Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have been on the floor and heard from my colleague, my physician colleague from Texas, in fact, my OB-GYN colleague from Texas, who talked about the opinion and read…
Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have been on the floor and heard from my colleague, my physician colleague from Texas, in fact, my OB-GYN colleague from Texas, who talked about the opinion and read the letters from the Texas Medical Society and also the Governor of Texas in regard to their opposition to this bill that we are going to be voting on tomorrow, H.R. 3590. In fact, I don't have any letters tonight from the State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, but indeed, it was the Georgia Medical Association and the Texas Medical Association that came together months and months ago, an organized effort in many, many other State medical societies and special societies across this country, I think, representing some 500,000 physicians who are in opposition to this legislation, in contrast, Mr. Speaker, to the support, I'm still quite astounded by that, the support of the American Medical Association.
But it is important to know, while I respect the American Medical Association and their leadership, they represent probably less than 20 percent of the physicians in this country. And so I think we need to always put that in perspective. And again, I'm glad to hear from Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess from the State of Texas regarding that.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Democratic majority had the previous hour. I had an opportunity both while at home a few minutes ago and here on the floor in the more recent moments to hear some of the discussion. And it's real interesting to hear some of the comments. And I jotted down quickly some of those, and I would like to go over it a little bit so my colleagues can understand and get maybe a different, more possibly, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, more accurate perspective on some of that.
The gentlelady from California indicated in her remarks that in this bill, in this health care reform, that there is absolutely no deficit spending. In fact, she talks about something like $100 billion savings in the first 10 years, I guess it's calculated by the CBO. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all know the CBO can only work on the numbers given to them. And they do a great job. And we are not here to denigrate the hardworking men and women of the CBO. They've been working hard for over a year and a half now. Every time there's a change, they have to re-crunch numbers.
It's kind of interesting from the historical perspective of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Remember when Medicare, the program, was passed in 1965? The CBO and the number crunchers at that time said by the year 2010, based on all of the information that we have, demographics and how long people live and that sort of thing, by the year 2010, this program, although not nearly as costly in 1965, will cost about $60 billion in 2010. Well, Mr. Speaker, you and, I think, everybody in this Chamber and everybody listening knows that we are in the process now on an annual basis in the Medicare program of spending about $480 billion, $480 billion a year. We are spending more on Medicare than we are spending on our national defense, $480 billion.
Well, the number crunchers didn't miss it too much, did they? They only missed it by $420 billion, just a little small accounting error, I guess, you round it off maybe in government speak. So, for the gentlelady from California, and I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but no deficit spending indeed, and to suggest that there will be $1 trillion worth of savings in the second 10 years, don't hold your breath, colleagues. Don't hold your breath.
Well, it has been interesting today. It has been real interesting. I told the men and women on the west steps and the Mall earlier today, I don't know how many were there, Mr. Speaker, but thousands, maybe 25,000, people from all across the country, who came, I had an opportunity to ask some of them how they got here. Some drove, some came on buses, some flew, indeed, yes, there were even some from California. But God bless them, Mr. Speaker. The Member of the majority party in the previous hour referred to them as ``tea baggers.'' He called them ``tea baggers.'' I found that highly insulting, Mr. Speaker, to these men and women who made that effort to be here. ``We, the People,'' another gentleman in the majority party talked about ``We, the People,'' and referred to ``We, the People'' and talked about the Declaration of Independence in order to form a more perfect union and that this is a result, this bill, was going to give us a more perfect union.
And, Mr. Speaker, I know you have many on your side of the aisle who say we have been trying to pass comprehensive health care health care reform for 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. President Theodore Roosevelt tried to do it. President Woodrow Wilson tried to do it. President Franklin Roosevelt tried to do it. President Kennedy and President Johnson tried to do it. More recently, of course, President Clinton back in 1993 tried to do it. We almost did it, they said, Mr. Speaker. We almost got there, and now here we are right on the cusp of victory, as they describe, and tomorrow we are going to get over the finish line, we are going to do it for We, the People.
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you and my colleagues why we have never done it over the past 40, 50 or 60 years, because We, the People don't want it. We, the People hate it. They did then, and they do now. We, the People have rejected this in every poll that has been taken for the last year and a half. And the Democratic majority and the Democratic leadership and the President of the United States, they know that. They know that. We, the People don't want it. We, the People don't want what Otto Von Bismarck had to offer 150 years ago. We don't want Western European socialism for this country. We, the People like what is written in the Constitution, and that is what we want. And we want to make sure that We, the People know that there are some sensible men and women in this Congress, in both the House and the Senate, that will continue to stand up, right to the 11th hour, with our last breath, to stand up for We, the People and to fight off this socialism that this administration and this majority is insisting on.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize some of my colleagues who are on the floor with me tonight that I think feel just as strongly as I do. And We, the People would like to hear from them as well. At this point, I would like to yield some time to my colleague from Georgia, my good friend from the Third Congressional District of west Georgia, the Honorable Lynn Westmoreland.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Georgia, for being with us this hour and hopefully he will be with us for the entire hour, as long as he can stay.
We also have the gentleman from Texas, as I referred to previously, who did the special 5-minute talking about the Texas Medical Society and the way the Governor in Texas and the medical society have written letters to him to share with all of us, Mr. Speaker, in opposition, in strong opposition to the passage of this bill tomorrow. And I would like to refer to Dr. Burgess at this time.
If the gentleman will yield back to me for just a second.
I agree with him completely in regard to that so-called ``fix it bill,'' the reconciliation bill. It very likely could ping-pong back and forth forever, and nothing in that so-called fix it bill that maybe many of the Members, Mr. Speaker, on the majority side of the aisle are counting on as they make that difficult decision possibly to vote ``yes'' tomorrow. That ping-ponging back and forth could result in no changes to this bill that they vote on tomorrow, H.R. 3590, the gentleman from Texas just described, and that is it. The President will sign that, that will be the law for better or for worse, and they indeed will be stuck with that bill with having voted to support it, Mr. Speaker, and that is what they will have to go back into their districts in this fall campaign right up until November 2nd, and that is what is going to be hung around their neck. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that every Member in this body understands what the gentleman from Texas is talking about in regard to that.
And I yield back to him at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is absolutely right. I have the pocket Constitution; I keep it with me all the time. I think my colleagues here on the floor do as well. And he was making reference, of course, to the Democratic majority and the chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Louise Slaughter, saying that, okay, we have finally decided that we are not going to do the Slaughter solution, that we are not going to do the ``scheme and deem,'' we are not going to try to sneak this by the American people by not having our fingerprints on it. We are going to actually vote on the real bill tomorrow. We will vote on the rule, and we will vote on the bill.
Well, I don't know what caused that change of heart, Mr. Speaker, but I think the gentleman from Texas is very likely right on that. We, the people, all of these folks from all across the country that the gentleman from Ohio on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, referred to as ``tea baggers,'' they are the ones that were up here today. And I am sure that every Member of this body and the other body, Republicans and Democrats alike, you couldn't miss them. No matter how hard some Members may have wanted to not walk that gauntlet, they couldn't get away from them. So I think we, the people, had a lot to do with it.
It may be because former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Bill Barr said very recently in an article that they fully believe--I believe that article was in the Wall Street Journal--that it is totally unconstitutional according to article 1, section 7. I have it right here in front of me, Mr. Speaker. But for whatever the reason, I think it probably is a combination of both. I thank ``we, the people.''
With that, I refer back to my colleague from Georgia, the Honorable Lynn Westmoreland.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, indeed, there's a hole every other step. I had not heard that story, but I'm very glad the gentleman from Georgia related it to us, because the analogy is perfect.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the Democratic majority party who did their hour Special Order I guess 30 minutes or so ago and some of the comments that were made. One of the gentlemen made the comment that when they pass--the Democratic majority passes this bill tomorrow, H.R. 3590, if indeed they do, but he felt confident that they would, that he welcomed, Mr. Speaker, the debate as we go into the fall and as we all stand, as we do in every even year, every 2 years, for reelection to the House of Representatives, this great body, that he welcomed that opportunity to have that debate. In fact, he suggested that the Republican Party, our side of the aisle, none of whom will be voting for this bill tomorrow, would be campaigning on how we can win back the majority and do away with everything in the bill, all 2,700 pages of H.R. 3590, and the changes and the manager's amendment and whatever else we don't get to see but get to vote on.
Mr. Speaker, the minority party has had lots of ideas on how to reform the health care system so that we bring down the costs and give I don't know how many million--maybe it's 15 to 20 million people that don't get health insurance because they cannot afford it and they're not eligible. Their income is not low enough that they qualify for a safety net program like Medicaid or the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance Program, for their families.
And when the President, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and my colleagues know, when he invited both Republicans and Democrats 2 weeks ago to come over to the Blair House and meet with him, I don't know that they realized that it would be 6\1/2\ hours, much of it filibustering. A lot of hot air in that room. A lot of oxygen sucked out of the room. But the President controlled it, and he recognized speakers when he wanted to and he made them yield back when he wanted to. But we had so many good ideas presented. And as we go forward and when we do regain the majority, we're not going to strike down every single provision of H.R. 3590. There are things in that bill that I, as a physician member, and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree with and we think that they are good.
The gentlelady from California mentioned the expansion of community health centers. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Someone else in the majority party mentioned allowing our children to stay on a family policy until they're 26 years old. Many of them, of course, are still in college or graduate school, and, heretofore, insurance companies have required at age
21, maybe in some instances even at age 18, unless they were in school, that these children no longer could be covered under the family policy, and that was wrong. And we're changing that. I'm glad that we're changing that.
So the gentleman from Ohio and others on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I think they misspoke in regard to that. We can, should have worked together and come up with a solution that doesn't cost a trillion dollars, doesn't allow the Federal Government to take over our health care system--one-sixth of our economy, $2.5 trillion. Goodness knows, the Federal Government already controls about 60 percent of that when you think about Medicare and Medicaid and TRICARE, veterans' health care. For some reason, the Democratic majority and this President are not going to be satisfied until the Federal Government controls it all, lock, stock, and barrel, just like they said they have been trying to do for the last 40, 50, or 60 years. And I said in my earlier remarks, it's no surprise to me that it's had difficulty passing. I don't care how close it came, we the people didn't want it.
And as the gentleman from Ohio talks about, let's tee it up. We're ready. We're ready for those fall elections and we're ready to run on H.R. 3590, and we're going to beat these mean old stingy Republicans.
I want to, Mr. Speaker, give him a little history lesson. Thirty-four Democrat incumbents were defeated in 1994. Thirty-four incumbents were defeated. When was 1994? Well, it was one year after the latest and last great attempt for the Federal Government to take over our health care system. And that was known, my colleagues, as HillaryCare.
Let me just mention to my colleagues a few names, and I think it will be quite instructive because, I think, men and women, you will recognize some of these names who were among the 34 that went into that election cycle, I'm sure, very confident, having voted for HillaryCare and the takeover by the government of our health care system.
Speaker Tom Foley. Speaker of the House Tom Foley from the State of Washington, first elected in 1964. Tom Foley represented the Spokane area for 30 years. Thirty years. This was the first time since 1862 that a sitting Speaker was defeated in a reelection bid. Speaker Foley in 1992, Mr. Speaker, won by 11 points. In 1994, Speaker Tom Foley was defeated by 2 points, a 13-point shift.
Colleagues, Mr. Speaker, does the name Dan Rostenkowski sound familiar? The gentleman from Illinois, Fifth District of Illinois, first elected in 1958. He lost his seat in 1994, despite being a 36- year veteran of this House and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1992, I say to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, from Ohio, in 1992, Dan Rostenkowski won by 18 points. In 1994, he lost by 13 points. Just a little 31-point shift. What happened? What happened? We the people decided to put him in the ranks of the unemployed.
I'm not going to read all of the names. Let me just mention one from my own State. Again, 1992. Donald Johnson from the 10th District of Georgia. He was first elected to his first term in 1992. He won by 8 points. He represented my hometown, Mr. Speaker, Augusta, Georgia, home of the Masters. Great area. It's always home to me.
Well, Donald Johnson was one of the last votes for the massive, massive takeover of our health care system, and also, Mr. Speaker, voted for the Clinton increase in taxes. People back home said, Don't vote for that. Don't vote for it and come back and expect us to reelect you, Don Johnson. Don't vote for that bill. But yet I think our former colleague Don Johnson may have been the 117th vote. In 1992, he won by 8 points. In 1994, the gentleman from Georgia lost by 30, Mr. Speaker, lost by a 38-point shift. He was replaced by our great and late, I sadly say, colleague, Dr. Charlie Norwood, who served so honorably in this body until his death about a year and a half ago. He died in office, God rest his soul. Don Johnson wasn't a bad man, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know him personally, but he made a bad vote and he didn't listen to we the people.
Let me mention one other, because I saw her on television earlier today and she was recommending to her Democratic colleagues that they vote for this health care reform, this massive takeover of one-sixth of our economy. She was recommending, indeed, that her Democratic colleagues tomorrow vote ``yes'' because it was the right thing to do. Well, Ms. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky at the time. Today, I think her name is Marjorie Margolies. She represented the 13th District of Pennsylvania. She was elected in 1992. And it was her decisive vote on Bill Clinton's controversial 1993 budget; it was often argued to be the cause of her downfall. In 1992, she won by about a point. In 1994, she lost by 13 points, and she indeed was the deciding vote. And the people in Pennsylvania said, Marjorie, honey, it's time for you to come on home because you're not listening to we the people.
She said this afternoon on television that she has no regrets. That was 1994. So we're talking 16 years ago. I'm glad she has no regrets, but I don't think she ever intended, Mr. Speaker, to just serve one 2- year term. I don't think a lot of my Democratic colleagues in the majority party, particularly the freshmen and sophomores, had any intention or have any intention of going through the rigors and the expense and the agony and the stress of running to be elected to this House of Representatives to only serve one term.
I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly the fate that is going to befall them as they listen to some of their colleagues and listen to their leadership and listen to the President of the United States, and they make a decision that maybe the pressure from the leadership or maybe the offers from the leadership are so attractive, the promises, the arm twisting, that they come down here tomorrow, and they forget what we, the people, want them to do, and they make a career-ending vote.
I think it's important that if you don't know your history, you're going to repeat it. And that's why I spend the time talking about-- there are many more here that I could mention. But tomorrow is going to be a crucial, critical vote for many Members, and I hope and pray that those who know we, the people, from their district want them to vote ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, I hope they have the courage to do that. And then as long as you're responding to we, the people, you can't go wrong.
You know, when the bill started in the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House--and I am proud to serve on that committee. I've got a few posters that I would like to share with my colleagues to express to you why it is on this side of the aisle and why we, the people--60 percent, 70 percent across this country--are so opposed to this takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government.
On this first slide, would you just look at the additional bureaucracy that is created as the Federal Government begins to take over. I don't know that in any of the congressional budget scoring that any expense item was assigned to the creation of some 32 additional bureaucratic czars. The health choices administrator, as an example, is every bit as powerful as the Social Security administrator. We talked about today the fact that there are going to be 17,000 new IRS agents so they can peruse everybody's tax return to make sure that they have purchased a health insurance policy. Now not any health insurance policy but one prescribed by the Federal Government. Not maybe a health savings account with a policy that has a low premium and high deductible. But yes, catastrophic coverage that's so popular with our young people because that's what they can best afford. No, that's not going to be permitted. We the people want it, but the health choices administrator is probably not going to allow that to occur.
There will be 32 new bureaucratic agencies and growing all the time. And add to that, as I said, 17,000 additional IRS agents. How did this bill get to the point that we find this at this time? It wasn't easy, I can tell you that. It couldn't get through the Senate until, as I show you on this second slide, many, many political payoffs that are still in this bill.
Remember the Cornhusker kickback? Well, that wasn't taken out. The original bill on the Senate side, this was a special favor granted to one particular
Senator from one particular State, the Cornhusker State. And instead of taking it out, when we, the people, complained, what did the Democratic majority do? They extended the Cornhusker kickback to every State in the Union, so all 50 States will now get this expansion of Medicaid and an unfunded mandate that the States cannot possibly survive with.
The Louisiana purchase. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Senator from Louisiana yesterday on television explaining why she asked for and received the Louisiana purchase payoff--of course, Mr. Speaker, she said it wasn't a payoff. I believe it was in an interview with Greta Van Susteren that the Senator said that, Well, Louisiana has to pay 70 percent of the price of the cost of Medicaid in her State, and the Federal Government pays 30 percent. And that wasn't fair. Well, I was astounded, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to hear that, because it's just the opposite. The State of Louisiana pays 30 percent, and the Federal Government pays 70 percent. And in fact, they've been doing that for many, many years and probably the State of Louisiana pays less into the Medicaid program than almost any other State in the country. Mississippi may be a little bit less. And the reason for that, this FMAP-matching is done based on the average income in the State. So a state that is suffering in poverty, they pay less in the Medicaid program, and we, the people, help them with the Federal match.
Louisiana for many years deserved to only pay 30 percent. But after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to the State of Louisiana to help them recover, and in particular in the New Orleans area. They needed it. They deserved it. A natural disaster, mostly through no fault of their own.
But the economy in Louisiana has improved drastically in the last 4, 5 years since Hurricane Katrina and income has gone up. People are making a better wage because of all the construction and all the money that has been poured into Louisiana. And the State of Louisiana and its representatives continue to ask for more. It's like my dad said to me one time, Mr. Speaker, How much more money does a rich person need to be happy? Well, the answer, Mr. Speaker, is just a little bit more, just a little bit more. So I suspect that the ask-fors will never end. But I'm glad--I am very thankful that the State of Louisiana is doing well now, and the average income has gone up. And they are supposed to, by the formula, by fairness, they're supposed to pay a little bit more into the Medicaid program than 30 percent. And yet the Senator insists that, no, that's unfair to Louisiana, and that's what is known now as the Louisiana purchase. It's still in there. Gator aid is still in there. Federal funding of abortion is still in there. And $500 billion worth of Medicare cuts are still in there.
Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we look seniors in the eye and say to them, We're going to cut this program $500 billion? What could possibly be the justification for doing that? This program, started in 1965, has an unfunded liability of $35 trillion over the next 50 years, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, in the previous hour talked about how cutting $500 billion out of the Medicare program was going to save the program, even suggesting that that $500 billion was waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet $120 billion of it is in the Medicare Advantage Program. Cutting Medicare Advantage 18 percent per year for the next 10 years--and really by 2014, there will be no Medicare Advantage Program.
Why is it that one-fourth of our seniors on Medicare sign up for Medicare Advantage? Because it's cheaper for them, and they get a better benefit. It covers wellness. It covers many preventive screening tests that fee-for-service Medicare does not cover. It gives them an opportunity to have a professional or a nurse practitioner call and make sure that they're taking their medications and they're seen on a regular basis, and yet we're going to eliminate that program. How does that make sense? Mr. Speaker, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense.
So as my colleague from Ohio was talking about, some of the things in this bill that they may pass tomorrow, they may pass with some of the tactics that have been used, like the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase and ambassadorship here and ambassadorship there, and you name it and whatever promise, they may pass it. But Mr. Speaker, it's going to be a catastrophe, I think, for our seniors.
Let me just tell you why I think so. And I spoke to the--I call them Tea Party patriots, Mr. Speaker. I don't call them tea baggers. And they're not a bunch of angry white men, as I have heard a lot of folks say. Indeed, the two or three couples who asked me to sign their posters and to pose for a picture with them were African American families. And I was so proud to be asked to do that. I mean, again, all ages, men, and women, white, black, Asian. We, the people, were there today, and I think, Mr. Speaker, they'll be there tomorrow.
But here's what's happening to our seniors, and I had a few minutes to speak to the assemblage of maybe 20,000 people, and I reminded them of the stimulus package of over a year and a half ago. I guess it was maybe February of last year when that massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, whatever it was called. But we call it the stimulus bill. I think everybody understands. It was about $820 billion worth, and a significant portion of that package, Mr. Speaker, was--remember, it was for shovel-ready projects. If the project was not shovel-ready in reference to some of these construction projects in the various States, then the States couldn't draw down that money from the economic stimulus package; it had to be shovel-ready.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when you're having fun, time really flies. And even when you're not having fun, it flies.
