Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REHBERG. I have been advised by the chairman of the Committee on Budget that my amendment complies with all applicable rules of the House. The point of order that my amendment violates clause 10 of rule XXI, known as the cut-go rule, is inapplicable in this case. The cut-go rule does provide a point of order against amendments to appropriations bills that cause an increase in mandatory spending over the 5-year scoring window. However, that rule contains an important exception. The point of order applies only to provisions that are modifications to substantive law. My amendment does not constitute such a modification; rather, it is a temporary provision limiting the use of funds in this act for the implementation of the law in a particular fiscal year.

As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget stated, my amendment does not make a modification to substantive law in a year after the year for which the bill makes appropriations. Accordingly, the prohibition contained in clause 10 of rule XXI does not apply to my amendment, and the point of order should be overruled.

And I respectfully ask the Chair for a ruling.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REHBERG. It doesn't matter which clause they want to draw from. The chairman said there is no impact.

My amendment scores at a savings of $100 million in the current fiscal year. That is substantive savings, and I again ask for a ruling from the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. This amendment denies any funding provided by this bill to be used by the department or agency funded through the Labor-HHS title of the bill to support ObamaCare. It will create a firewall so that funds from this bill cannot be used for that purpose.

ObamaCare included mandatory funding for several provisions normally funded through the discretionary appropriations; for example, a $1 billion implementation fund. So, unfortunately, resources will be available to Health and Human Services. This amendment can slow but not completely stop the process.

I have tried everything within my power to write an amendment that would completely defund implementation yet withstand a point of order. This is the best I can do today. I liken the situation with this bill to trying to drive a car to the moon. A car is the wrong vehicle for that purpose, but a car can take us on the first leg of the trip. It can get us to the launching pad. And I will continue to do everything I can to finish the journey.

My goal, and the goal of the majority of Americans, is to repeal the new health care law. Until then, my objective is to defund it entirely and stop its implementation.

It is impossible at this time to describe the many reasons that justify defunding and repeal. Let me begin with my belief that the law is unconstitutional. It runs contrary to our most fundamental concepts of limited government and individual liberty and responsibility. It's a law designed by those who wish to control every health care decision made by health care providers and patients, by every employer and employee, by every family and individual. It will control every aspect of one-sixth of our economy.

This unaffordable program will cost $2.6 trillion in the first 10 years if fully implemented. Ninety percent of that cost is for Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies. Roughly half of the Federal Government's costs will be paid through new taxes, penalties, and fees on individuals and businesses. The other half is covered by cuts in Medicare benefits.

The tax increases and regulatory burdens will be a significant drag on economic growth and job creation, and other costs to States, businesses and individuals are not included in the $2.6 trillion figure.

This is a job killer. How foolhardy to create a new entitlement program when we cannot pay for the ones we already have and cannot meet our current operating expenses without borrowing beyond our ability to repay. This is madness.

The structure of this bill was built on a foundation of multiple mandates, the individual mandate that requires people to purchase insurance whether they want to or not, mandates on States to create and operate insurance exchanges and to expand Medicaid dramatically, mandates on employers to provide insurance or be penalized, mandates regarding the precise terms of insurance policies that everyone ultimately must purchase, and on and on.

Our forefathers would be appalled to see the power over our health and lives that we are surrendering to government. They had firsthand experience with unfettered government control, and they carefully designed a Constitution to limit the government's power. We've learned nothing from them. Never has there been such a complete transfer of power to our government with such blind faith and hope that government will get it right when our experience in every other context is so totally to the contrary.

This is an experiment, a huge gamble imposed on us by those who did not read the legislation or fully understand its consequences. We are already catching glimpses of how government power will be exercised. Large corporations and unions have been granted waivers for mandates they cannot meet; large corporations with armies of lawyers and unions who hold a special place in the hearts, minds, and political campaigns of those who enacted this bill. Will Government be so accommodating to you?

There are problems with the existing health care system, but this law only makes matters worse. The law must be repealed so that it can be replaced with incremental, market-oriented, affordable measures to improve, rather than transform, our current health care system. In the meantime, implementation must be stopped.

There's a second reason to defund implementation. The law's individual mandate has been declared unconstitutional by two Federal judges. Judge Roger Vinson has written a powerful opinion that strikes down the entire law. The administration and Congress are on notice of the substantial risk that the Supreme Court will uphold Vinson's decision. If that occurs after a year or more of litigation, billions of dollars spent by the Federal Government to implement the law and by States, businesses, individuals, and taxpayers to comply with the law will have been completely wasted, thrown away. In light of the crisis created by our ballooning debt and anemic economy, it is fiscally irresponsible to go forward with implementation until the court challenge is finally resolved.

For these reasons, I urge you to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I respectfully do refer to it as ``ObamaCare.'' You would think that he would want his name attached to his signature legislation. But in four quick years, this Congress and this President have made what is a spending problem into a spending crisis. We wanted to create jobs. You wasted time on the health care reform that did not control the costs.

They call it affordable health care. Unfortunately, all it did was add people. It didn't control the costs of health care, and that is one of the reasons it needs to be repealed. We wanted to build an economy; they wanted to build government. So we call it what it is. It is ObamaCare. It is a travesty. It is Big Government. It is not controlling health care costs, and it needs to be repealed.

Today we are going to try to defund it, to the best of our ability; and if we are not successful this time, we are going to try again and again and again until we either have a Senate that is willing to pass it or a President that understands that we cannot do this to the American people.

At this time I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Does anybody honestly believe in America that by repealing ObamaCare it's actually going to cost the government money? It just doesn't pass the smell test. Yes, the way the CBO is scoring it based upon the questions that they are asked show it is. But nobody, honestly nobody in this country honestly believes that when you repeal a piece of legislation it's going to end up costing you money.

I now yield 5 minutes to one of the few people that clearly gets the entire picture, a doctor, one of our Members from the State of Georgia (Mr. Price), who understands that defensive medicine was entirely left out of this, but, of course, we know why. And it's one of the issues driving the cost of health care.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am not the Speaker of the House. I am not the majority leader. But you know what I do? I represent more people in the United States Congress than anybody sitting in this body, consistently. After every census, I have the most population. I probably have more town hall meetings as well. I probably have more hospitals, more highways, more of everything in my congressional district. And I have had more town hall meetings, probably, than anyone, 75. And in those 75, they all tell me the same thing: They do need health care reform. They need to control the cost of health care.

But they get it. They understand, this does not do it. You would not need waivers for unions and big businesses if it was working. You would not need legislation to fix the 1099 on the penalty for the $600 purchases if it was working. You wouldn't have to cook the books, as they attempt to do, by counting a $750 billion tax increase as a reason to suggest that if we repeal it, it's going to cost the government something. That's funny money. It's not true. Nobody in America believes it.

Get out. Listen at your town hall meetings. Travel around my State. Do the 75 town hall meetings like I did. And you will find you cannot control the cost of health care if you leave defensive medicine out. We gave an opportunity for people to join the Federal system. It was turned down by the Democrats in committee. They voted it down on a party-line vote.

This is not the way to reform health care. It was done very quickly. In fact, the sponsor of the bill said I didn't need to read the bill. That's what I have staff for. It was so large, it was done so quickly, there was not enough input that the people of America know this is not the right thing to do. It's a job killer. It's going to bust our budget. In the end, it does, in fact, cost us $2.6 trillion to implement in the first 10 years.

Please support this. Let's begin defunding ObamaCare.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source