[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19390-19391]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         ADVANCE CARE PLANNING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, we in Congress and the new 
administration have been given a gift of serving in a time of 
opportunity to solve some of the long-festering problems with the 
American health care system. One opportunity to achieve true reform is 
to provide greater value to patients when they are most vulnerable, 
when loved ones are facing the last few weeks of life.
  Today, these patients have a wide variety of treatment options 
available. We can test them, hook them up to machines, poke them with 
needles, perform all sorts of heroic measures, and where appropriate, 
we can accomplish amazing results with virtually no cost to older 
citizens. Yet, when it comes time to help people understand what their 
choices are, to have their questions answered, to be able to shape 
treatment for what their values and interests might be, we fail them 
utterly.
  H.R. 3200, health care reform, does have a simple solution to empower 
people and their families. Yet, this carefully crafted provision has 
been attacked by some opponents of reform, for example, Betsy McCaughey 
in The Wall Street Journal claiming wildly that somehow this would be 
mandatory, that it would be done by a government assigned physician, 
with the threat of coercing senior citizens.
  A simple reading of the provision shows that that's simply not the 
case. Like all other Medicare provisions, it would be voluntary. It 
would by the physician of one's choice. There's nothing mandatory about 
it.
  It has led the American Association of Retired People to issue a 
statement about this opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. ``Ms. 
McCaughey's criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually 
help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-
of-life care.
  ``This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for 
themselves, but also ensure that their wishes are followed. To suggest 
otherwise is a gross, even cruel, distortion,

[[Page 19391]]

especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult 
decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.''
  The AARP makes clear, ``We will fight any measure that would prevent 
individuals and their doctors from making their own health care 
decisions. We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that 
vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to 
protect the status quo. Profits should never be allowed to come before 
people in this debate.''
  And sadly, it's not just right-wing pundits who are involved with an 
effort of distortion. I would hope that my friends in the Republican 
leadership would reconsider their ill-advised attempt to equate this 
bipartisan effort to empower families with a slippery slope on 
pressuring seniors or even euthanasia. This is simply categorically 
false and destructive.
  The provision in question was carefully considered. It was the result 
of real bipartisan cooperation to help families. Indeed, some of the 
most moving comments in our committee deliberations came from 
Republican colleagues who talked about the concerns that they faced 
with their families in this difficult end-of-life situation and how we 
needed to do better.
  Madam Speaker, there are lots of areas where we can disagree as we're 
dealing with health care reform. By all means, let's debate and argue 
over areas of genuine disagreement, but let's not attack this long-
overdue assistance to families facing the difficult situation at the 
end of life. Let's not attack it. Let's embrace it. American families 
deserve no less.

                          ____________________