[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3949-3954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR LONG-TERM CARE PHYSICIANS

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 244) expressing support for the 
designation of March 20 as a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term 
Care Physicians, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 244

       Whereas a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term Care 
     Physicians is designed to honor and recognize physicians who 
     care for an ever-growing elderly population in different 
     settings, including skilled nursing facilities, assisted 
     living, hospice, continuing care retirement communities, 
     post-acute care, home care, and private offices;
       Whereas the average long-term care physician has nearly 20 
     years of practice experience and dedicates themselves to 1 or 
     2 facilities with nearly 100 residents and patients;
       Whereas the American Medical Directors Association is the 
     professional association of medical directors, attending 
     physicians, and others practicing in the long-term continuum 
     and is dedicated to excellence in patient care and provides 
     education, advocacy, information, and professional 
     development to promote the delivery of quality long-term care 
     medicine; and
       Whereas the American Medical Directors Association would 
     like to honor founder and long-term care physician William A. 
     Dodd, M.D., C.M.D., who was born on March 20, 1921: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) supports the designation of a National Day of 
     Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians; and
       (2) supports the goals and ideals of a National Day of 
     Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SPEIER. I now yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 244, a bill 
recognizing the work of our Nation's long-term care physicians. 
Millions of Americans with disabilities or chronic illnesses require 
long-term medical care. The medical professionals who provide this care 
commonly address multiple chronic conditions and develop strong, 
compassionate, and trusting relationships with their patients. Long-
term care is often required by Americans in advanced age; and as this 
population increases, the demands for these services will obviously be 
increasing as well. However, all of us of any age are susceptible to 
illnesses, injuries, and conditions that require long-term care, so we 
all have a stake in this. All Americans should be grateful for the hard 
work of these dedicated professionals.
  In particular, H. Con. Res. 244 recognizes the work of the American 
Medical Directors Association, the professional association for long-
term care physicians officially chartered in 1978.
  H. Con. Res. 244 was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia, Representative Phil Gingrey, on March 2, 2010. The measure was 
referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which 
reported it favorably by unanimous consent on March 18, 2010. The bill 
enjoys the support of over 50 Members of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself just a 
few minutes here and then yield to our colleague from Georgia.
  Long-term care physicians deserve to be commended for their expertise 
and devotion to their line of work. As such, it is my great pleasure to 
support the designation of a day to honor their committed and faithful 
service to the population of truly needy individuals in our Nation. And 
so I support H. Con. Res. 244.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady 
from California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan). 
I want to thank also my colleague in the Senate, Senator Saxby 
Chambliss, who is introducing the companion legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do rise in proud support of authoring H. Con. 
Res. 244, expressing support for March 20 as a National Day of 
Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians. And I want to give a loud 
shout-out to one of my best friends. In fact, he calls, he says we are 
pallbearer friends--now that's serious--Dr. Steve Jordan, who is a 
long-term care physician in Statesboro, Georgia, and one of my 
classmates in medical school.
  Yet I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart 
because I fear that the Democrats' health reform bill will harm seniors 
and their long-term care. Seniors and patients all across this country 
have been telling our Congress that their health will suffer, their 
health will suffer if this bill, ObamaCare, passes, $500 billion in 
cuts to Medicare when the program is already going broke. Seniors in my 
district know their health care costs will

[[Page 3950]]

go up if this bill, bought with backroom deals, is passed.
  This Democratic majority, while promising the American people they 
will reform insurance, will bring in billions of new profits to private 
insurance companies and for liberal bureaucrats. Let me be very clear 
about this, Mr. Speaker. If the Democratic majority jams this bill down 
the throats of American patients, our health care, their health care 
will suffer. It will not get better; it will get worse. And to top it 
all off, the majority party wants to negate the votes of 300 million 
patients in this country by not even allowing an up-or-down vote by 
their Members on this backroom-deal bill. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the 
worst deal of all.
  Yes, of course, I stand in proud support of this resolution, and I 
thank my colleague for making it possible to bring it to the floor.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  And I would like to just say to the gentleman from Georgia, as much 
as we are talking about the great work of long-term care physicians, it 
is important to note, as he expresses his disdain for the health care 
reform measure, that the American Medical Association, made up of 
thousands upon thousands of physicians across this country, stands in 
strong support of the health care reform measure.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois, Congressman 
Shimkus.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing 
down this resolution. Long-term care is very, very important, as are 
the physicians involved in taking care of our seniors. The primary 
payer of long-term care is Medicaid. And regarding the Democratic 
health care bill, what happened to Illinois is that the mandated 
increase in Medicaid forces a $2 billion additional cost in the State 
of Illinois, another unfunded mandate in a State that is already $11 
billion in debt. And I think my colleague from California would 
understand that because of the indebtedness in the State of California. 
We are both, our States are both, in serious problems.
  The Medicare cost cuts in this bill, in the Democratic health care 
bill, is $463 billion for Medicare, which means that doctors are going 
to stop providing and giving access. My colleague talked about the AMA. 
We have physicians here on the Republican side who are members of the 
AMA who are adamantly opposed to the health care bill.
  The third thing is that in this economy we cannot afford a $569 
billion tax increase to pay for this. Caterpillar today just announced 
that this health care bill will add another $100 million of cost to 
their service. Now how are we going to increase jobs in the economy by 
increasing taxes that much? And I would like to end with this quote 
from the Catholic bishops: ``Notwithstanding the denials and 
explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the 
House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately 
excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands Federal funding 
and the role of the Federal Government in the provision of abortion 
procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an 
act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate 
destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be 
born.''
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, as we again debate this health care reform 
measure, which is not the measure that is before us presently, but a 
resolution to promote long-term care physicians, I would just like to 
point out that while the bishops may not support the language in the 
Senate bill, the network which is comprised of tens of thousands of 
Catholic nuns across the country does support the language. So maybe 
it's the nuns versus the priests, and I would side with the nuns.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. The true response to that is that 55 nuns signed that 
letter, 10,000 nuns have come out against this position by those 55.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I recognize my distinguished 
colleague, Dr. Broun from Georgia, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
today in support of H. Con. Res. 244 expressing support for the 
designation of March 20 as the National Day of Recognition for Long-
Term Care Physicians and to honor an esteemed long-term care Georgian 
physician, Dr. William A. Dodd. As a primary care physician for almost 
four decades, I understand the important role long-term care physicians 
play for an ever-growing elderly population.
  We as a body have spent the last year debating health care reforms. 
It appears that a weekend vote on government takeover of the entire 
health care system is the best Congress can come up with. It is a shame 
that we have lost an opportunity to debate real reforms that will help 
millions of Americans either continue with or obtain affordable, 
quality and accessible health care for their families, reforms that 
many in Congress can agree on, such as allowing the purchase of health 
care insurance across State lines, developing associations and State 
high-risk insurance pools to help lower insurance premiums, allowing 
medical providers to receive tax credits for providing free services 
for those who are unable to afford care and for full deductible of 
health care costs, tax fairness.
  We in Congress can do much better than what the current discussion is 
yielding. For the sake of all long-term care physicians, as well as all 
Americans, the health care debate needs to move away from our current 
path and start over with commonsense reforms.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the 
distinguished colleague from Alabama, Dr. Griffith, for 2 minutes.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, the long-term care physicians of America 
are unsung heroes. Many of you have never seen them, many of you have 
never met one, but yet they work with some of the most difficult 
patients in the world.
  Imagine, if you will, walking into a room of 20 or 30 Alzheimer's 
patients, walking into a room of 20 to 30 young men or women with 
closed-head injuries who will live in a vegetative state for 20 to 30 
years. Imagine, if you will, a physician who has three to four nursing 
homes to take care of, patients on five and six medications. Very, very 
difficult medicine and very, very hard to find these individuals. Less 
than 2 percent of our medical school classes are going into primary 
care; 35 percent of our physicians are trained overseas.
  The health care bill that is being proposed for America today is 
going to accentuate the physician shortage. We will have a very 
difficult time finding long-term care physicians. We have a hard time 
even today having people be seen who have Medicare coverage but still 
no access, Medicaid coverage but still no access. And our long-term 
physicians, long-term care physicians who are unsung and our heroes in 
medicine will become a fewer and fewer number under this present bill. 
We are very concerned about that. Because of that, we have voiced our 
opposition, but we are proud to sponsor this resolution.
  Ms. SPEIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to 
Dr. Gingrey, our colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and of course I continue to support this great 
resolution recognizing March 20 as National Long-Term Care Physician 
Day.
  As my colleague from Alabama, the gentleman from Huntsville, Dr. 
Parker Griffith, just spoke, Madam Speaker, as a medical oncologist he 
knows of what he speaks. And he talked about the long-term care 
physicians, many of us who have not yet needed their services but 
indeed we will. We will.
  As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I have great concerns. I have great 
concerns about their ability should this H.R. 3590, patient protection 
health

[[Page 3951]]

care reform bill--I call it ObamaCare. Should that pass, I have great 
concern about our long-term care physicians and what they can do, how 
they can help, how much in control they will be of the health and well-
being of our senior citizens.
  You know, the economic stimulus package of last year talked about 
shovel-ready projects. Well, that didn't have much effect, I don't 
think, on our senior citizens. But if this bill passes, if ObamaCare 
passes, Madam Speaker, then all of a sudden these senior citizens in 
our country will become shovel ready, and this bill will concern them. 
My great fear is they will be first in line to get thrown under the bus 
when we start rationing health care.
  So as I support this resolution, as I said earlier, I have a very 
heavy heart and much concern. When you cut $500 billion out of a 
Medicare program that has $35 trillion, Madam Speaker, of unfunded 
liability over the next 50 years, and you are going to cut it 10 
percent a year, Madam Speaker, for the next 10 years? How is that good 
for our senior citizens?
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, as we discuss this resolution on 
recognizing the long-term care physicians, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle keep wanting to debate the health care reform 
measure, so I feel it is incumbent on me to at least shed some light 
from our perspective on why this is so very important to the American 
people. And as we look at the health care professionals who are 
supporting the health care reform measure, I would like to just list a 
few of them.
  The American Medical Association, the AARP, the Catholic Health 
Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National 
Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the American 
College of Physicians, the National Hispanic Medical Association, and 
the list goes on and on. All of these health care professionals can't 
be wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I would just respond to the 
comments from the gentlelady from California that one group she left 
out was the American people. Every single poll done over the last year 
shows the American people don't want the health care legislation. She 
can name every group she wants--I am sure she has got a longer list--
but go talk to the American people. Time and time again, they have said 
they don't want this bill.
  So while you have every special interest group that she wants to lay 
out there, that is fine. Think about it. They were going to pass this 
bill in September; the American people said ``no.'' Oh, we are going to 
pass it in October; the American people said ``no.'' We are going to 
pass it by Thanksgiving; the American people said ``no.'' We are going 
to get it done by Christmas, we promise; the American people said 
``no.'' We are going to get it done by the State of the Union; the 
American people said ``no.'' And now, they are going to try to get it 
done by Easter.
  What part of ``no'' don't they get?
  So sure, there are all kinds of special interests who want this 
special deal, but the American people know what it is about, and that 
is why they are opposed to it.
  And I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Jordan is exactly right; the American people are not being taken 
into consideration. They are being overlooked. But I want to remind the 
gentlelady from California, and the American people for that matter, 
the AMA only represents a very, very small fraction of physicians in 
this country, a very small group. All these groups that she named off 
have cut their own special little deals with the President and with the 
leadership here in the House and the Senate. They have cut out their 
special deals for their own parochial interests, but they haven't 
considered the American people.
  I will tell the gentlelady from California, the vast majority of 
medical doctors who are practicing medicine, like I have for almost 
four decades, deplore this government takeover of the health care 
system, the vast majority, and what it is going to do if it is passed 
into law. It is going to mean that patients can't make health care 
decisions for themselves; doctors can't make health care decisions for 
their patients. Government bureaucrats here in Washington, DC, will be 
making those decisions.
  And the people who are going to be hurt most are those people on 
Medicaid and Medicare, the poor people in this country and the senior 
citizens. The reason that they are going to be hurt the most, we 
already see it happening as doctors are having to not accept any more 
Medicaid patients, any more Medicare patients because of reduced 
reimbursement; and that is going to get much worse if this bill is ever 
passed into law.
  So they may have an insurance card provided for them by the Federal 
Government in their pocket, but that insurance card is going to be 
worth the same amount that a confederate dollar was after the war 
between the States, worth nothing, because they can't get access. And 
that is exactly where the Democratic leadership is taking us. Access is 
going to be much worse than it is today. But we have some commonsense 
solutions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Watson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. We have some solutions. I have challenged 
Democrats to introduce a bill that would do four things: across-State-
line purchasing for businesses and individuals, association pools to 
give people multiple options, develop State high-risk pools, and have 
tax fairness so everybody could deduct 100 percent of their health care 
costs and insurance off their income taxes. I've had many Democrats say 
they would love to support it but their leadership won't let them. We 
can have some commonsense solutions that would give people what my 
Democratic colleagues keep asking for--lower costs, more accessibility.
  But the program we are seeing on the floor and that is going to be 
forced down the throats of the American people is actually going to be 
adverse to the people who can afford it the least, the poor people and 
the senior citizens in this country. It's going to put millions of 
people out of work. The cost is going to skyrocket. It is going to be 
disastrous.
  We can find commonsense solutions. We can do some things that will be 
in the best interests of patients, doctors, businesses, and everybody, 
if we just do it.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey) such time as she may consume.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I was just doing a crossword puzzle 
waiting for my turn, because I am going to work with Congresswoman 
Speier on the next resolution, and there was a clue. I was doing a 
crossword puzzle, and the clue was ``emotion evoked by pathos.'' The 
answer was ``pity.'' And I thought, oh, my gosh, that is exactly what I 
am feeling about what I am hearing from other side of the aisle.
  It is such a pity that for 8 years the Republicans did nothing to fix 
health care. It is such a pity that you must be so afraid of what is 
going to come out of the health care bill when we pass it this weekend, 
that it is going to be so popular when 32 million people will be 
covered, because 38 million people in this country have no coverage 
right now. And what did you do about it over the last 8 years? Nothing. 
What a pity.
  What a pity that you have to say that we are rationing care when 
there is absolutely no question that American care is not going to be 
rationed. But care will be rationed today if we do nothing by the 
insurance companies, which are rationing care every day as I speak. 
They are making the coverage of care based on their profits. It is 
being rationed for those who have insurance but can't afford the care, 
and those who have lost insurance because it simply cost too much. 
Those who want to defeat reform are essentially defending rationing 
care.

[[Page 3952]]

  Under the House and Senate bill and the President's proposal, there 
is not one provision that gives the government the ability to determine 
what treatments an individual can receive. More specifically, the 
comparative effectiveness research provisions in the House and Senate 
bills that are supported by the administration have been funded by the 
Federal Government--already funded by the Federal Government for years.
  This research has absolutely nothing to do with rationing. This 
research is to improve quality of care, it is to give doctors 
information they need and what they want so that they can treat 
patients better. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for 
treatment. We are looking for coverage. We are looking for access.
  And what a pity that you folks couldn't work with us so we could get 
where we are getting this weekend, so we can bring care to the people 
of this country that is affordable, that they won't have to fear losing 
their coverage if they get sick. If they are sick, they get sick, they 
lose their jobs, they will still be able to be covered. That is what 
the people of America want.
  You ask them point blank with these scare tactics--what a pity that 
you need them on the other side of the aisle. You ask anybody if they 
like those scare tactics. Of course they will say ``no.'' You ask them 
about the individual parts of this health care reform bill, they are 
absolutely glad to embrace it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady said the Federal 
Government won't be influencing the type of care Americans get. There 
is not a person outside this town who believes that statement. This is 
a 2,700-page bill, more boards, commissions, panels, bureaucrats 
between you and your doctor than you can imagine. No one outside of 
Washington believes that statement. Of course the Federal Government is 
going to be influencing the type of care you get. That is why it takes 
2,700 pages of legislative language in this bill.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we have to respond to those comments that 
are being made.
  Republicans did nothing? We did a lot. We opened up HSAs, health 
savings accounts, for Americans. We passed three bills in my first 2 
years here that would allow for associated health plans. But what 
happened? They get over to the Senate and they can't get passed because 
the Democrats bottled them up.
  The Democrats have over 250 Members in this body. Republicans never 
had more than 232. They are trying to blame us for this health care 
bill not passing?
  If it is such a wonderful bill, how come you are having to break arms 
and bribe people to vote for it? That is the problem. The Democrats 
themselves can't agree on this bill.
  We set up HSAs so that people aren't tied to their employers to keep 
their insurance. You all have ruined the economy and you are destroying 
jobs. People are losing their jobs; they are losing their health care. 
That is what is happening. And Medicare rations more health care than 
the worst of the insurance companies does.

                              {time}  1500

  Look at the chart. Medicare turns down more people with preexisting 
conditions than the insurance companies do. And what's going to happen 
is you're spreading Medicare out. You're forcing people into Medicaid. 
They will have no choice as to whether to be in Medicaid or have 
private insurance. That's what the majority is doing here.
  Don't talk to us about our doing nothing and about your giving access 
to people and coverage. You're raising the cost of health care. You're 
going to destroy at least 5 million jobs with this bill because of the 
taxes on businesses. This is not the way to go. This is not what 
Americans want. Americans deserve a better life. Americans deserve 
their freedom.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, this is getting 
to be like a broken record. And I know there are a lot of people out 
there younger than I am who don't know what a broken record is, but it 
used to be something we played music on, and when it got a scratch on 
it, it skipped, and you had the same notes time after time after time.
  Well, we've been listening now for a year to the same talking points 
that Frank Luntz wrote a year ago and handed out and said, This is the 
recipe for defeating health care reform. And we need to defeat health 
care reform because if we don't defeat it, and the Democrats succeed 
and President Obama succeeds, then we will be in the minority for the 
foreseeable future. That's been the strategy from day one, and things 
like government takeover and job killing and rationing are the same 
words we have heard time and time again. The reason we keep hearing 
those is because our colleagues from across the aisle don't want to 
discuss the substance. They don't want to discuss the benefits. They 
don't want to discuss the protections and the security that we're 
providing for virtually every American.
  Now I've heard a lot of this stuff about the burden on small 
businesspeople and job-killer. Well, I don't know how many of my 
colleagues from the other side have a lot of experience in the business 
world. I was a small businessman. I have two brothers who run 
considerable-sized businesses. I have a sister who runs a small 
business. And my father was an entrepreneur who developed a business. 
Not once, not once, did ever any of them, or I, my father included, 
ever say the tax rate, their personal tax rate, made a difference in 
how they operated. And you know why? Because entrepreneurs aren't in it 
just to make money. They're in it because they want to be their own 
bosses and they're doing something they love. If the tax rate goes up, 
they just say, Hey, that's okay. I may have to work a little bit 
harder, but that's not why I'm in it. That's not going to change my 
business strategy, particularly when you're talking about a 2 or 3 
percent tax increase on somebody who makes over a quarter of a million 
dollars a year.
  Let me tell you what that means. Let's say you're making a million 
and a half dollars. Small business person, entrepreneur, making a 
million and a half dollars, and this bill is enacted. Now here's the 
way I look at it. Somebody comes to me and says, I'm going to make you 
a deal. You're a charitable guy. For $30,000 I'm going to allow you to 
say that you insured 32 million people; that you saved 18,000 lives a 
year; that you prevented 700,000 bankruptcies in this country; that you 
allowed small businesses to provide insurance for your employees and 
employees of small businesses around the country, because they are 60 
percent of all the uninsured in the country. And I'd say that's a 
pretty good deal. I make charitable contributions that were a lot less 
effective than that.
  This is a good deal for small business people. And let me tell you 
why. A small businessperson right now is facing premium increases 
across the country, 20, 30, 40 percent. Those are the types of things 
that really impede a small business--not a small incremental tax 
increase on their personal income. When you're talking about premium 
increases of 30 and 40 percent, you're dramatically changing the way 
you do business. Plus, you're being put in the position of forcing your 
employees to pay more for their coverage or else dropping their 
coverage altogether, which means some of those employees aren't going 
to be able to continue to work for you. They're going to have to find a 
job with a big company that has a group plan. No. This is the greatest 
step forward for small businesses in the country's history.
  I tell you, I was in a small business with about 25 employees. We had 
a very young, very healthy group of employees, except for one person. 
We had a woman who had cancer. What happened to our insurance premiums? 
Every

[[Page 3953]]

year, 15, 20 percent, because of her misfortune. Everybody else in the 
company suffered. That's what we face now.
  I talked to a businessman in my district not too long ago. He has 110 
employees. I said, What's going on with your health insurance? He said, 
Well, funny you should ask. Last year, we had two people that had 
pretty serious illnesses. Our first quote for renewal was a 75 percent 
increase. We negotiated that down to 38 percent, but we had to increase 
everybody's copays and everybody's deductibles, and we had to ask 
everybody to come out of pocket a little more money.
  So here's the situation. Two employees get sick and 108 others have 
their standard of living diminished. That shouldn't happen in America. 
That's not the law of supply and demand which we rely on in many other 
areas. This is the problem with our health care system. These are the 
problems that we're trying to solve in our health care reform. This is 
a great step forward for small business, it's a great step forward for 
America, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. I know it will be 
the best vote I've ever cast in Congress.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, can I inquire of the amount of 
time on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pingree of Maine). The gentleman from 
Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from California has 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. We'd like to reserve, if we could, Madam Speaker, 
the balance of our time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I find this discussion somewhat 
hypocritical, to say the very least. We are here discussing the long-
term care physicians and elevating them and talking about how necessary 
they are for the aging population in this country, and many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle took the opportunity to start 
talking about the health care reform measure. Well, guess what, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle? The long-term care 
physicians of America have endorsed health care reform. So don't use 
them as some means by which you can debate health care reform when 
they're the very physicians that support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, if the majority party has 
additional speakers, in the interest of keeping time relatively equal, 
we would continue to reserve the balance of our time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to come here. My friend from Ohio, we have been through 
this routine before. We were in the State Senate many years ago 
together, except I was arguing against his proposals and he was passing 
them. This time, he's arguing against ours and we're going to pass 
ours.
  The issue really, here--and I think the gentlelady from California 
brought it up. Our friends on the other side, Madam Speaker, like to 
say, Well, seniors are against it. But then AARP endorses it. Our 
friends on the other side say doctors are against it. But the American 
Medical Association endorses it. You say that this is pro-abortion, and 
you have 59,000 Catholic nuns from across the country endorsing this 
bill, 600 Catholic hospitals, 1,400 Catholic nursing homes endorsing 
this bill. So you're not calling anybody over here pro-abortion. You're 
calling 59,000 Catholic nuns pro-abortion, which I think really brings 
this debate to a head.
  We are doing something that we've not been able to do in this country 
for a hundred years. We all go back to our districts and with this bill 
alone we're going to make sure--I know in my congressional district--
that over 9,000 people can go back on the rolls because they've been 
denied because of a preexisting condition. We had 1,700 families in my 
congressional district last year go bankrupt.
  I know this is difficult. And nobody on this side is saying that this 
hasn't been a difficult process. It has been. But nothing good happens 
without it being a little bit difficult and challenging. And that's the 
point we are at now in our country. We cannot get to the point where we 
are afraid to do bold things in our country. We have to do this.
  Small businesses all over our State--to the gentleman from Ohio--all 
over our State can't get enough money to reinvest back into the 
capital, the technology, the wages that we need in order to get our 
businesses jump-started because it keeps going over to health care. If 
you're a small business, you're going to get a tax credit up to 50 
percent of your health care costs. This is a tax cut for small 
businesses. And we're going to make sure that people are healthier and 
more productive.
  I know our friends on the other side want to say, Well, let's start 
over. Let's get the blank piece of paper out and let's start all over. 
Let the insurance industry start all over. Let them go back to 1993 and 
1994, revoke all of their increases that they gave to the American 
people over the last 15 or 20 years. Let them start over. Put all the 
people who have been denied because of a preexisting condition back on 
the insurance rolls; all the people who got sick when they had 
insurance and were kicked off insurance. Put them back on, and then 
maybe we'll consider starting all over. But we've got to make this bold 
move to make sure that everybody's in the tent. This is a moral issue 
on so many levels. We can't keep telling citizens in the wealthiest 
country that this globe has ever seen that we have the ability to care 
for you, but we can't afford it. It's time to pass this bill. We're 
going to do it this weekend. And we're going to look back, just like on 
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and civil rights. We did the right 
thing, the moral thing.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I would yield 90 seconds to a good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, let me get to the point here. In this 
bill we have the other side says there's $500 billion that's going to 
be taken out of Medicare without one word of explanation how they're 
going to do it. They're going to take it to extend the life of 
Medicare. And they're going to count it to subsidize private insurance. 
Totally dishonest.
  Now I have here a memo from the Democratic Caucus, and just to quote 
in talking about this giddy CBO score that's supposed to show savings: 
Do not allow yourself to get into a discussion of details of CBO scores 
and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and 
number of Americans covered. Do not give them ground by debating 
details. For example, the March 11 letter has some estimates of 
discretionary cost not accounted in the total. Again, instead focus 
only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.
  Finally, with regard to SGR, we know that that was carved out of this 
bill, $250 billion, so let's add that to the trillion that's not being 
accounted for, and I quote: ``Most health staff are already aware that 
our health proposal does not contain a `doc fix' . . . The inclusion of 
a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality. So, 
again, do not allow yourself . . . to get into a discussion of the 
details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the 
deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.
  `` . . . Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to 
rally physicians' support for a full SGR repeal.''
  So now we understand why the AMA is supporting this.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would like to respond to that, Madam Speaker, 
because if we want to talk about memos, let's talk about the memo that 
the pollster and the consultant for the Republican Party put out last 
spring saying, No matter what you do, do not let President Obama pass 
health care. It will

[[Page 3954]]

put you in the minority for another decade or two. It will make his 
Presidency. That was before we had any bill ready to go. It was 
socialism, it was this--the other side, Madam Speaker, was told by 
their consultants not to support this bill. And as for the Medicare 
costs, why are we going to save $500 billion? Because there is waste in 
the Medicare program, and this is something that they've proposed on 
the other side for a long, long time. In addition to that, if those 
people 55 to 60, before they go onto Medicare, actually have health 
insurance, they're going to cost less when they get into the Medicare 
program because they're not going to be as sick.

                              {time}  1515

  When you come from an old industrial area like ours, there are sick 
people who have lost their jobs, don't have health insurance. They wait 
until they get into Medicare. They are chronically ill, and they cost 
more money. That's how we're going to save money.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time 
to our distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution to designate tomorrow as National Day of Recognition for 
Long-Term Care Physicians. And ironically the same weekend we're 
honoring these physicians, House Democrats are simultaneously 
destroying their ability to practice medicine by enacting a Washington 
takeover of the patient's decision-making power.
  Let me just give you the short and sweet of it. We started health 
care reform in Tennessee 17 years, and I know what I am talking about 
here because we've experienced this. We wanted to control cost and 
increase access, and we began a plan called TennCare. What's happened 
during that plan is that it has decreased our access because of the 
payment to physicians and to providers. This year our plan has begun to 
ration the care. And how it's done that is, it's limited the number of 
patient visits and the amount of money that TennCare will pay for a 
hospitalization, no matter how much money the bill is. So those costs 
are shifted over to the private sector. I've seen this with my own 
eyes, as I have paid $10,000 for a visit to the hospital, no matter 
what the bill is.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, you know, there's something very ironic 
about the fact that when we are honoring long-term care physicians, 
that they have become the pawn by the Republicans to have a discussion 
on health care reform and--oh, by the way, the long-term physicians 
that they want to applaud are endorsing the health care reform 
legislation.
  I have a story I want to share with my colleagues. It's about a 
constituent who has two children, a family of four. Their health 
insurance premium was $560 a month 4 years ago. Their health insurance 
premium today is $2,008 a month. The irony of this particular story is 
that the father is an emergency room doctor, and he gets his health 
insurance from Anthem Blue Cross. And, oh, by the way, Anthem Blue 
Cross negotiated a contract with him as an emergency room doctor where 
they require that he take a 60 percent discount in the fees that he was 
charging.
  So what that should say to all of us is that the Anthem Blue Crosses 
of the world aren't spending the money on health care. They're spending 
the money on CEOs' salaries and bonuses and Wall Street; and that's why 
health care reform is so critical today. So I urge my colleagues to 
join me in recognizing the work of our Nation's long-term care 
physicians who endorse health care reform by supporting this measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 244, as 
amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________