Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
WE WILL ALL MISS HER BUT WE ARE
ALL BETTER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF
HER.
REST IN PEACE, GERRY.
WE WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND
SO WILL THE HISTORY BOOKS.
I YIELD BACK, MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 5, 2011, THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM INDIANA, MR. BURTON, FOR
30 MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR 30 MINUTES AND TO REVISE
AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
MR. SPEAKER, YOU KNOW A WHILE
AGO ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WAS
DOWN HERE TALKING ABOUT THE
OBAMACARE AND WHAT A PROBLEM IT
WAS GOING TO CAUSE FOR THIS
COUNTRY FROM A FINANCIAL
STANDPOINT AS WELL AS CAUSING
WHOLE HOST OF OTHER THINGS.
BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO RIGHT NOW
IS BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF MY
COLLEAGUES AND ANYBODY ELSE
THAT'S PAYING ATTENTION A
DECISION THAT WAS JUST MADE BY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ROSEMARY
COLLIER THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY
ON SOCIAL SECURITY WHO WANTS TO
HAVE A HEALTH CARE PLAN BESIDES
MEDICARE.
AND I'M GOING TO READ YOU AN
OP-ED THAT WAS IN "THE
WASHINGTON EXAMINER" AND ALSO
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" THAT
I THINK EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN
OUGHT TO BE AWARE OF BECAUSE IT
HAS WIDE-RANGING -- A
WIDE-RANGING IMPACT ON
EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS.
A RECENT COURT RULING HAS
HELPED PRESIDENT OBAMA PUSH
AHEAD WITH A MANDATE THAT ALL
CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO HAVE
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.
NOW, GET THIS, THIS COURT
RULING WOULD MANDATE THAT EVERY
CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY HAS
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE,
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
IN A MARCH 16 DECISION, U.S.
DISTRICT JUDGE ROSEMARY
COLLIER, WHO PREVIOUSLY SERVED
AS GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
SHE RULED THAT SENIORS WHO
ELECT TO OPT OUT OF MEDICARE
COVERAGE MUST FORFEIT THEIR
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AS
WELL AND REPAY ALL PAST SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS PRIOR TO
OPTING OUT.
NOW, I HOPE EVERYBODY'S GETTING
THAT IN THEIR OFFICES.
IF YOU DON'T TAKE MEDICARE
COVERAGE AND YOU'RE A SENIOR
AND YOU OPT OUT OF MEDICARE
COVERAGE BECAUSE YOU WANT
ANOTHER FORM OF HEALTH CARE,
MAYBE A BETTER FORM OF HEALTH
CARE, THEN YOU GOT TO LOSE YOUR
SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS AND
PAY BACK ALL THE SOCIAL
SECURITY PAYMENTS THAT YOU
RECEIVED IN THE PAST.
NOW, ANYBODY THAT'S PAYING
ATTENTION IS GOING TO SAY, NO,
THAT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN, BUT
I'M TELLING YOU THAT DECISION
WAS MADE ON MARCH 16 BY JUDGE
ROSEMARY COLLIER, U.S. DISTRICT
JUDGE, HERE IN THIS AREA.
NOW, THE RULING RELATES TO A
LAWFUL -- THE RULING RELATES TO
A LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED IN
2008 WHEN IN -- AND THIS WAS
THE NAME OF THE CASE -- HALL
VS. SBEELIAS -- SEVERAL SENIOR
CITIZENS CHALLENGED A CLINTON
PROGRAM RULE AND SUED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OPT OUT
OF MEDICARE WITHOUT LOSING
THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
THE PLAINTIFFS ALL PAID THEIR
MEDICARE TAXES THROUGHOUT THEIR
EMPLOYMENT HISTORIES AND DID
NOT REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT OF
THE MONEY.
SO THEY PAID INTO MEDICARE FOR
THE ENTIRE TIME THAT THEY'D
BEEN WORKING.
THESE INDIVIDUALS SIMPLY WISHED
TO ENGAGE OTHER HEALTH
INSURANCE PLANS.
THEY WANTED TO GET SOME OTHER
HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN BESIDES
MEDICARE.
THEY PAID INTO MEDICARE, THEY
PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY BUT
THEY WANTED TO GET OTHER HEALTH
INSURANCE BESIDES MEDICARE.
AND IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THEY
BELIEVED THEY WOULD PROVIDE --
THAT WOULD PROVIDE BETTER
COVERAGE THAN THAT OF THE
GOVERNMENT MEDICARE PROGRAM.
IN ADDITION THESE SENIORS
CONTRIBUTED TO SOCIAL SECURITY
WHILE THEY WERE WORKING AND
ACCEPTED THESE BENEFITS UPON
RETIREMENT.
NOW, HERE'S WHAT THE SENIORS'
LAWSUIT ARGUED.
BOTH THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE ACTS STATE THAT THE
APPLICATION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS AND MEDICARE ARE
VOLUNTARY AND THAT APPLICATIONS
FOR EACH PROGRAM ARE NOT
DEPENDENT UPON EACH OTHER.
FORCED PARTICIPATION IN
MEDICARE VIOLATES AN
INDIVIDUAL'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
THE CLINTON-ERA RULES WERE
PROMULGATED WITHOUT UNDERGOING
THE REQUIRED NOTICE AND COMMENT
RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS WHICH
IS A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.
THE JUDGE STATED THAT IN ITS
ARGUMENTS THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, QUOTE, EXTOLLS
THE BENEFITS OF MEDICARE AND
SUGGESTS THAT PLAINTIFFS WOULD
AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT TRULY
INJURED IF THEY WERE TO LEARN
MORE ABOUT MEDICARE PERHAPS
THROUGH DISCOVERY.
NOTE, THE FAMILIAR
CONDESCENDING OBAMA
MEDICARE AND THEN FIND OUT
WHAT'S IN IT.
YOU'LL LIKE IT WHEN YOU DO.
WE HAD THAT PROBLEM BEFORE ON
YOU REMEMBER THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WHEN WAS
ASKED ABOUT THE OBAMACARE SHE
SAID, WELL, WE GOT TO PASS THE
BILL, THEN WE'LL FIND OUT
WHAT'S IN IT.
THAT REALLY MADE A LOT OF
SENSE.
BUT PRETTY MUCH THAT'S THE
ATTITUDE OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
ON TO SAY.
THE PARTIES USE A LOT OF INK
DISPUTING WHETHER PLAINTIFFS
DESIRE NOT TO GET MEDICARE PART
A IS SENSIBLE.
TRANSLATION, IF AMERICANS DON'T
WANT GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH
CARE, WELL, THEY DON'T HAVE
MUCH SENSE.
AFTER ALL, THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS
WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM AND THEY
DON'T.
MOST ASTOUNDING ABOUT THIS CASE
IS THAT AS OF LATE 2009 THIS
SAME JUDGE, JUDGE COLLIER,
SUPPORTED THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM
AND EVEN REFUSED THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S REQUEST TO
DISMISS THE SUIT AND HER RULING
THEN WAS THAT NEITHER THE
STATUTE NOR THE REGULATION
SPECIFIES THAT PLAINTIFFS MUST
WITHDRAW FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
AND REPAY RETIREMENT BENEFITS
IN ORDER TO WITHDRAW FROM
MEDICARE WHICH MEANS SIMPLY
THAT IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO TAKE
MEDICARE THEY CAN CONTINUE TO
GET THE SOCIAL SECURITY THAT
THEY PAID INTO, AS THEY SHOULD,
AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY
BACK SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
THEY RECEIVED IN THE PAST.
THAT MAKES SENSE.
IN HER STUNNING REVERSAL SHE
CHANGED HER MIND.
NOW, THIS JUDGE MADE THIS
RULING IN 2009 AND NOW SHE
CHANGES HER MIND.
AND SHE SAYS IN HER STUNNING
REVERSAL, SHE ARGUES THAT
REQUIRING A MECHANISM FOR
PLAINTIFFS AND OTHERS IN THEIR
SITUATION TO DISENROLL WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT WHICH WAS TO PROVIDE
MANDATORY BENEFITS UNDER
MEDICARE PART A AND FOR THOSE
RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY
RETIREMENT PLANS.
QUOTE, PLAINTIFFS ARE TRAPPED
IN A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM
INTENDED FOR THEIR BENEFIT.
THEY DISAGREE AND WISH TO
ESCAPE, COLLIER WROTE, THE
COURT CAN FIND NO LOOPHOLE OR
REQUIREMENT THAT THE SECRETARY
PROVIDES SUCH A PATHWAY.
ACCORDING TO COLLIER, AN
ENTITLEMENT IS MANDATORY.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT.
NOW, HERE'S THE GOVERNMENT
SAYING YOU HAVE TO TAKE
MEDICARE.
AND HER OPINION WILL
UNDOUBTEDLY BE RELIED UPON BY
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AS
SUPPORT FOR CLAIMS OF MANDATORY
ENTITLEMENTS SUCH AS THAT WHICH
IS THE CRUX OF OBAMACARE WHICH
COULD BE MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE.
EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO BE
COVERED NOT BY THEIR OWN
INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE PLANS
THAT THEY HAVE OR BY THEIR
EMPLOYER'S HEALTH CARE PLAN OR
A GROUP PLAN THEY ARE ON, BUT
EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO BE ON
MEDICARE WHICH IS A
GOVERNMENT-RUN APPROACH WHICH
WOULD RATION HEALTH CARE AND
OBAMACARE, WHEN YOU RUN IT OUT
TO ITS -- FOR 10 YEARS YOU FIND
IT'S GOING TO COST LITERALLY
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT A TIME
WHEN WE HAVE A $14 TRILLION
NATIONAL DEBT, AND THIS YEAR
ALONE WE'RE EXCEEDING OUR
REVENUES BY $1.4 TRILLION.
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL"
REPORTED THAT KENT MASTERSON
BROWN, THE LEAD ATTORNEY FOR
THE SENIORS COMMENTED THAT IF
AMERICANS WONDER HOW THEY'LL
RIGHT OBAMACARE RULES THEY NEED
ONLY TO LOOK TO THIS RULING.
QUOTE, WHEN THEY DO, HE SAID,
THEY WILL REALIZE NOTHING WILL
BE OPTIONAL.
THIS IS AN ALARMING DECISION
THAT CAME ABOUT IN A DISTURBING
MANNER.
COLLIER'S RULING IS A DANGER TO
FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.
LET'S LOOK TO THE PLAINTIFF'S
APPEALING -- THEY'RE APPEALING
-- TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR MORE FAVORABLE
RESULTS.
NOW, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
IF SHE IS NOT REVERSED, THAT
MEANS THAT ANYBODY WHO GETS
SOCIAL SECURITY WHO MAY HAVE
ANOTHER HEALTH CARE PLAN, MAY
NOT WANT TO BE ON MEDICARE,
THEY EITHER TAKE MEDICARE OR
THEY GOT TO PAY -- THEY HAVE TO
PAY ALL THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS BACK PLUS THEY DON'T
GET SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE
FUTURE.
NOW, THINK ABOUT THAT.
YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE MEDICARE
FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND YOU'VE
BEEN PAYING INTO SOCIAL
SECURITY ALL OF YOUR LIFE,
YOU'RE GETTING SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS, AND BECAUSE YOU WON'T
TAKE MEDICARE THEY SAY, UH-OH,
YOU GOT TO PAY ALL YOUR SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS BACK TO WHEN
YOU RECEIVED THEM AND YOU CAN'T
GET ANY MORE IN THE FUTURE.
THAT IS JUST ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.
NOW, I WANT TO READ TO YOU SOME
INFORMATION THAT I HAVE FROM
THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE
STATUTE.
AND THIS IS VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY
BE INTERPRETED ONE WAY AND YET
THIS JUDGE AND THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION IS CHANGING IT
SO THAT IT WILL FIT THEIR
DESIRED OBJECTIVE.
LET ME READ THIS TO YOU.
BE PATIENT WITH ME WHILE I READ
IT AND GET ALL THE INFORMATION.
NOW, HERE'S WHAT -- THE
MEDICARE STATUTE SAYS.
NOW SEE IF -- COLLEAGUES IN
YOUR OFFICES, SEE IF YOU CAN
GET THIS PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO
PAY THEIR PAYMENTS BACK.
HERE'S WHAT THE MEDICARE
STATUTE SAYS.
THE MEDICARE STATUTE PROVIDES
THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
ENTITLED -- ENTITLED TO SOCIAL
SECURITY ARE ENTITLED TO
MEDICARE.
IF YOU'RE ENTITLED TO SOCIAL
SECURITY YOU HAVE TO BE
ENTITLED TO SOCIAL SECURITY IN
ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO
MEDICARE.
BUT IT DOES NOT SAY IF YOU'RE
ENTITLED TO SOCIAL SECURITY
THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE MEDICARE.
IT ONLY SAYS IF YOU'RE ENTITLED
TO SOCIAL SECURITY YOU'RE
ENTITLED IF YOU WANT TO TO TAKE
MEDICARE.
NOW, THIS JUDGE IS CHANGING THE
WORDS THAT ARE IN THE STATUTE
TO MEAN THAT IF YOU TAKE SOCIAL
SECURITY YOU HAVE TO TAKE
MEDICARE.
BUT THE LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT.
SO SHE IS MAKING LAW ON THE
FEDERAL BENCH, AND THAT'S NOT
WHAT OUR FOUNDERS CONTEMPLATED
WHEN THEY WROTE THE DECLARATION
OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE
CONSTITUTION.
SO LISTEN TO THIS AGAIN.
THE MEDICARE STATUTE SAYS THAT
ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
ENTITLED TO SOCIAL SECURITY ARE
ENTITLED TO MEDICARE,
THEREFORE, THE JUDGE'S ARGUING
THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID
ENTITLEMENT TO MEDICARE PART A
AT AGE 65 IS TO FORGO THE
SOURCE OF THAT ENTITLEMENT,
I.E., SOCIAL SECURITY
RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
SO SHE'S STANDING THE LAW OF
THE COUNTRY, THE MEDICARE LAW
AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAW ON
THEIR HEADS.
AND THIS WILL MEAN TO EVERY
SINGLE CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY
IF THE GOVERNMENT SAYS HERE'S
SOMETHING WE WANT YOU TO DO AND
IF YOU DON'T DO IT WE'LL TAKE
AWAY ANOTHER BENEFIT THAT YOU
HAVE OR ANOTHER GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM YOU WILL HAVE TO DO IT
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS
JUDGE'S RULING MEANS SIMPLY.
IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING YOU
A BENEFIT LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY
AND THEY DECIDE THAT THERE'S
ANOTHER BENEFIT THAT YOU'RE
ENTITLED TO, SO YOU HAVE TO
TAKE IT, YOU DON'T TAKE IT,
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO WITHDRAW
YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AND SAY
YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK ALL YOUR
BENEFITS OF THE PAST.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.
IT IS GOVERNMENT RUN AMUCK,
GOVERNMENT RUN OUT OF CONTROL,
AND THIS JUDGE, IF I HAD THE
ABILITY, WOULD BE FIRED.
ONE TIME IN 19 -- IN 1997 OR
1998, I SAID BEFORE, I CAN'T
REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE, HER
RULING WAS -- LET ME GET THE
EXACT DATE ON IT.
IN 2008 SHE RULED IN FAVOR OF
THE PLAINTIFFS SAYING IF YOU
GOT SOCIAL SECURITY AND YOU
DON'T WANT MEDICARE BECAUSE YOU
GOT ANOTHER HEALTH CARE PLAN
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT, AND
NOW SHE'S REVERSED HERSELF AND
SAID, IF YOU GET SOCIAL
SECURITY YOU HAVE TO TAKE
. I SEE MY GOOD FRIEND IS
HERE, THIS IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
THE LAW SAYS THAT ONLY
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ENTITLED TO
SOCIAL SECURITY ARE ENTITLED TO
MEDICARE.
BUT THAT DOES NOT SAY IF YOU'RE
ENTITLED TO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU
HAVE TO TAKE MEDICARE.
AND SHE'S SAYING AND I HOPE
EVERYBODY IS GETTING THIS, SHE'S
SAYING IF YOU GET SOCIAL
SECURITY, YOU HAVE TO TAKE
IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER HEALTH PLAN,
YOUR EMPLOYER HAS ANOTHER HEALTH
PLAN, DOESN'T MATTER, YOU HAVE
TO GET RID OF THOSE AND YOU HAVE
TO JOIN MEDICARE OR YOU LOSE
YOUR BENEFITS.
NOW THIS CASE IS ON APPEAL AND I
HOPE IT GOES TO THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT
REVERSES, BECAUSE IF IT DOES NOT
REPEAL THIS DECISION BY JUDGE
COLLIER, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
IS THAT EVERYTHING THE
GOVERNMENT SAYS, WILL HAVE TO BE
DONE.
IF THEY CAN SAY, YOU GET SOCIAL
SECURITY, YOU GOT TO TAKE
MEDICARE AND IF YOU HAVE A
SEPARATE HEALTH CARE PLAN, TO
HECK WITH IT.
AND IF THEY CAN GO FAR ENOUGH TO
SAY THAT, THEY CAN SAY ANYTHING
THEY WANT TO TO MAKE YOU JUMP
THROUGH A HOOP.
AND IT'S DEAD WRONG AND FLIES IN
THE FACE OF EVERYTHING WE
BELIEVE AS FAR AS THE FREE
PEOPLE AND FREE GOVERNMENT IS
CONCERNED.
I CAN'T BELIEVE SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AROUND
AND THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME,
MR. SPEAKER, IS THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN SO
MANY THINGS THAT THEY CAN'T PAY
ATTENTION TO ALL THE THINGS THAT
ARE GOING ON, THEY RELY UPON
THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC TO STUDY THESE BILLS
AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST
FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AND WE HAVE 300 MILLION PEOPLE
HERE AND THEY CAN'T READ EVERY
BILL OR WATCH EVERY COURT
DECISION.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS,
THESE COURTS, A SEPARATE PART OF
OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR FOREFATHERS
SAID WE HAVE A JUDICIAL BRANCH,
A LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND AN
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND SUPPOSED TO
BE CO-EQUAL.
BUT HERE YOU HAVE A FEDERAL
JUDGE MAKING A LAW THAT WILL
TRANSSEND LAWS THAT WE HAVE ON
THE BOOKS AND CHANGE THE WAY OF
LIFE FOR EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.
REMEMBER WHAT THIS DOES.
THE LAW SAYS IF YOU ARE GETTING
SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU MAY TAKE
AND WHAT THE JUDGE IS SAYING, IF
YOU GET SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU
HAVE TO TAKE MEDICARE, NO MATTER
WHAT OTHER HEALTH CARE PLAN YOU
AND IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU, THEN YOU
ARE GOING TO LOSE YOUR SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS.
AND NOT ONLY, YOU HAVE TO PAY
BACK PROBABLY WITH INTEREST
PROBABLY ON EVERY SOCIAL
SECURITY CHECK YOU RECEIVED.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS, MR.
GOHMERT.
I APPRECIATE MY
GOOD FRIEND FOR YIELDING.
WE HEAR SO OFTEN FROM THIS
ADMINISTRATION THEY ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY,
BUT WE KNOW THAT WALL STREET
EXECUTIVES GAVE CONTRIBUTIONS
FOUR TIMES MORE FOR THE
PRESIDENT THAN THEY DID FOR HIS
REPUBLICAN OPPONENT.
SO IT KIND OF TELLS YOU WHERE
YOU SEE THE CONTRIBUTIONS COME
FROM FOR A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE,
WHO THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT.
WE'RE TOLD THEY REALLY CARE
ABOUT THE WORKING POOR.
AND YET, THE VERY THING YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT UNDER THE
OBAMACARE BILL IS ALMOST
INCONCEIVABLE EXCEPT THAT IT WAS
PUSHED THROUGH BY THIS PRESIDENT
AND TWO DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES
THAT THERE IS A PROVISION THAT
IF YOU ARE JUST ABOVE THE
POVERTY LINE AND YOU CAN'T
AFFORD THE HEALTH INSURANCE THAT
THIS ADMINISTRATION DICTATES, AS
I UNDERSTAND WILL BE INCLUDING
PREGNANCY AND YOUNG PERSON, NO
PLANS OF GETTING PREGNANT, NO
ABILITY TO GET PREGNANT, OTHER
THINGS THAT WON'T AFFECT YOU AT
ALL BUT MANDATED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION, INSTEAD OF BEING
ABLE TO BUY A CHEAPER INSURANCE
POLICY YOU CAN AFFORD, THIS
ADMINISTRATION WILL HAVE MADE IT
SO EXPENSIVE THAT PEOPLE JUST
ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE WON'T BE
ABLE TO AFFORD IT.
AND HOW THE BILL DEALS WITH
THOSE WORKING POOR JUST ABOVE
THE POVERTY LINE, IT REQUIRES A
2% ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX IF YOU
CANNOT AFFORD THE INSURANCE THAT
THEY MANDATE.
CAN I SAY ONE THING?
MY COLLEAGUE, GOOD FRIEND OF
MINE, REPRESENTATIVE GOHMERT
POINTS OUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE
OBAMACARE BILL.
AND THAT IS BAD, VERY BAD.
AND IT SHOULD NOT BE IN LAW.
AND THAT'S WHY WE MOVED H.R. 1
TO REPEAL IT.
BUT THIS DECISION THAT WAS
TALKING ABOUT EVEN GOES FURTHER
THAN THAT.
IT SAYS IF YOU ARE GETTING
SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU HAVE TO
TAKE MEDICARE AND WHAT THEY'RE
DOING IS SAYING EVERYBODY IN
THIS COUNTRY IS ULTIMATELY GOING
TO HAVE TO BE UNDER A
GOVERNMENT-RUN PROGRAM, MEDICARE
OR OBAMACARE, WHICH MEANS
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IN AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT APPROACH TO
MEDICINE, WHICH WILL BE
CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRATS.
I UNDERSTOOD WHERE
MY FRIEND WAS GOING AND I HAD
NOT HEARD OF THAT OPINION AND
I'M SO GLAD THE SMART GENTLEMAN
HAD BROUGHT THAT TO OUR
ATTENTION, BECAUSE THAT IS JUST
INCREDIBLE EXCEPT THAT IT IS
EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC
PROPONENTS OF OBAMACARE AND THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAD SAID
BEFORE, THEY WANTED TO GET TO.
THE GOAL WAS TO USE THIS TO GET
TO A COMPLETE GOVERNMENT-RUN,
SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM WHERE
EVERYBODY IS REQUIRED TO BE
UNDER IT.
AND SO, THIS DECISION SPEEDS
THAT PROCESS UP DRAMATICALLY,
BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY WHERE --
WAY.
NOW, HAVING SEEN SOCIALIZED
MEDICINE FIRSTHAND IN THE SOVIET
UNION AS AN EXCHANGE STUDENT
BACK IN 1973 AND HAVING SEEN
ANOTHER FORM OF SOCIALIZED
MEDICINE FOR FOUR YEARS IN THE
UNITED STATES ARMY, I DON'T WANT
TO GO THERE.
I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN
CHARGE OF MY HEALTH CARE.
I SAW THAT IN THE ARMY.
WE HAVE SOME INCREDIBLE MEDICS.
WE HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT
SHOULDN'T BE PRACTICING MEDICINE
THAT WERE WORKING THERE AND
HOPEFUL THAT I WAS HELPFUL IN
GETTING RID OF SOME OF THOSE,
BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE NEED TO
BE GOING.
PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER.
BUT I THOUGHT THE FACT THAT IN
THE BILL ITSELF, THERE IS
RETRIBUTION FOR THE WORKING POOR
WHO CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO DO WHAT
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS DICTATED.
SO BETWEEN A JUDGE SAYING IF
YOU'VE GOT SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU
ARE GOING TO BE CRAMMED INTO
THIS AND THIS ADMINISTRATION AND
THE FORMER SPEAKER PELOSI AND
HARRY REID SAYING THAT WE'RE
GOING TO PENALIZE YOU BECAUSE
YOU ARE WORKING POOR AND CAN'T
AFFORD THE LUXURIES OF THE
POLICIES WE ARE MANDATE --
MANDATING, THE WORKING MAN DOES
PRESIDENT HAVE A CHANCE UNLESS
WE TURN THOSE THINGS AROUND.
AND THE WORKING POOR IS WHAT I
OFTEN SAW AT FORT BEENING AND
PEOPLE NOT GETTING PAID.
BUT NOW THE MILITARY IS PAID
BETTER AND I WANTED TO BRING UP
THE SITUATION THAT EXISTS THAT
THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO USE THE
MILITARY AS PAWNS, EVEN WHILE
THEY'RE OUT THERE FIGHTING TO
PROTECT US IN COMBAT THEATERS.
THE LAST THING THOSE PEOPLE
SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IS
WHETHER OR NOT THEIR MONEY
ARRIVES IN THEIR ACCOUNT SO
THEIR FAMILY CAN BE TAKEN CARE
OF.
YET WE'RE HEARING FROM MILITARY
PEOPLE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IF
THERE'S A SHUTDOWN, SURE,
THEY'LL GET THEIR PAY EVENTUALLY
WHEN THE SHUTDOWN IS OVER AND
MAYBE THEY'LL BE LUCKY AND HARRY
REID AND THE DEMOCRATS IN THE
SENATE WON'T FORCE A SHUTDOWN
FOR VERY LONG.
WE KNOW THEY WANT TO FORCE IT
DO.
AND OF COURSE, WE HEARD FROM
SENATOR SCHUMER HIMSELF THAT
THIS IS A POLITICAL GAME TO
THEY'RE GOING TO FORCE A
SHUTDOWN AND BASICALLY BLAME THE
TEA PARTY.
THE MILITARY ARE THE ONES WHO
ARE GOING TO GET HURT THERE,
THIS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
THAT SAID ALL THEY CARE ABOUT
ARE THOSE WORKING TO PROTECT US.
AND YET, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT THEY
ARE REALLY DOING BEHIND THE
SCENES.
NO SUCH THING.
WE HAVE A REPORT FROM C.R.S.
HERE THAT SAYS AND I'M QUOTING,
EVEN THOUGH UNIFORMED PERSONNEL
HAVE BEEN EXCEPTED FROM
FURLOUGHS BECAUSE OF A LAPSE IN
FUNDING, NO NOTHING WILL PROVIDE
PAY.
UNIFORMED PERSONNEL ARE TREATED
NO DIFFERENTLY THAN EXCEPTED
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
SIMILARLY EXPECTED TO CONTINUE
WORKING DURING A SHUTDOWN, BUT
WHOSE PAY WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL
APPROPRIATIONS ENACTED.
WELL, I KNOW MY FRIEND FROM
INDIANA FEELS AS I DO AND WE'VE
GOT -- AROUND 50 OTHER PEOPLE
JUST IN A MATTER OF AN HOUR OR
SO THAT HAVE SIGNED ON TO THIS
BILL, THAT SAYS -- AND WE JUST
GOT THE NUMBER H.R. 1297, AND
I'LL GO RIGHT TO THE MEAT OF
THIS THING.
IT SAYS, DOING A FUNDING GAP
IMPACTING THE ARMED FORCES, THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL
MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE AND THE SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY IN THE CASE OF
THE COAST GUARD, OUT OF ANY
AMOUNTS IN THE GENERAL FUND OF
THE TREASURY NOT OTHERWISE
APPROPRIATED SUCH AMOUNTS AS THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THE
SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
IN THE CASE OF THE COAST GUARD
DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE PAY AND
ALLOWANCES WITHOUT INTERRUPTION
TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMY, NAVY,
AIR FORCE, MARINE CORPS AND
COAST GUARD, INCLUDING RESERVE
COMPONENTS THEREOF WHO PERFORM
ACTIVE SERVICE DURING THE
FUNDING GAP.
AND SO, WE HOPE THAT THE
MAJORITY LEADER IN THE SENATE,
HARRY REID AND SENATOR SCHUMER
AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SAYING
PRIVATELY THAT GOT EXPOSED, LIKE
THE BIBLE SAYS, WHAT'S DONE IN
THE DARK WILL BE EXPOSED, AND IT
HAS BEEN, THEY'RE OUT TO SHUT
DOWN THE GOVERNMENT AND TRY TO
BLAME THE TEA PARTY.
AND THEY HAVE EXPECTED THAT ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT I'M SURE WILL
BE ABLE TO DO IS HAVE THE
MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO DO ANYTHING
THEY CAN TO SUPPORT THAT PARTY
GO TRY TO FIND SPOUSES OF
MILITARY IN HARM'S WAY WHO ARE
SCARED TO DEATH BECAUSE NOW THE
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN
AND THERE'S NO CHECK COMING IN
THE -- FOR THE NEXT PAY PERIOD.
AND THIS WILL ADDRESS THAT.
AND WE CAN TAKE OUR MILITARY OFF
THE TABLE AS PAWNS AND LET THEM
BE ABOUT CONCENTRATING ON
PROTECTING US AND SAVING THEIR
OWN LIVES.
I YIELD BACK.
I'M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT YOU.
BUT ONE THING THAT I THINK MY
COLLEAGUES AND ANYBODY WHO IS
PAYING ATTENTION, FIRST OF ALL,
I HAVE HEARD THE REPUBLICANS
DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE HEALTH
CARE PLAN.
WE HAVE HAD ONE FOR TWO YEARS
AND THE MEDIA IS SAYING WE
HAVEN'T PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE,
THAT WILL WORK AND
WON'T COST FUTURE TAXPAYERS
EVERYTHING THEY WILL EXPECT TO
THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
AND THE OTHER THING THAT
CONCERNS ME IS THE
ADMINISTRATION.
AND NOW THERE ARE COMPLICIT
PERSONS IN THE COURT AND MEDIA
TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN
TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY IN A
DIRECTION THAT NOBODY HAS
ANTICIPATED, AND THAT IS
OUR LIVES.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU AND ALL OF
OUR COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF
THE AISLE ARE VERY COMMITTED TO
MAKING SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
THE LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO
SPENDING.
YOU KNOW THIS.
AND WE ARE SENDING LEGISLATION
OVER THERE TO TRY TO CUT $16 --
100 MILLION OR 61 BILLION.
6 -- $61 BILLION IS A DROP IN
THE OCEAN AND YET THEY DON'T
WANT TO CUT ANY PROGRAMS.
AND IF WE DON'T CUT SPENDING,
THIS COUNTRY WILL NOT ONLY BE
BANKRUPT, WE WILL BE GIVING A
LEGACY TO OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS
THEY WILL NEVER FORGIVE US FOR.
I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES ARE AWARE
OF THAT.
WE DON'T WANT TO SHUT THE
WE ARE COMMITTED TO TO CUTTING
SPENDING.
THEY WON'T LET THE BILL PASS AND
WE ARE CUTTING IN A RESPONSIBLE
SO THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE
CAUSING THE PROBLEM.
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE
GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN.
WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN?
THOSE OF US STANDING SO FIRMLY
TRYING TO CUT THIS RUNAWAY
SPENDING ARE THE ONES WHO ARE
STANDING FOR THE CHILDREN AND
THE CHILDREN'S GRANDCHILDREN
BECAUSE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN
TRUTH, WE WERE RUNNING SOME --
I REMEMBER GETTING BEAT UP IN
2005 AND 2006 FOR $160 BILLION
IT WAS WRONG.
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE.
BUT NOW FOR THE LAST THREE
YEARS -- 2 1/2, TO BE OVER $1
TRILLION EACH YEAR IS JUST
REPREHENSIBLE.
IT IS WRAPPING SUCH A
HEAVYWEIGHT AND CHAINS AROUND
THE NECKS OF THE CHILDREN, SOME
NOT EVEN BORN YET, THAT IT IS
UNTHINKABLE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD
INVOKE FOR THE CHILDREN TO KEEP
SPENDING GOING THAT'S GOING TO
COME OUT OF THE CHILDREN AND
THE GRANDCHILDREN'S POCKETS.
WE HAVE SOME THAT SAY, IT'S ALL
GOING TO WORK OUT.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
JUST LET THE SPENDING GO.
DON'T ROCK THE BOAT.
AND I SAW THIS PRAYER FROM
PETER MARSHALL BACK WHEN HE WAS
CHAPLAIN OF THE SENATE.
AND JUST FOR HISTORICAL
PURPOSES, ONE OF HIS PRAYERS IN
THE SENATE HE SAID, O FATHER,
GIVE US THE FAITH TO BELIEVE
THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO
LIVE VICTORIOUSLY EVEN IN THE
MIDST OF DANGEROUS OPPORTUNITY
THAT WE CALL CRISIS.
HELP US TO SEE THAT THERE IS
SOMETHING BETTER THAN PATIENT
ENDURANCE OR KEEPING A STIFF
UPPER LIP AND THAT WHISTLING IN
THE DARK IS NOT REALLY BRAVERY.
I YIELD BACK.
I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FOR COMING DOWN TO
THE FLOOR AND, MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE
THAT THE HOUSE DO NOW ADJOURN.
THE
QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO
ADJOURN.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE MOTION IS ADOPTED.
ACCORDING ACCORDING --