Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I am very pleased to defend what has been not intended as a compliment, but to defend the so-called ObamaCare bill. President Obama is going to go down in history…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I am very pleased to defend what has been not intended as a compliment, but to defend the so-called ObamaCare bill. President Obama is going to go down in history for having taken 54 million people, according to the CBO, off the rolls of the uninsured and given them insurance.
I've been looking over my congressional district over the King holiday and talking to a lot of people about health care. I haven't found one parent in the 14th Congressional District that didn't like the idea of having their children remain on their health care policy until age 26. Have you found anybody that would like not to have their children extended until 26? Please see me after this debate, because we've got so much to be proud of.
And what are we talking about? Preexisting illnesses not being a basis for being denied insurance or a reason to kick one out of a health insurance policy. These are good things.
I am amazed by the fact that people say this bill is going to cost jobs. Well, the CBO says it's going to cost us $230 billion to repeal the bill. Please, could we be a little more fiscally conservative in this body as we rush to repeal this bill?
The question of constitutionality is a very interesting one for the Judiciary Committee, a matter we are going to go into further. But we've found a very good set of arguments about the ability of this bill to be totally within the framework of our Constitution. Come on. We already have Medicare. Who do you think runs that? We already have Medicaid. What about Social Security?
Mr. Speaker, the issues here are simple.
The health care bill that Republicans attack today ensures that millions of Americans have access to essential medical care.
It enables businesses to provide health care to their employees-- which protects and creates the jobs we so desperately need.
It protects Americans from notorious insurance company practices like denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and children with birth defects.
It stops insurance companies from dropping your coverage when you get sick.
And it takes critical first steps towards getting health care costs under control, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the deficit. Everyone in America who gets health insurance through their work has seen premiums and co-pays skyrocket year after year. Those increases afflict our entire health care economy. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, they threatened to engulf the entire federal budget. Those who would repeal this law are simply not serious about our debt.
Costs of Repeal
Repealing this bill would undo all these profound public policy achievements. And towards what end?
Repeal would add 54 million people to the rolls of the uninsured. Is that what the new majority wants as their first legislative act?
Repeal would permit health insurers to resume discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. Does the new majority want
to tell women who have survived breast cancer or children with birth defects that they are not allowed to buy health care?
Repeal would lead to millions of young people being dropped from their parents' insurance coverage. In this economy, with work and the health insurance that comes with it so hard to find, does the new majority really want to kick these children off the insurance rolls?
And finally, repeal would add more than $230 billion to the near term federal deficit. Is that what the new majority has in store for the American taxpayer?
The majority apparently feels that all these costs are acceptable, because they will ``replace'' the health care bill with something else. But that is simply not credible.
After all we went through to pass this bill, it obviously would be no simple thing to draft a replacement. So if the majority is serious about wanting to improve our health care system, at the least they should hold off on repealing the current law until their replacement actually exists. Voting now suggests the true motive here is the politics of health care, not the policy.
During the health care debate last year, we saw the Republican approach--and it simply does not improve our health care system. Indeed, in November of 2009, the Republicans put forward their own plan which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found would cover only 3 million people. That meant that for the 54 million people left without the ability to afford insurance, the Republicans' ``No Care'' plan provided exactly that--no care; no hope; no security.
Conclusion
There may be no issue that comes before the Congress that more clearly demonstrates the different priorities of the parties.
Based on today's proceedings, it is clear that the new Republican majority stands for protecting insurance companies, exploding the national debt, and playing to the extremes of their base.
The Democratic minority, on the other hand, stands for affordable health care for all, holding insurance companies accountable, and responsibly addressing our long term financial challenges.
I urge all Members to vote against repeal of the landmark health care reform law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.
I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a former subcommittee chairman of Judiciary, the gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, to defend the ObamaCare legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Dr. Judy Chu of California, a very valuable member of Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Lamar Smith on becoming the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the 112th session of Congress.
I turn now to the former chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler of New York, and I yield him 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute, and I congratulate the ranking member of Government Reform, to the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Birmingham, Alabama, Terri Sewell.
Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri, Russ Carnahan.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
How much time have we remaining, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Because this is the Judiciary Committee and so little has been said about the constitutionality, I am pleased to quote from the dean of the law school of the University of California, Erwin Chemerinsky, who said that opposing health care reform and relying on an argument that it is unconstitutional is an inadequate way to proceed.
Somebody here must remember that there is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Please, this is not new that the government would be intervening in this way. Maybe we need to revise and revisit the questions of constitutionality.
[From POLITICO, Oct. 23, 2009]
Health Care Reform Is Constitutional
(By Erwin Chemerinsky)
Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying
on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care
reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of
course, much to debate about how to best reform America's
health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed
by House and Senate committees are constitutional.
Some who object to the health care proposals claim that
they are beyond the scope of congressional powers.
Specifically, they argue that Congress lacks the authority to
compel people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax or a
fine.
Congress clearly could do this under its power pursuant to
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce
among the states. The Supreme Court has held that this
includes authority to regulate activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of
economic activities, ``substantial effect'' can be found
based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the
country. For example, a few years ago, the Supreme Court held
that Congress could use its commerce clause authority to
prohibit individuals from cultivating and possessing small
amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use because
marijuana is bought and sold in interstate commerce.
The relationship between health care coverage and the
national economy is even stronger and more readily apparent.
In 2007, health care expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion,
or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2 percent of the
gross domestic product.
Ken Klukowski, writing in POLITICO, argued that ``people
who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would
not be engaging in commercial activity, so there's no
interstate commerce.'' Klukowski's argument is flawed because
the Supreme Court never has said that the commerce power is
limited to regulating those who are engaged in commercial
activity.
Quite the contrary: The court has said that Congress can
use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from
discriminating based on race, even though their conduct was
refusing to engage in commercial activity. Likewise, the
court has said that Congress can regulate the growing of
marijuana for personal medicinal use, even if the person
being punished never engaged in any commercial activity.
Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70
years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that,
taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. People not purchasing health insurance
unquestionably has this effect.
There is a substantial likelihood that everyone will need
medical care at some point. A person with a communicable
disease will be treated whether or not he or she is insured.
A person in an automobile accident will be rushed to the
hospital for treatment, whether or not he or she is insured.
Congress would simply be requiring everyone to be insured to
cover their potential costs to the system.
Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its
taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase
of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in
order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to
Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs
of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme
Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for
the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine
this.
Nor is there any basis for arguing that an insurance
requirement violates individual liberties. No
constitutionally protected freedom is infringed. There is no
right to not have insurance. Most states now require
automobile insurance as a condition for driving.
Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has consistently
held that a tax cannot be challenged as an impermissible take
of private property for public use without just compensation.
All taxes are a taking of private property for public use,
but no tax has ever been invalidated on that basis.
Since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has ruled that
government economic regulations, including taxes, are to be
upheld as long as they are reasonable. Virtually all economic
regulations and taxes have been found to meet this standard
for more than 70 years. There is thus no realistic chance
that the mandate for health insurance would be invalidated
for denying due process or equal protection.
Those who object to the health care proposals on
constitutional grounds are making an argument that has no
basis in the law. They are invoking the rhetorical power of
the Constitution to support their opposition to health care
reform, but the law is clear that Congress constitutionally
has the power to do so. There is much to argue about in the
debate over health care reform, but constitutionality is not
among the hard questions to consider.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the committee.