W. Akin

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Well, you know, gentlemen, a number of you have raised the point that there's a whole lot of Americans that are not very thrilled with this approach of government takeover of health care. But let's just think about it for a minute: Why it is that you had that reaction, 2,000 people come out of nowhere, and they're all hotter than hornets about how this is lousy stuff, we don't want some bureaucrat rationing our health care. Let's talk about who might be against this bill. First of all, if you're an older guy like I am, you're going to be worried, because statistically you're at the point where they're saying it's not worth it for the government to pay for you to get your health care. So if you're an older person, all they're going to give you is aspirin and some pain pills or something. And so if you're an older person--you're not going to like this--if you're an older person, you're probably also on Medicare. And you want $500 billion taken out of Medicare? I just don't think that's going to be very popular with some of our older voters. But let's say that you're a different person. Let's say that you have a small business. This bill is going to tax your small business a whole lot. You're saying, I'm already struggling. I'm barely making ends meet. We've got a lot of unemployment in America. If I had some money, I'd be able to add some new machines, get my small business going, and we could help the unemployment. But now you're going to tax me to death on a bunch of this socialized medicine. So the small businessman is not going to like it, the guy who is pro-life is not going to like this. I yield.

Mr. AKIN. 2,000 people?

Mr. AKIN. You know, the thing that's scary to me about that is, the way the Federal Government's going to go about that, they're going to start taking a look at your age and how much it costs and everything, and I'm getting to be kind of old. I mean, I just hit 62, and I'm not too encouraged by the idea of some bureaucrat saying, look you old geezer Akin, you can't have that hip replacement that you need. I've been talking to you, Doctor, about getting some help with that because I've been limping around. We have Dr. Burgess here, and I would just really appreciate it, as a medical doctor, if you could shed some light on the situation.

Mr. AKIN. I do yield.

Mr. AKIN. You know, gentleman, that's exactly right. And the thing that I find perhaps encouraging at least, maybe it's a bright side to a dark cloud, and that is that the public is becoming aware of what's going on, and the mainstream media is putting this out. The President is putting this stuff out. And yet, you take a look at the polling information and the public is starting to pick up on this. And they're realizing that what the media tells them and what the President tells them just isn't true, just isn't true. And as they start to read it, they start citing sections of the bill. And here's another one. This is perhaps--and I know we have a couple of doctors joining me on the floor here. If there's anything that as a patient is a big deal to me, if you want to boil health care down to one thing, I want the doctor and the patient to be making the decisions. As a Republican, I don't like it when insurance companies stick their big nose into that relationship. The only thing I could think of that's worse than that is some government bureaucrat sticking their big nose in that relationship. So here's another promise that the President has been saying, and this one too isn't true. First, if you're among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid or VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. That's wonderful if it were true. But the trouble is, it ain't necessarily so, one more time. Here's the first. There's a Congressional Research Service. This is an unbiased--it's very professional people that we use, count on them. Hear what they say, okay: Under this bill, this is Pelosi's bill, under H.R. 3200, a health insurance exchange would begin operation in 2013, would offer a private plan alongside a public option. And it goes on to say, it does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens. Well, this is the one about legal or illegal immigrants. But here's another amendment that's along the same lines. This is Dr. Gingrey. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any Federal employee or political appointee, that means bureaucrat, to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine. This is the heart of what we believe in as Republicans, the doctor-patient relationship. This is an amendment offered. It says no bureaucrat's going to get in the way of your health care.

Mr. AKIN. That's correct. The bill has something in it that says well, illegals shouldn't access it, but there isn't any protection whatsoever in terms of the mechanics of the bill. So anybody who wants to can just walk right in and help themselves. And this amendment, I don't know if this amendment is available to the American public, but I think this pretty much says, you know, there's a huge difference between the two parties, first of all, and second of all, that this amendment really calls into question what the President is promising. And there's a whole series of other promises that we can talk about as well.

Mr. AKIN. That's what he said.

Mr. AKIN. I do yield.

Mr. AKIN. That is correct. People are starting to cross-check Congress, and they know the bills better than some of the Congressmen that are proposing them. And that's exactly what's happened. One of the things, and I don't know if it's quite as easy to catch on the Internet, lady, would be also these amendments. This is the Heller amendment, which was on that very subject of illegal immigrants. What this says: In order to utilize the public health insurance option, an individual must have his or her eligibility determined and approved under the income and eligibility verification system. In other words, what this is saying is, before you come and can get this socialized medicine and everything and tap into that you, first of all, have to prove that you're a citizen. So this amendment was offered in committee and the amendment failed, which doesn't give us a whole lot of room for confidence that we're really serious about cracking down on illegals who are illegally taking money out of the health care system.

Mr. AKIN. I do yield, lady.

Mr. AKIN. Just reclaiming my time for a minute. You know, what has really encouraged me in the last 3 or 4 months is the American public is really engaged. They're starting to pay attention, and they're starting to make comparisons between claims and what the bill actually says, if they can get copies of it. Here's one. This is kind of an interesting deal. Again our President says, There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. So I mean, this is what's being said by the President, and yet the public is starting to say, wait just a minute.

Mr. AKIN. Jumping in here, I didn't realize that the economists who can score outlines are so smart. I don't even know how I'd start scoring an outline of a bill when you don't have anything that says--that's really an amazing--I wonder if the American public is going to be impressed with the fact that we're scoring an outline of a bill?

Mr. AKIN. Reclaiming my time, there may be some people here that have forgotten, but we took a vote saying that at least you should have a couple of days, especially on a thousand-page bill. We have heard all kinds of promises about transparency from Speaker Pelosi, and yet the bottom line is it is not transparent at all. We do not have a chance to read bills. The spectacular one was the 300 pages of amendments passed at 3 in the morning and brought out here, and we are debating and voting on a bill on the floor and there wasn't even a copy of the thing here in the Chamber. It is almost laughable it was so silly. And the American public was going, we don't have to be very sophisticated, but we would at least like you to read the bills.

Mr. AKIN. The thing that scares me to death is my first experience as a State legislator was trying to get a left-turn signal put into a traffic light. Now, there was a lane marked in the pavement. They had a left arrow, but they didn't have a light that had a left arrow. That took me about 4 years and probably over 150 phone calls to the highway department to get them to put that little lens in there with a light that says left turn. I am thinking, if I have trouble with that, how in the world are we going to make something like this work. This is just bizarre. Then I start to think who in the world would have the faith to want to put this system together. Let's take a look at how well our current different departments are doing. You have the post office department known for its efficiency. Then you have an energy department. It was created with the purpose of making sure that we weren't dependent on foreign oil. Oh, that is helpful to know that. Then you have the people who took care of Hurricane Katrina and our emergency management services there. Then you have the education department. They set some records, too, because a study was done of the U.S. Education Department and the conclusion was, if a foreign power had done to America what the Department of Education had done, it would be considered an act of war. Then you have the CIA. Now, there is an interesting operation. In Gulf War I they tell us, well, Iraq is probably 10 years away from making a bomb. We get in there, they are 1 year away. Gulf War II they say they are 1 year away from making a bomb. We get in there and they are not doing it at all. So we have all of these agencies with a great track record, and now we are saying, yeah, so let's turn our health over to the Federal Government. I mean, this takes a lot more faith. I would yield to my good friend, Congresswoman Foxx.

Mr. AKIN. Just thinking for a minute, you've grown up in the medical profession. I actually came out of engineering. I used to work for IBM and some businesses, but I have also been a legislator for some number of years. One thing that we all experience as legislators, we have our constituents call us up and they have a problem and they want us to help them fix it. Now I am picturing to myself, on top of everything else we have got, now we have people calling us and saying, you know, my dad needs a hip replacement and he went to the government bureaucrat and the bureaucrat told him he is too old and he can't get his hip replacement. Also, my mother needs a heart bypass. And, Congressman, won't you go to bat with this bureaucracy and get them to give medical care to my relatives? And we are supposed to take a look at this mess and say somehow we are going to get past all of the rationing for health care and bureaucracy and are supposed to get people the medical care that they need. It is asking too much of people's Congressman. Anybody who sets this system up is just creating a complete disaster.

Mr. AKIN. It strikes me, not dealing with tort reform, you can talk to any physician, that builds a lot of cost into medicine. Although the President made sort of a passing reference to it, there is no genuine interest in dealing with tort reform, which is something that Republicans do support. We are blessed with a couple of doctors here tonight. Dr. Price is also joining us. Let's talk a little bit about the cost of all of these things.

Mr. AKIN. If that happens in a short period of time, what happens when the program gets older and older and gets more encrusted with bureaucracy? We are joined here by Congressman Bishop who has shared with us some very good insights in the past.

Mr. AKIN. Drugs in the Medicaid program. Now, just sort of seeing where you are going, if you allow me, what this makes me think is that the government is running this program now. If the government is so efficient in running this program, what confidence does that give us that the government should take care of your personal and my personal health? Is that the direction you are going in?

Mr. AKIN. $23 billion in drug costs?

Mr. AKIN. Congresswoman Foxx, how is it that dead people could be eating all of those narcotic drugs? That is kind of an interesting equation, isn't it?

Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to once again take a look at some of the very significant questions that face our country this evening in this 1-hour. We're going to be taking a look at the subject of health care in America, something that has absorbed the attention of citizens and political leaders now for a number of months. Something that is, of course, important to every single one of us. We each have to live inside the bodies that we have, and how health care is run in this country is not only very important from a financial and economic and policy point of view; it's very personal because it's our bodies, after all. So what we're going to take a look at this evening once again is the question as to what are the reforms that should be made in American health care. Now, sometimes people when we deal with this want to say that everything is wrong; we need to just burn the entire barn down and start completely over. But of course people from foreign countries that have millions and millions of dollars come to America all the time as their choice for the best health care that they can buy anywhere in this planet. So, certainly, there are many good aspects to our health system even though it may need some reforms in some areas. What is being proposed here is not minor. In fact, that's one of the problems with the fact that legislation has not moved in months on the health care subject and that's because what was being attempted is to do a great, great deal. What's being attempted is the government, essentially over time, is going to take over 18 percent of the entire U.S. economy, that is, the government is going to run the health care system. Now, this is a rather bold proposal. When Lyndon Johnson discovered hunger as an issue, he didn't propose that the government was going to take over all of the grocery stories and farms and all of the trucking in between, but rather that he would propose food stamps. This, instead, is the idea the government is going to take over everything in medicine over a period of time. So the question is, is this a good thing. Does it really meet the problems, and what are the potential dangers of it. When the government does too much, we have seen a pattern in the past of things that happen. We have examples of England and Canada where the government is running their health care systems but also examples in our own country of government getting involved in things that it's not very well positioned to do. And we see some inefficient allocation of resources, excessive expenses, degraded quality, and bureaucratic rationing. All of these are part of what can happen if the government does too much. In fact, it led someone to quip, If you think health care is too expensive now, just wait until it's free. One of the things that happens when the government does too much is they tend to make things very complicated. This is a chart that we have that tries on one chart to summarize a 1,000-plus-page bill. All of these different groups--the heart, of course, is not really a czar, but it might as well be a czar. It's either a commi-czar--we're very, very fond of czars lately. And commi-czars are I guess a sort of a form of a czar, but it's telling everybody what they're going to do in health care. But this is an organization chart, and I've often thought we can almost turn this into a maze. And we can put the patients here and the doctors over there, and we can see and give people a crayon and do it as a doily, and they could see if they could get their patient over to the doctor. I am not sure whether it's possible to do that or not, but it would make a good maze. This is a good chart that we have trying to depict what happens when the government takes over 18 percent of our economy. Another aspect of that is an objection that the President has tried to respond to. He says, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period. Boy, that's reassuring to have the President tell us that he's not going to sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit either now or in the future. That's reassuring, if it were true. Well, this is what we've got going so far this year. We've got the Wall Street bailout, that's $350 billion; economic stimulus--I don't think it's really stimulus--but whatever it was, it was mostly just increasing government programs, $787 billion; SCHIP at $6.6 billion. Then there's the appropriations bills at $410 billion; and IMF bailout. And then you've got some taxes, also. So when you put it all together, we're talking about a total of $3.6 trillion. I don't have a lot of confidence with this level of spending that this idea about one dime, he's not going to add one dime to the deficit when we've got $3.6 trillion that we've already done this year. Somehow this is not reassuring, this promise that he made. Most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Of course, our health care system--I don't know of anything in our budgets that say waste and abuse. So you can just delete a line that says waste and abuse all through it. But he says this will be paid for by savings within the existing health care system. Well, what is he talking about? Of course, what he's talking about is taking $500 billion out of Medicare. I don't know if that makes the older people in my district very happy to know that we're going to take all of this money out of Medicare to try to pay for the thing. In fact, what's the track records of these great big socialized programs? You've got Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and if you take a look at the projected trend in these things, by the time you get up here to about 18 or 20 percent, you just can't raise taxes enough to pay for them. What this chart is saying is when you see the growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, they will eventually absorb the entire Federal budget. So we've got Medicare and Medicaid, government-run socialized-type programs, and they're out of control economically. And so the President says, Well, don't worry, but this one is not even a dime. I don't know that that really helps a lot. I am joined by several good friends of mine, one I just found out is a Ph.D., and I didn't realize that we had a Ph.D. joining us. But I would yield the floor to the good doctor.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to this debate, and I've heard all kinds of reasons why the hate crimes bill is so wonderful. But the more they make the argument, the more confusing the question becomes. If this bill is so wonderful, why don't we bring it to the floor and just vote on it and pass it? Why, instead, are we going to stick this bill together with a bill for funding our national defense? The two don't belong together. They're not in the same committee. They have nothing to do with each other. What they have in common though is the fact that, instead of taking a straight-up vote, what we're going to do is we're going to hold everybody who depends on national defense, the people such as myself, who has a son going to Afghanistan in 3 weeks, they're going to hold us hostage. We're going say, look, if you want to fund the national defense of the United States of America, you're also going to have to vote for this hate crimes bill. And one thing that my good friend from Virginia has made clear, and that is the public is starting to see through the shenanigans that go on in this place. And this is an extremely frustrating situation. It wasn't so many weeks ago that at 3 o'clock in the morning we passed a 300-page amendment to a bill that we were discussing the next day, and there wasn't even a copy of that bill in this Chamber, the cap-and-tax bill. And here we are, again, with a bill which is on national defense. It's actually a fairly decent bill on national defense, and we're going to stick on this something that has nothing to do with it. I could speak on hate crimes, but the point of the matter is if everybody's who's saying hate crimes is such an important piece of legislation, let's bring it up on its own bases. Let's see if it will stand on its own base. No, instead what we're going to do is we're going to sneak it through, and we're going to put it in so that anybody who wants to vote for national defense now is stuck having to support hate crimes. This is not the way this House should be run. The American public doesn't like to care about procedure, but they're getting fed up with this.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, once again we see shenanigans going on on the floor of the House. And the idea is that we're going to sneak stuff through, and we're going to use the good will and the support of the American public for our warfighters in order to pass some particular specialized agenda that has nothing to do with the warfighters at all. This is not new this year. There was a big bill we passed--it was called cap-and-tax--3 o'clock in the morning. Three hundred pages of amendments passed. It came here to the floor for us to debate, and we are asking is there a copy of the bill on the floor? And the answer was no, there's not even a copy of the bill on the floor because of the fact we're going to do this in the dark of night with tricky little procedures. And here we go with a bill that many of us have labored hard for. I have an important amendment on the bill, and yet what's going on? We're going to slip into this bill to fund--my own son, in fact, who's going to Afghanistan in 3 weeks--we're going to use the good will of the voters of America to slip into this thing a bill called hate crimes which has nothing to do whatsoever with what's being passed. It is more of the same cloak and mirrors, dark of the night, slippery kind of stuff the American public is fed up with, and I am fed up with it. I have three sons that have graduated from the Naval Academy. I have two sons who are in the Marine Corps right now. This bill talks about funding them and funding the defense of our country, which I take very seriously. But to put into this bill this hate crimes bill which has been, I think, kicked around the Judiciary Committee for years and to try to connect that with something that's unrelated is just procedurally wrong. It's something that is shameful. It should not happen on this floor. And in that regard, I refuse to vote for this bill in spite of the fact that the bill is good underneath.

Mr. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. The interesting thing is, our judicial system should be punishing lawbreakers, and yet what we saw just a few weeks ago was a couple of courageous--I don't know if they were college students--some gal with some pretty legs going in with a hidden camera at ACORN and getting all of the financial information necessary and the legal information, how they could set up a house of ill repute, bring in underage illegals to work, to write them off as dependents so that the taxpayer is paying some of the tab so that this guy could run for Congress because he started this illegal brothel. This whole thing is on tape, and yet we've got the Justice Department and all of these institutions of law in America that should have been cracking down on this organization; instead, you've got a couple of courageous kids that are barely out of college, taking some videos and capturing the attention and building the rage of the American public. It is just mind-boggling that our government is so inefficient and so unable to stop this organization that passed out money like it was water down here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. AKIN. You know, you talked about a lot of corrupt and illegal practices, gentleman. And when I think of ACORN, maybe as an engineer, I'm thinking cause and effect. ACORN is more closely associated with the central nerve center and hub of what created the housing crisis and the housing bubble in America. They're the ones that basically started all of these bad loans which Wall Street then lied about, saying that they were good loans, packaged them up and sold them all over the world, creating the current economic crisis. So if you want to look at the epicenter of what created, for many of us who lost 30, 40 percent of our life savings in this economic mess, you're looking at the symbol of that ACORN. I'm glad you've got a line through it because we don't owe them any favors.