Mr. Clement, there are so many things in this Act that are unquestionably okay. I think you would concede that reauthorizing what is the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act changes to long benefits, why make Congress redo those? I mean it's a question of whether we say everything you do is no good, now start from scratch, or to say, yes, there are many things in here that have nothing to do frankly with the affordable healthcare and there are some that we think it's better to let Congress to decide whether it wants them in or out. So why should we say it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job.You know what would prevent Congress from being in this position in the future? Passing discrete laws to deal with particular problems, instead of 2,700 page boilermakers that they don't even have time to read before they pass.
It would be healthy for Congress to have to go back and re-pass every good part of the bill, insofar as there are any. For the Court to undertake to do the work of sorting this out for them is to present Congress with a kind of moral hazard: it will make it less likely in the future that the legislature will exercise diligence in reading or considering the legislation it passes, and it will make it more likely they will continue to lump thousands of legal changes together instead of carefully considering each law as it comes up. The American people must live under these laws, after all: it is therefore important that no law should ever be passed without due care and consideration.
Neither this Congress nor any recent Congress has demonstrated a great deal of fortitude in the face of moral hazards. This ought to be a consideration.