[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.
____________________