OBAMACARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight and am joined down here by many 
of my colleagues as freshman Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives to have an open and honest conversation with you, Mr. 
Speaker, and with all of America to talk about an issue that I believe 
is timely, with the court case that is now pending

[[Page H1564]]

in the United States Supreme Court dealing with the Affordable Care 
Act, otherwise known as ``ObamaCare,'' otherwise known as many other 
items, but tonight we'll be referring to it as ObamaCare or the 
Affordable Care Act.
  To me, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that ObamaCare is a legislative act 
that overpromises, overspends, and underperforms, all at the expense of 
hardworking taxpayers. The law does little to get to the root cause of 
the problem in health care, and that is escalating cost increases 
across America. To me, the law is more focused on health insurance 
reform and does not do much in regards to curving the increasing health 
care costs in America down.
  Now, in the House of Representatives, we have voted repeatedly to 
repeal this atrocious law. I believe that is the best course of action 
for many reasons, and I'm sure we're going to get into those reasons 
tonight. But tonight we are joined by many freshman colleagues. What 
I'd like to do at this point in time is yield to my good friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott), a great Member of the freshman class and president 
of the freshman class, to offer some comments in regards to the same.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, this week, the United States Supreme Court 
began hearing testimony on the constitutionality of the President's 
health care law, a law that, according to a USA Today poll, 72 percent 
of Americans believe is unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, the key question is: If the Federal Government can 
mandate its citizens buy health insurance, then what can they not 
mandate from Washington, D.C., that the American citizens must buy?
  Mr. Speaker, the consequences of this mandate are severe. If the 
Supreme Court does not overturn it, what will the Federal Government 
allow themselves to mandate next? Life insurance? Just one word 
difference, health insurance versus life insurance. Bank accounts? A 
red car instead of a blue one? Organic apples instead of grapes? 
President Obama has put America on a very steep and slippery slope, and 
House Republicans are here to stop him.
  During his takeover of one-sixth of the economy--and that's what it's 
about, Mr. Speaker, it's about the fact that this is one-sixth of the 
economy--President Obama stated that if you liked your plan, you can 
keep it. It was a promise, a pledge he made to the American citizens. 
However, Americans soon found out, as we know today, exactly what he 
meant.
  Under President Obama's health care law, you technically have a 
choice: You can keep your current plan as he promised, the health 
insurance plan that you chose. And yes, as long as the President, by 
his commission of unelected bureaucrats, approves your purchase, then 
you can keep the plan without paying a penalty. However, if his 
bureaucrats don't approve your plan, you'll pay a penalty. Mr. Speaker, 
the American people know that's not a choice.
  Two years after this bill was signed into law, our worst suspicions 
are now being confirmed. Thanks to President Obama and the Democrats 
who used their control of Congress, Americans will have higher costs 
and a reduced level of care.
  The nonpartisan CBO estimates that non-employer-sponsored health 
insurance premiums will be 13 percent higher than if this legislation 
had not been signed into law, Mr. Speaker. Over 90 percent of seniors 
will lose their retiree prescription drug coverage they currently 
enjoy, and also be hit with double-digit premium increases. The CBO has 
also noted that the health care law ``may'' hinder job creation.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe there's no doubt this bill kills jobs. In 
fact, when you get right down to it, a small business owner who has 
more than 50 employees is actually going to be encouraged to terminate 
the number of employees that they have above 50. Otherwise, they will 
be penalized if they do not comply with the law. Now, think about that, 
Mr. Speaker: Not only does this law hinder job creation, but it forces 
employers to get to under the 50-employee threshold so that they will 
not have to deal with the job-killing bureaucracy that this bill forces 
upon them.
  Since coming to Congress last January, the House Republican 
Conference has voted to repeal not only this health care bill in its 
entirety but the 1099 provision, which the President agreed with us on; 
the CLASS Act, which the President agreed with us on; and, most 
recently, the IPAB rules.

                              {time}  2000

  It's time for the Senate and President Obama to wake up and realize 
what the majority of Americans already know: The Not So Affordable Care 
Act is simply bad economic policy, bad health care policy, and a 
violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us this 
evening.
  On the point about small businesses, I would refer to a McKenzie 
Group report that found that more than one-half of employers with high 
awareness of the impact of ObamaCare said in the poll and in that 
report that they will stop offering health coverage when this becomes 
fully implemented as a result of their concern as to the bureaucratic 
pressure and the cost that this law is going to put on small business 
America.
  To me, that's unacceptable. I know it is unacceptable to my colleague 
from Georgia, and I so appreciate you entertaining some time with us 
tonight.
  With that, I would like to yield to my good friend from South 
Carolina, a great member of the freshman class, Mr. Jeff Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York for his leadership on this issue.
  I just got a text message a minute ago from my wife that said my 
youngest son, he's 11, hit an in-the-park home run, and I wasn't there. 
I wasn't there because we're here serving in the United States Congress 
to try to make America better for my 11-year-old and for children of 
this generation and future generations.
  I believe that this particular legislation that was passed by the 
last Congress should be ruled unconstitutional--for a lot of different 
reasons. And I think my good friend from Florida (Mr. West) is going to 
talk momentarily about an article that he wrote, a great op-ed, in a 
Washington newspaper today. I thought it was spot-on, so I don't want 
to steal his thunder on that.
  He talks in there about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, this 
committee of 15 members that Congress basically divested some of its 
power, gave some of its power over to a 15-member panel.
  Now, America needs to realize that this 15-member panel will be 
making decisions, health care decisions for you and your family. If 
you're on Medicare, this 15-member panel, IPAB, will be making 
decisions on what they'll pay for, what treatment you can get, how long 
you can stay in a nursing facility for rehab, a lot of different 
things. We're divesting responsibility and decision-making to a panel.
  This Congress just last week passed the repeal of that Independent 
Payment Advisory Board, IPAB, as it's known. We sent it to the abyss 
known as the United States Senate, because under that Democrat 
leadership under Harry Reid, they fail to take good, commonsense 
legislation up in the Senate for a vote.
  But you know what? The last Congress that passed what's now known as 
ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, they gave some of their power away 
to this board, and anything that board does becomes law. And the only 
way Congress can overturn that law is with a majority vote or a 
supermajority vote in the United States Senate. That's 60 Members that 
have to vote against something that IPAB does.
  When I read the United States Constitution, article I, section 1, 
it's at the very beginning, right after the preamble, this is what it 
says:

       All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

  I don't see in there an Independent Payment Advisory Board at all. I 
see a United States Congress made up of a House and a Senate. That's 
what the United States Supreme Court ought to rule automatically 
unconstitutional in this bill.
  We can talk about a lot of other things, but that bill was wrong for

[[Page H1565]]

America. It's going to cost small businesses, it's going to stymie the 
economy, and we may never recover from what's coming with the full 
implementation of ObamaCare.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman for his comments so much because the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board is a classic example of what is 
wrong with ObamaCare. What they did in ObamaCare in the last 
congressional session was delegate its authority to 15 unelected 
bureaucrats. You're absolutely right.
  And the worst thing about it, to my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, is 
that 15-member board is not subject to any open law requirements. They 
don't have to conduct their hearings in public. They don't have to 
conduct their deliberations with public input. It's 15 unelected 
bureaucrats that are making fundamental health care decisions that 
should be patient-centered relationships between a patient and a 
doctor.
  But yet, under ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act, what this 
Congress did in the 111th Congress was delegate its authority to 15 
bureaucrats to make those life-and-death decisions.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. That's an interesting point, because 
I'm on the Natural Resources Committee. We deal with the EPA and a 
number of other, what used to be known as the MMS, and now BOEMRE, that 
makes regulations regarding offshore drilling, and they can't do 
anything without some public comment period. They can't promulgate a 
regulation that isn't subject to a public comment period and an appeal 
process.
  But from what I hear you saying is this 15-member board can pass 
something in the dark of the night, in the back room, without 
transparency, without public input, without public comment period, and 
it will have the force of law.
  Mr. REED. I so appreciate that comment.
  With that, at this point in time, I'd like to yield to a great 
colleague, Mr. Trey Gowdy from South Carolina. Mr. Gowdy has joined us 
this evening, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this 
topic.
  Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank my 
colleague and friend from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, my colleague and 
friend from Georgia, Mr. Scott, my colleague and friend from the great 
State of Florida, Colonel West, all of whom are experts, Mr. Speaker, 
on the policy of ObamaCare.

  I want to talk to you about something other than policy. I want to 
talk to you about the law. But I'm going to concede up front, Mr. 
Speaker, that having health insurance is a wise idea. Having health 
insurance is a really, really good idea.
  Walking over from the Longworth office building just a few minutes 
ago, Mr. Speaker, I passed two dozen people who were out jogging or 
otherwise exercising, and I can't help but conclude exercising is a 
wise idea. But Congress has not mandated exercise, not yet at least. 
The week's not over with yet. But so far we have not mandated exercise, 
despite the fact that it is a good policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help, in talking to my wife tonight, to be 
reminded that remembering our spouses' birthdays is also a wise idea. 
So far, although the week is not over with yet, Congress has not 
mandated that we remember our spouses' anniversaries.
  So, up front, let's acknowledge there's a difference between being a 
good idea and being a constitutional idea, because, Mr. Speaker, what 
my question is for Colonel West from Florida that I will ask initially 
rhetorically, and then I'd like him to answer it, is: Can Congress make 
you eat beets? Because beets are good for you, Mr. Speaker. You know 
that. You're a physician. What you eat matters. Can Congress make you 
eat okra? Can it make you eat cabbage? And if not, why not?
  If all we're here to talk about is whether or not something is a good 
idea and there are no constitutional limits to what Congress can do, 
then my question is: Why not? Why can't we just debate this on the 
basis of public policy?
  And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is this: Because we have a Constitution 
which is the supreme law of the land, and the Constitution has specific 
enumerated powers of what Congress can and, by absence, cannot do. And 
the Commerce Clause says that Congress can regulate commerce among the 
several States. And that's what this administration will be arguing 
this week, that that one phrase, that Congress can regulate commerce 
among the several States, gives this body the power to force everyone 
to purchase a private product, that being health insurance.
  So my question to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: If health insurance is a 
good idea, how about life insurance? Because heaven knows we don't need 
any more generational debt in this country, Mr. Speaker. It is not fair 
to pass on debt to subsequent generations. So, before this week is 
done, why don't we mandate life insurance?
  And I've seen study after study after study that good oral health is 
tantamount to good overall health. So why don't we, before the week is 
over with, Mr. Speaker, mandate that everyone must purchase dental 
insurance? If not, why not?
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was a prosecutor in a former life, so I 
took great note of two Supreme Court cases, Lopez and Morrison. In 
Lopez, this body passed the Gun Free School Zone Act, saying we don't 
want guns on junior high and high school campuses. And the Supreme 
Court of the United States said, that may be a laudatory public policy 
position, but Congress has no business regulating the campus of high 
schools and junior high schools.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress also--and this issue is very near and dear to 
my heart because I come from a State that has struggled mightily with 
the issue of domestic violence.

                              {time}  2010

  We have struggled mightily with that.
  So Congress passed a federalized Violence Against Women Act. In the 
United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court said that is a very 
laudable public policy. But the Commerce Clause of the Constitution 
does not give you the power to tell the several States how to handle 
domestic violence, and they struck it down.
  So we've got to, in this country, somehow find a way to separate what 
is good public policy from what is the law of the land, because, Mr. 
Speaker, I will tell you this: if the Supreme Court says that Congress 
can make you purchase a private product like health insurance, then I 
beg someone to tell me what are the limits to what we can tell people 
to do.
  Can we make them exercise? We all know that's good for you. If I've 
got to subsidize the health of people who are obese or have 
hypertension, why can't I make them exercise? Because this is America, 
and Congress can't make you exercise. They can encourage you to do it, 
but they can't make you do it.
  Congress can't make you buy dental insurance, and Congress can't make 
you buy life insurance, and Congress can't make you exercise or get out 
of the rain when there's lightning. There are lots of things that we 
ought to do that Congress can't make us do.
  If the Supreme Court says that Congress can make you purchase health 
insurance, Mr. Speaker, that is the end of federalism in this country. 
There are no limits to what this body can make its citizens do if this 
law were upheld.
  I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank my other colleagues.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman for coming tonight and sharing the 
passion of what we're talking about when we're talking about ObamaCare 
and the constitutionality and the concepts of federalism. It reminds 
me, Mr. Speaker, of over 200 years ago our Founding Fathers had the 
brilliance, the vision, to recognize that the Federal Government is a 
limited Federal Government. The power of our government rests in the 
people, not in the Federal Government. The power of our government 
represents in the local and State entities that are closest to the 
people.
  I firmly believe in the 10th Amendment and believe that the 
governments that are closest to the people are the best to be in the 
position to regulate and govern those people; and we should respect the 
U.S. Constitution and the limited powers that are enumerated in here, 
and recognize--and I hope that the United States Supreme Court joins me 
in that position in recognizing that

[[Page H1566]]

there are limits to the Federal Government. The interstate commerce 
clause has limits, and it's not open-ended in order to force us to 
purchase health insurance for the sake of forcing us to engage in 
commerce in order to more effectively regulate interstate commerce.
  I so agree with the gentleman from South Carolina. If that is the 
holding of the Court, then the Federal Government has no bounds. The 
Federal Government will control every ounce, every corner of our lives 
on a day-to-day basis.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
West), whom I so enjoy being a colleague of here as a freshman Member 
of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Mr. WEST. I want to thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Reed), and 
I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) and the 
previous colleague, Mr. Duncan, my freshman class president, my brother 
from Georgia, and also my colleague from the great State of Arkansas 
(Mr. Griffin).
  Mr. Speaker, very simply, the Supreme Court has begun to consider the 
legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also 
referred to as ObamaCare. The High Court will pore over article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution to determine the meaning behind the 
words:

       The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, 
     duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide 
     for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
     States, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among 
     the several States and with Indian tribes.

  The 2012 Supreme Court must now determine whether the Founders had 
any intention of mandating the behavior of private enterprises and 
American citizens. To me, Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious--
absolutely not.
  Our Nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of 
choice and a free market are at the core of our Nation's soul. A 
governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals and private 
enterprises is anathema to what our Founders intended. The prospect of 
having an unelected panel of bureaucrats determining fundamental 
decisions about our individual health is perhaps the most personal and 
intimate intrusion into our lives.
  This concept is absolutely absurd and dangerous law, which surely 
ranks with the grievances laid down 236 years ago in the Declaration of 
Independence. Grievances such as:

       He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate 
     and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation 
     until his assent should be obtained, and when so suspended he 
     is utterly neglected to attend to them.
       He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither 
     swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their 
     substance.
       He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction 
     foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, 
     giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation; for 
     imposing taxes on us without our consent; for taking away our 
     charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering 
     fundamentally the forms of our governments.

  That's why, Mr. Speaker, each and every day I carry this Declaration 
of Independence and Constitution right here next to my heart. Because 
in January of 2011, Florida Federal District Judge C. Roger Vinson 
ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, stating ``never before 
has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private 
company essentially for life just for being alive and residing in the 
United States.''

  If the government has the power to compel an otherwise passive 
individual into a transaction, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that 
Congress could do almost anything it wanted, just as my colleague from 
South Carolina articulated so well.
  Today, this prediction is being attempted before our very eyes. With 
ObamaCare, insurance companies will be forced even to provide 
contraceptive products free of charge.
  But, Mr. Speaker, why just contraception? Will the government next 
force insurance companies to provide surgical procedures free of 
charge? Where does it end? Perhaps supermarkets will be compelled to 
offer apples and carrots free of charge to ensure children have access 
to healthy food.
  Beyond exerting oppressive control over individuals and private 
enterprises, ObamaCare circumvents the foundation of our own 
legislative structure.
  At the heart of the Affordable Care Act is the Independent Payment 
Advisory Board, made up of 15 unelected officials appointed by the 
President to one simple purpose: to reduce Medicare spending. The IPAB 
will be tasked with and given the authority to reduce costs to the 
government by, among other things, limiting reimbursements to doctors. 
It doesn't take a brain surgeon, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that this 
will lead to more physicians leaving the Medicare system, reducing 
access to care for our seniors, and limiting available treatments.
  But this isn't the most frightening part. Any recommendations that 
the IPAB automatically brings forth becomes law. The only way around 
this unprecedented amount of power for Washington bureaucrats is an act 
of Congress with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. In other 
words, the unelected IPAB, appointed by the President, essentially 
becomes its own shadow legislative body.
  The fundamental structure of our government with three co-equal 
branches and a careful system of checks and balances is being usurped. 
Our freedoms and liberties are being chipped away bit by bit. Our 
country is being transformed step by step, incrementally, into a 
centrally planned, stringently controlled, bureaucratic nanny State.
  What I find most frightening is that a portion of our populace 
willingly dons these shackles and like lemmings will march this great 
constitutional Republic off to its own demise.
  Perhaps some Americans are simply unaware of the exorbitant monetary 
cost of this governmental behemoth. But numbers don't lie, Mr. Speaker, 
and they are dangerous: $1.76 trillion from the American taxpayers to 
pay for ObamaCare over 10 years, nearly double the $940 billion that 
was forecast when the bill was signed into law. As a previous Speaker 
said, ``We have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it.''
  Fifty-two billion in new taxes on businesses as employers are forced 
to provide health insurance, $47 billion in new taxes on drug companies 
and medical device-makers, costs that will surely be passed down to 
patients, particularly our senior citizens.

                              {time}  2020

  Families earning more than $250,000 a year will see more taxes as 
ObamaCare adds a new tax to investment income, including capital gains, 
dividends, rental income, and royalties; 16,000 new IRS agents; 159 new 
government agencies and bureaucracies; $575 billion in cuts to 
Medicare.
  Insurance premiums are expected to increase 1.9 percent to 2.3 
percent in 2014 and up to 3.7 percent by 2023 because ObamaCare adds a 
premium tax on health insurers offering full coverage.
  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unworkable and 
destined to fail. One need only look back a few years ago to the last 
Big Government program with the word ``affordable'' in it. Our 
colleague from the other side, Barney Frank, brought forth the National 
Affordable Housing Act, and it, in less than a decade, managed to 
demolish the housing market, weaken financial institutions, and wipe 
out the net worth of millions of Americans.
  What makes anyone, Mr. Speaker, think government intervention in 
health care will be successful?
  ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it 
is anti-constitutional. It violates those great, inalienable rights 
that Thomas Jefferson said do not come from man, they come from our 
Creator--of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It violates 
our individual sovereignty. And most certainly it is probably one of 
the most awful pieces of American policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray that after next week's Supreme Court decision--or 
whenever it comes--that this Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
becomes the most short-lived piece of legislation in American history.
  Mr. REED. I thank my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H1567]]

  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. After listening to my colleague from 
Florida, I'm going to tell you it just drives home the point that power 
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  You're talking about a panel that will have control of roughly one-
sixth of the United States economy. That means more power in 
Washington.
  I'm going to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, whether you're a 
Republican or a Democrat or an independent, the more power that rests 
in this House, the less liberty you have in your house. We're here 
standing up for your personal freedom and your individual liberties. 
We're working to make sure that you get a health care system that will 
continue to support you and your children.
  We have over 300 children and grandchildren that we're the parents 
and grandchildren of in the freshmen class, and that generation is more 
important than the next election.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, the president of the freshman class, 
for that input.
  What I would like to say in follow-up to the gentleman from Florida, 
quoting the numbers--and the numbers are real. Just recently, the CBO, 
the Congressional Budget Office, the independent bean counter of 
Washington, D.C., said that the real price tag under ObamaCare will be 
upwards of $1.76 trillion over 10 years added to our spending in 
Washington, DC.
  We're at $15.6 trillion in the hole, and we're going to add another 
$1.76 trillion to that pricetag, to that debt? It's not sustainable. We 
have to do better.
  We in the House of Representatives on the Republican side do have 
proposals and solutions that will replace ObamaCare and go a long way 
to turning that cost curve and our ever-increasing cost of health care 
in America.
  What I would like to do is go beyond the numbers. I can tell you from 
firsthand experience--and I know a lot of my colleagues believe in this 
just as I do. When I go back to my district in upstate New York, I go 
out and I talk to people on the front line. Just recently in the last 
month and a half, I went to a business just north of Cornell, New York, 
a small electronics company that's been struggling day after day, just 
trying to make ends meet.
  It has about 48 employees in his operation. As I'm meeting in his 
office, as I'm talking to him about the future of his business, he 
stated to me that because of this law, the Affordable Care Act and its 
50-employee threshold for the additional bureaucracy and requirements 
and taxes and penalties that Washington, DC, is putting on that 
business if he goes over that 50-employee threshold, he told me to my 
face that he will keep his employee rolls at 48 and not venture down 
the path of hiring two more individuals. Those are two more families 
that won't be getting a paycheck and putting food on their table and 
having the private capital to put their kids through college because of 
legislation coming out of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. We will do better.
  November 2010, with my freshmen colleagues, was the start of that 
better governance for all of America, and I'm proud to be a part of 
this freshman class.
  At this point in time, I would love to yield to a fellow colleague of 
the freshmen class, Mr. Griffin from Arkansas.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate you 
putting this together. I'm happy to come over here to the floor of the 
House to talk about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare.
  Before I talk about the Constitution and ObamaCare, I want to make 
really clear to folks who may be joining us tonight that all of us here 
believe that we need serious health care reform in the United States. 
We know that we need health care reform. There are many parts of our 
health care system that we need to reform so that it is more efficient 
and so that we can deal with the rising costs. We get that.
  What we don't need is the health care reform that we got. We are not 
against health care reform. We are against the type of health care 
reform that we were given with ObamaCare, a government-centered, 
costly, bureaucratic health care law.
  What I favor, and I think a lot of my colleagues favor, is a patient-
centered health care reform that focuses on innovation and reducing 
costs, allowing more competition across State lines for insurance 
companies so that they can drive the costs down. We are looking for 
ways to provide quality care, to continue to provide quality care to 
Americans while reducing costs. I just want to make that really clear. 
We understand the need for health care reform.
  We also understand the need to reform Medicare. We know that we must 
reform it to save it. The President's health care law, as we've heard 
some others refer to tonight, doesn't save Medicare. It makes changes. 
It takes $500 billion out of Medicare. He also set up an independent 
board, as we've heard, that will decide where cuts should be made.
  Instead of reforming, instead of looking for ways to innovate, it 
just cuts. Ultimately, it rations Medicare. That's what the President's 
plan does.
  We have a better alternative, a patient-centered alternative.
  We're here tonight to talk about the law that we have, the law that I 
and many of my colleagues voted to repeal, and that is what some call 
ObamaCare, the President's health care law.
  We first have to start out--we're talking about the Constitution--and 
recognize that this Constitution sets limits on the power of 
government. If it does not set limits on the power of government, then 
what good is it? It's not worth the paper it's written on if it doesn't 
set limits on government. That's exactly what it does. That's why we 
have a Constitution in the first place.
  The Founders, the people that started this great country, they knew 
what government overreach could do. They knew what government power out 
of control could do. The Founders were very specific in providing 
limitations on government in this document.
  When enumerating the powers of Congress, the Constitution clearly 
presents the power to regulate as separate and distinct from the power 
to raise and create.
  Let me tell you a little more about what I'm talking about here. The 
issue of whether ObamaCare is constitutional or not boils down to the 
Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the 
Federal Government the ability to regulate commerce. When setting out 
the powers, the Constitution clearly talks about the power to regulate 
as separate and distinct from the power to raise and create.

                              {time}  2030

  Congress, for example, was given the power to create money and then 
regulate it. Congress was given the power to raise an Army and then the 
power to regulate it. But that's not the case with commerce. That's not 
the case with doing business. Congress was only given the power to 
regulate commerce, not raise it or create it. The power to raise or 
create it is not there. For money in the military, the power to 
regulate does not include the power to raise; rather, it follows it.
  So the bottom line here is, there's no power to create commerce, 
create business transactions where they don't exist. As one of the 
gentlemen that was here earlier said, Where does it end? If the Federal 
Government can make you buy insurance, health insurance, can they make 
you eat your broccoli? Can they make my 2-year-old and 4-year-old eat 
their broccoli?
  I happen to love potato chips. They're probably not the best thing 
for me. Can you stop me from eating them? If I eat too many during a 
Razorback game, does the Congress of the United States have the power 
to pay say, We've got to cut down on the number of chips people are 
eating? I say no, Congress does not have the power to do that. But you 
know what? A lot of folks would say yes, using the same reasoning that 
they believe they can make you buy health insurance.
  And that's ultimately what this debate is about. Yes, it's about 
health care. It's about the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare, but, more 
broadly, it's about the Federal Government reaching into your life and 
telling you how to live it because the Federal Government thinks that 
it knows best. The

[[Page H1568]]

Federal Government thinks it knows what you should eat, when you should 
eat it, what kind of insurance you ought to buy.
  Now, I can't speak for the Founders, but I've got to believe, having 
read this document and many others that were written around the time of 
the founding of this country, I've got to believe that they would be 
outraged, outraged if they knew what was going on in their name, if 
they knew that the Federal Government was claiming to have the power to 
do the things that it claims it has the power to do.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a critical week in our history because of the 
arguments that are going on at the Supreme Court, and the decision that 
comes out of the Supreme Court on this issue will be monumental. I 
would say, for me and the people that I represent in Arkansas that I 
talk with when I go home, that we believe that this Constitution 
establishes a limited government, and that no matter how you interpret 
it, you have to agree that it sets limits, and the Federal Government 
cannot force you to do whatever it wants you to do.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.
  At this point in time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I think the gentleman from Arkansas made 
a wonderful point, that maybe we haven't made enough and should have 
made more. And that's the difference between a recommendation and a 
decision.
  Oftentimes, we put together many panels of experts to make 
recommendations to Congress, and then Congress can decide to take 
action on the recommendation or not to take action. This bill flips 
that on its head in that a panel of unelected people is going to be 
convened that are actually going to make the decision. They are taking 
away the right of the American citizen to make the decision for 
themselves, completely contrary to what has been done in most cases in 
the past.
  This isn't a recommendation, ladies and gentlemen. This is a decision 
that is going to be made for you by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. And 
I'm going to tell you now that, just like a lot of Americans--both 
Republicans and Democrats and certainly the Independents--I feel that 
the people in Washington need to mind their own business and leave 
Americans alone. And that's the bottom line. People are fed up with it. 
More power in this House means less personal freedom and individual 
liberty in your house.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I just wanted to comment on something you 
said there.
  It might be a different debate if this Federal Government operated 
efficiently and ran everything perfectly, but we don't have a track 
record to brag on when it comes to managing this sort of thing.
  What makes folks think that all the answers are in Washington? 
Where's the evidence of that? I don't think you can point to it. I 
think the record shows that when you let States do what is good for 
them, in particular, and experiment and innovate, try new things, serve 
as laboratories to learn the best way forward, that's what succeeds. 
The idea that one size fits all from up here, that's not patient-
centered; that's government-centered.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I so agree with the gentleman from 
Arkansas, because you are absolutely right.
  As you were expressing yourself to the Speaker and to this Chamber 
and to this floor, you made a comment, that since when does the Federal 
Government know best? And there are repeated provisions in the 3,000 
pages of ObamaCare that clearly show that when the 111th Congress 
passed this legislation, they truly believed that the Federal 
Government, Washington, D.C., knew what was best for every individual 
in America coast to coast, north to south, east to west. You only have 
to look to the provision that deals with Medicaid, because we're 
talking a lot tonight about Medicare and IPAB and the provisions of 
ObamaCare that deal with that.
  But look at the provisions dealing with Medicaid and the maintenance 
of efforts provisions in the law. And what that says, Madam Speaker, is 
that on the day of the effective date of ObamaCare, the States have to 
maintain the same level of service under its Medicaid program as was in 
effect on the date of the effective date of ObamaCare.
  What does that mean, Madam Speaker? What does that mean to the State 
of New York? Well, the State of New York offers what all of my 
constituents in my district know as the Cadillac plan of Medicaid 
services. We offer every authorized program that the Federal Government 
allows under Medicaid. And actually, it's so well known that we're 
getting influxes of people coming to New York State because of the 
Medicaid medical services that we provide.

  And what is that doing to New York State? Well, let me tell you. In 
the eight counties that I represent, over 100 percent of our real 
property tax levy--because we split the Medicaid share 25 percent/25 
percent between the State and the local government. So our county tax 
property bill is equivalent to 100 percent that goes to cover those 
Medicaid services for our constituents in those eight counties. That 
means that every county tax bill that goes out, every dollar of that 
tax levy goes to cover the New York State 25 percent local share of 
Medicaid costs.
  And what does ObamaCare do? It tells our elected officials in New 
York State, in Albany, You're handcuffed. You cannot change the level 
of services under Medicaid.
  And what is it doing to other States, such as Texas that doesn't 
authorize all of the authorized programs at the Federal level for 
Medicaid services? It forces them to raise up and maintain their level 
of services under Medicaid.

                              {time}  2040

  I've talked with representatives from Texas and they point to New 
York State and they say New York State should be the example for which 
Texas should not follow. We should allow the States and the elected 
officials duly elected to represent the local citizens in those States 
the ability and discretion to tailor what is best for their States' 
citizens, not have a one-size-fits-all requirement coming from 
Washington, D.C., like the maintenance-of-efforts provisions under 
ObamaCare dictating across the country that what's good in New York is 
good for what's in California and Texas and everywhere else. Each State 
is unique.
  And that is the wisdom and the vision that our Founding Fathers 
articulated when they recognized the 10th Amendment in the United 
States Constitution and have the Federal Government be a limited 
Federal Government, that its rights are only those enumerated in the 
Constitution. And if it isn't so enumerated in the Constitution, those 
powers are retained by the States and by the people in those States, 
not the Federal Government.
  I again yield to my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. As I listen to you talk about the 
individual States out there--the 50 individual States--and I'm from 
Georgia. The Second Amendment is extremely important to us in Georgia: 
the right to keep and bear arms. We haven't passed a law on the House 
floor and passed by the Senate and signed by the President that says 
every American must own a gun, or a firearm, if you want to be proper 
about it.
  Again, it's those constitutional rights that we as Americans have. 
It's not for the government. It's for us as individuals. That 
Constitution guarantees me as a citizen that nobody in Washington can 
take those things from me. Our Forefathers understood, again, that 
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They gave us the 
Constitution. They knew that with the House and the Senate being 
political bodies and with the President being a political body that 
eventually something like this would happen in this country. And so 
they gave us a Court. They gave us a Court with one duty--and that duty 
is to protect the constitutional rights of the United States citizens. 
And let's just hope and pray that the Court does its job and upholds 
our constitutional rights.
  With that, I will yield the remainder of any time I have left to my 
colleague

[[Page H1569]]

from New York. Thank you so much for having us here tonight.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Georgia and for the gentleman's 
time in joining us on the floor of the House on this critical issue 
that we face in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  What I would like to say in closing, Madam Speaker, is that there are 
many problems with the Affordable Care Act--there are many problems 
with ObamaCare--not the least of which is the constitutionality of that 
law. And let us hope that the United States Supreme Court renders its 
verdict, and that verdict is just and recognizes that this is an 
overreach of Federal power and strikes down this law.
  But make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker, we in the House of 
Representatives recognize that there is a problem with health care in 
America, and those ever-increasing costs that burden Americans across 
the Nation need to be dealt with. But the solutions--and I know we'll 
have this conversation on another night, Madam Speaker--but the 
solutions that we come up with must be based from the patient's point 
of view, from the individual's point of view, from the patient and the 
doctor's relationship, not from the perspective of Washington 
bureaucrats, not from the perspective of a hospital administrator, but 
from the private relationship between patients and doctors. And I 
believe if we wholeheartedly agree to that principle, we will solve 
this problem. But in the end, ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act--does 
not accomplish the mission and needs to be repealed. And we'll stand 
for the repeal today and tomorrow.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________