Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, if you want to know what's in a package, you ought to open it up and take a look at it.

Let me just talk about one thing that's in this package we're going to vote on on Saturday. It's in the area of tort reform, litigation reform, a subject that every single audience I've spoken to in my district has said should be in any bill, because right now the litigation system puts tremendous strain on our health care system, adding additional trillions of dollars.

What does this program do? It says that it's going to provide an opportunity for pilot projects. But if your State has on its books a law which says there will be any limitation on attorneys' fees or any limitation on damages, including noneconomic damages, you are ineligible to participate. So my State of California, which had medical malpractice reform 30 years ago, will be ineligible, will be punished.

We're not talking about the status quo on litigation reform; we're talking about going back 30 years. If that's in this package, what else is in this package?

I thank the gentleman very much. I must add, though, I was a very, very young man when I first came here. I appreciate that.

First of all, I rise in opposition to this rule. I will talk about the underlying bill and the rule as it applies there, but we should also recognize this rule goes beyond the underlying bill and establishes what has been affectionately referred to as martial law, which means that the majority, basically without notice, can bring up at any time through Saturday, November 7, under suspension of the rules any measure. Any measure. There's no limit on what measure it might be. And for Members who may have forgotten what that means, a suspension of the rule means we suspend all rules and can consider virtually anything we want here, and a bill can be brought up from a committee and the entire text of the bill as passed out of the committee can be removed and we can have a different bill here on the floor. So Members should be aware that we are with this rule passing martial law, giving the majority the ability to bring up anything.

Frankly, that language that has never been seen by any committee can be entered into a bill with just the name and it could be presented on this floor. So Members should be aware that this rule goes beyond the underlying bill.

With respect to the underlying bill, why would I have concerns about this bill when I serve, with true joy, on this committee and serve with the chairman of the full committee who presents this bill before us? It is because we've been working on this area of concern for the last 5 years and we did come up with legislation that was incorporated into the appropriations bill dealing with homeland security back in 2006, and that language is the language which has been brought forward in the regulations and under which the Department of Homeland Security has operated over these last number of years. And it is the reason why this administration has asked for a simple 1-year extension, not the changes that we have in this bill. Why is that of concern?

Why is it that organizations that have worked carefully with the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a regime that is workable so that we can protect against potential terrorist attacks in the area of chemicals, why would these organizations now have some question?

Why would, for instance, as recently as several days ago, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Trucking Association, the Fertilizer Institute, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all oppose this bill?

It is primarily because while the administration, both the prior administration and the current administration, have worked well with all of these industries to come up with a regime that is workable, that does protect us, that does make a distinction between the larger companies and the smallest companies, that has engaged them in such a way that they have put forward new practices and capital investment, that all of that could be thrown out of the window now as we adopt new regulations under a new regulatory scheme.

What is the major concern they have? It has to do with something called inherently safer technology. It sounds great. Who could be against it? The problem is this legislation misunderstands what that is. We've been working on this for the last half decade.

In 2006, I remember Scott Berger, director of the Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemicals, testified before us on this. His organization is the organization which has produced the accepted reference book on the issue of inherently safer processes. That is what we are talking about here. Here is what he said:

Inherently safer design is a concept related to the design and operation of chemical plants, and the philosophy is generally applicable to any technology. But he goes on to say that this is an evolving concept, and the specific tools and techniques for application are in the early stages of development and such methods do not now exist.

What basically we got out of his testimony and the testimony of every witness that appeared before us, both brought by the Democratic Party and Republican Party----

Is that this is a process, not a product; yet we are now giving blanket authority for the Secretary to impose inherently safer technologies as if it were a product.

Now, this is going to impact companies disproportionately which are small. Mr. Speaker, 59 percent of the companies that will be impacted by this law employ 50 workers or less. In my home State of California, it's 62 percent. So at a time when we are having difficulty maintaining and producing jobs, when everybody comes to the floor and says, We want to protect small business, we want to help small business, small businesses are going to be hurt disproportionately by this legislation. This legislation is at least premature.

The administration has said, Just give us a simple reauthorization for a year of what you're already doing. We did that in the appropriations bill, but somehow, because we seem to have more time on our hands, we have to bring bills to the floor as we wait for the health care reform, the mother of all bills, to come to this floor. That's why we're here dealing with this, despite the fact the administration doesn't support it, the industry doesn't support it, small business doesn't support it, and even those who came up with the idea of inherently safer technologies have told us in testimony, You folks don't understand; you're misapplying it if you are going to put it in the bill as it is in this bill.

It sounds great. Everybody is for inherently safer technologies, but it's the substance of what it is that we ought to be concerned about, and we ought not put another job-killer bill on this floor just a day or 2 days before we're going to hear the latest unemployment statistics.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to write a reform of the health care system for America, you wouldn't have the Pelosi bill. If you were to write the health care bill for liberal San Francisco, you'd have the Pelosi bill.

Why?

It would cost too much. It would tax too much. It would be heavy on government. It would be wild on bureaucracy. It would contain 3,425 separate uses of the word ``mandate.'' 3,425 times the government is going to tell you what to do. 3,425 times we're giving power to the Federal Government to get between you and your government.

In America, it makes no sense. It may make sense in liberal San Francisco, but in my district, it doesn't. For the rest of the United States, it doesn't. Let's save America from this fate. Let's save the American system.

Madam Speaker, we've all watched late-night television and seen the infomercials that seem too good to be true. Well, that's what we have here on the House floor being presented to us.

Yes, we have a health care bill for you that will solve every problem and not cost a dime. And yes, there is only one, so you'd better get it right away. Don't have time to examine it; don't have time to look it over; don't have time to turn it over. We don't have time for that because we have to solve your problem right now.

And let me tell you, it won't be 2,000 pages long. No, it's only 1,990 pages long. But wait, but wait. You'll get something in addition. You'll get the manager's amendment, maybe 800 pages long, so that maybe we'll have something that we have to swallow that's nearly 3,000 pages long.

And let me tell you, it's not going to cost you $1 trillion. No, no, no. We've brought it down below that, $999? No, not $999. We've brought it down now to $894 billion. But wait. But wait. There's add-ons. Maybe $250 billion. Maybe $350 billion for the doctors fix. But don't worry about that because that won't cost you anything right now. We'll charge you for that later. So remember, only $894 billion, not $1 trillion because we have a deal that you cannot reject.

But just remember, Madam Speaker, if this deal lasts longer than 4 hours, you won't be able to call your doctor.

Mr. Speaker, on health care reform, we hear too much about Democrats versus Republicans. I would like to talk about the American plan versus the Democratic plan.

The American plan stands for transparency; the Democratic plan, secret agreements behind closed doors. The American plan: True, free competition; the Democratic plan: Government-controlled health care. The American plan: Medicare Advantage; the Democratic plan: Massive cuts in Medicare. The American plan: The primacy of the doctor-patient relationship; the Democratic plan: Government-determined courses of treatment.

In other words, the American plan stands for freedom. Unfortunately, the Democratic plan stands for government-imposed conformity.

We should listen to what the American people say, that's the American plan. Ignoring what the American people are saying is the Democrat plan.

Madam Speaker, we are engaged in a serious debate on health care reform in this country, and there are those who believe that the only way to solve this problem is through a Washington, D.C. Federal Government takeover of health care. And I say that advisedly because I've looked at the bills that are the serious bills in the Senate and the House that are going to be presented to us at some point in time, or at least parts of them are.

One of the things that is obvious to me is that these bills stand on a number of different principles, and one of them is that there will be a requirement that every living man, woman and child must have health care insurance as defined by the Federal Government or be subject to a fine. Now they call it a tax but it is truly a fine. And the question is whether that is an appropriate exercise of authority by the Federal Government.

Some people say, Why do you even get involved in this sort of thing? Why would you even ask that question? Well, because the history of this Nation is a history of a nation that was established on the concept of individual liberty, freedom with responsibility. And because it was, our Constitution gave us a limited Federal Government, a Federal Government that could not do everything and anything it wishes to do. It is perhaps the inconvenient truth in this debate, or perhaps I should say the Constitution is the inconvenient truth.

Let me just cite what James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, said in the Federalist Papers, the documents that were written and then placed upon the public in order to get States to ratify the Constitution. This is what he said:

In the first place, it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.

Congress, in other words, can't get up in the morning and just say, Well, we see a problem; therefore, we're going to fix it and we're going to impose the authority of the Federal Government upon this problem by way of our solution.

Think of this: The President of the United States spoke here from the rostrum behind me in his joint session to the Congress a little over a month and a half ago; and at that time he argued that an individual mandate was constitutional, or was lawful because, he said, it is similar to what you have to do to drive in this country. You have to have insurance to drive on the public road. But there's a fundamental difference. If you analyze all the legal authority on this question, it is not that you have a right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege, and therefore it can be conditioned by the purchase of insurance.

What we're saying here is your right to breathe in the United States, to continue to exist in the United States, will now be conditioned on you buying health insurance; and if you don't, you will be fined, we are now told $1500, and if you don't pay the fine you can be jailed; not because you want to enter into the United States as an immigrant, not because you're asking anything of the United States but, rather, for the right to exist in the United States.

There are those who say that the commerce clause is so expansive, it can include everything. Well, the courts have told us it is not that expansive. Even as they have broadened its application, they have said it is limited to an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. And if we are going to say that the right for you to breathe in the United States, the right for you to exist in the United States, is an impact on interstate commerce, there is nothing left that the Federal Government cannot do.

That's why this debate over health care is important for many different

reasons. But if we are going to allow the government to take away our liberty, to allow the Federal Government to say there is nothing you can do in this country, including breathe, unless you have the permission of the Federal Government to act in a certain way, and if you don't act in that certain way, you will be fined, and if you do not pay the fine you will be jailed, there is absolutely nothing left of the freedom that this country was based upon.

The former Vice President of the United States likes to talk about inconvenient truths. The great inconvenient truth in this country is the U.S. Constitution. Let us not fail in our fidelity to it.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the public option is now back on the table, but we have to call it by some other name. Well, I have done a little work on the criminal justice side, and we used to have something called prior acts evidence. You look at what someone has done in the past and you see how that allows you to interpret what they are doing now.

So let's look at what we have done with the issue of student loans. Oh, yes, we got rid of the private option for student loans this month, because the President and the Democrats said the government has to take it over. And now we have in this bill an effort to try and get rid of the only private option in Medicare. It is called Medicare Advantage.

But forget about that, because when they tell us now the private option is just an option for competition and they are not going to take over by government the health care system, trust them with that. Forget about the prior evidence. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

The American people aren't fooled. They look at what they have done before, they look at what they are doing now, and they are telling us, help us stop them. Help us stop them.

Madam Speaker, recently the nonpartisan Galen Institute commissioned a national survey on the issue of health care; very interesting results.

Seventy-one percent of the American people are opposed to the requirement that all Americans must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, which is part of the plan that is before this House.

Fifty-eight percent of the American people oppose increasing taxes on the working and middle class in order to help cover the uninsured, most of them strongly opposing that.

And, Madam Speaker, 71 percent of the American people are concerned that their own health insurance will change if Congress passes health reform as proposed in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, isn't it about time we paid attention to the American people instead of ignoring them?

Madam Speaker, tonight, I want to talk just briefly on the calendar, a little bit of historical note.

Julius Caesar took over the chaotic Roman calendar because, as Matt Rosenberg of About.com said, it was being exploited by politicians and others for their own political purposes and it had the effect of adding additional days, because in certain ways changing the timing of things made a difference politically.

So Julius Caesar, in the year 46 BC, established what we have been calling for years the Julian calendar. The Julian calendar was an improvement over the Roman calendar, except for one thing; it was 11 minutes and 14 seconds too slow, and that added up to a full day off every 128 years.

Well, for a number of centuries, it didn't mean anything. But, over time, it meant something. And what happened was in the year 1582, the Pope, Pope Gregory XIII, concerned that Christianity's most important dates were falling behind with respect to the calendar, particularly Easter, which was based on the date of the vernal equinox, believed what we had to do was to adjust that calendar. So he issued what is known as a Papal bull establishing the new calendar, which actually corrected, fairly well, the problem. It would be comprising 365 days, with every fourth year adding an additional day, but no leap year in years ending in 00 unless they were divisible by 400.

Now, I am not a mathematician. I can't tell you how that works out, but it pretty near makes it perfect. The problem was, of course, there was a cleavage between the Catholics and the Protestants. So the Catholic countries adopted that in 1582.

It wasn't until 1752 that Great Britain decided to follow. As a matter of fact, that is a famous day in English history, because the British Calendar Act of 1751 meant that people went to bed on Wednesday, September 2, 1752, and woke up 12 days later. They lost 11 days in order to correct the calendar.

But this is the calendar that has been adopted around the world ever since that time, until recently. What do I mean by that? Well, here would be the Gregorian calendar for 2009. You see it does have 365 days. You see it does have an August. But we have found this year that August did not exist, because we have what I call the Pelosian calendar.

Under the leadership of the Democrats, we have been told to ignore what happened in August. Those town halls did not take effect. The American people did not express themselves. We did not hear outcries about what was happening in the Congress.

Rather, nothing occurred. You don't hear about it on this floor. You don't hear about it in the President's statements. You don't hear about it in the recommendations made by the Democratic side. And now, as we are moving forward on our calendar and told that we have a few days to make up, we forget about the 31 days.

I would like to say that the Pope took 11 days away from us, but it appears he was a piker. The Speaker has taken 31 days away from us. There was no August. There is no August. There were no town hall meetings. The American people did not rise up and say, Congress, listen to us. We don't want a public option. We want you to make some changes, but don't put us at jeopardy for losing the care and the coverage we currently have.

I must say, this is a historic moment, because it took us 1,600 years to change the calendar the first time. But now, by the magic of the congressional calendar, we have done it in just, well, less than 600 years.

There is something fundamentally wrong, extremely disappointing, that somehow we would have the temerity to tell the American people, You don't count, because we know better here in Washington, D.C. And, as a matter of fact, if you have a different idea, we are going to question that idea. We are going to question what you are doing.

Madam Speaker, give us back those 31 days.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have here in Washington, DC, is we often seem to be disconnected with our folks back home. That is a problem. It's sort of an institutional problem, and that's bad enough. When we do it on purpose, that's even worse. We seem to have selective memory, maybe convenient amnesia.

The other side of the aisle appears to have forgotten that there is a month in the year called August. It was when the people of America talked to us, and they told us that they had grave concerns about the proposal that was before us with respect to health care.

Now we are told, well, look at the ABC poll instead. Forget about August. What else have they told us that we can forget about? Oh, that's right, Fox News doesn't exist.

August doesn't exist, Fox News doesn't exist. Maybe next month we will hear that the American people don't exist and we are just here creating a make-believe America with make-believe problems and make- believe solutions. Let's remember August where the real people live with the real problems and the real need for real solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the distinguished former Senator, Edward Brooke.

Edward Brooke, III, was born here in Washington, D.C., in October of 1919. He graduated from Dunbar High School

and attended Howard University, graduating in 1941. It was after the attack on Pearl Harbor that he served with the 336th Combat Infantry Regiment, fighting in the Italian campaign and earning a Bronze Star in 1943.

After the war, he earned two law degrees from Boston University Law School, serving as editor of the Law Review. It was while practicing law in Boston that he ran for but was defeated twice, attempting to serve in the Massachusetts Legislature, and then once again trying to become secretary of state. But he was undeterred.

In 1961, he chaired the Boston Finance Commission, charged with rooting out corruption, and was then elected attorney general the next year. He was the first African American in this country to serve as a State attorney general, and was then reelected to the post in 1964.

In 1966, he ran for Senator in Massachusetts as a Republican. He was successful and his election was historic. When Vice President Hubert Humphrey administered his oath of office, Senator Brooke became the first African American Senator in the United States Senate since 1881 and the first African American popularly elected to the Senate in our Nation's history. He served in the Senate from 1967 to 1979.

During his tenure in office, he drew from his war experience and was a tireless proponent of equal justice under the law. His regiment in World War II had only been comprised of African Americans, and he was quoted as saying, ``In every regard, we were treated as second class soldiers, if not worse, and we were angry. I felt a personal frustration and bitterness I had not known before in my life.''

But rather than remain bitter, he served with great honor in the various offices to which he was elected. While in office, he was appointed by President Johnson to serve on the famous Kerner Commission, was a cosponsor of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and fought for the renewal of the historic Voting Rights Act.

After his service in the Senate, he chaired the National Low Income Housing Coalition, he practiced law, and served on the Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Commission. I was honored to serve with Senator Brooke on that commission almost 20 years ago. The work we did was immensely important in attempting to ascertain fundamental justice, an historic record for those Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II. Senator Brooke's presence was immeasurable in the process of bringing the legislation to completion.

Senator Brooke had a fiercely independent mind and he garnered respect from persons holding all philosophical persuasions. Senator Kennedy and Representative Holmes Norton both sponsored resolutions granting this Congressional Gold Medal. It is my distinct pleasure to join them in honoring Senator Brooke.

As a fellow Republican, I humbly and proudly share his philosophy. Reflecting on his time in public service, he once stated, ``I was proud to be a Republican, but my ultimate loyalty was to certain goals and ideals, not to party.''

Mr. Speaker, one week from today we will honor an extremely worthy man in the rotunda. His life, his commitment, his perseverance, his dedication, they all serve as an example and an inspiration for us to emulate.

I thank my chairman for bringing this to the floor. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important authorization.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I enjoyed the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I would just make one correction. He said that Senator Brooke was a Republican. As far as I understand he still is a Republican. And one of the things I was looking forward to when I was first elected in 1978 was joining people in my party such as Senator Brooke and having an opportunity to work with him.

I was saddened in 1978 when he lost for reelection at that point in time, but then was privileged to work with him on that national commission. And I found him to be a gentleman above all, a real gentleman with a soft-spoken manner who listened to what others had to say, did not put himself out front, but tried to get to the business at hand in a very intelligent, very dedicated, very persistent way.

So this is truly an honor, not only for him, but for this Congress that we are recognizing the service of this great American at this time and that we're doing it with the congressional honor, and that we will have this here in the rotunda of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege a few moments ago to meet with three members of the Honduran Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Having the opportunity to speak with them, to ask them questions, and to match their words against the words of their Constitution just affirms in my mind the

fact that the Honduran people need to be respected, as does their Constitution.

When the people of Honduras, through their elected representatives, follow their Constitution, we should applaud, not decry it. When they have a system of laws based on their Constitution which allows free and open elections, we ought to do everything we can to support them rather than condemn them.

It is strange in this world, as we are looking at the possibilities, however fragile they might be, of elections in some other areas of the world, that the Honduran people stand ready to hold their elections pursuant to their Constitution. The United States Government, the United States State Department, and the people of the United States ought to respect that rather than criticize that.

Let us stand up for the Constitution not only in this country, but the valid constitutions of other countries.

Well, I thank the gentleman. I was noticing as I looked at the chart that outlines the 53 different departments, agencies and new programs that are in this bill that there's at least one box missing. Can you tell me where the box for litigation reform is?

Well, see this is the problem. I have had these town hall meetings, not just in August, I started back in June on the subject of health reform, and saw all the people coming out in my district not to organize, but coming out as individuals. And one of the first things they said to me, and actually, I did a little test later on when I held some of my town hall meetings, I didn't mention litigation reform and immediately people jumped on me and said why didn't you talk about litigation reform? Well, I happen to think, having experienced medical malpractice litigation while I was practicing law, mostly defending doctors and hospitals----

But I was on the right side for most of those cases. And I listened to what the people at home said. And they were saying they thought that we were wasting a good deal of money adding to the total cost of health care because of frivolous lawsuits. And now that it's been borne out by study after study after study talking about the billions, tens of billions, of dollars which we are wasting because we have frivolous lawsuits.

And there are ways of dealing with that, but I have noted that it is not in the bill that came out of Energy and Commerce. It is not in the bill that came out of Ways and Means. It is not in the bill that came out of the other committee here in the House. It is not in the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee. It is not in the bill that came out of the Health Committee on the Senate side. In other words, it's not in any of the bills that we're going to dealing with.

And that prompts this question: What happened to August? Did August actually occur? Did those town halls come together? Was that imaginary, or, like the President did in his speech to us, are we to forget about it or pretend it didn't occur? And if we can do that, can we forget about the possibility that litigation reform may be an essential part of bringing the overall cost down and produce better medicine because defensive medicine, that is, unnecessary tests will not be done.

And so, I again, ask the gentleman, are you aware of litigation reform being a part of any of the bills that have come through the committees in the House or the Senate or part of that display that you have before you?

I was recently at a meeting with a number of doctors in my district at one of the local hospitals. And this one doctor said, Look, Congressman, I want to tell you about something that just happened. This fellow happens to be a plastic surgeon. They had sent somebody over for him to sew up this fellow's head. He had fallen down and split his head open. He had gone to an urgent care facility. And there they looked at him. They had him have either a CAT scan or MRI, I'm not sure which.

I said, What was the problem with that? He said, There was no medical indication of that.

He said what should have happened is--worried about a subdural hematoma, I believe--he said what should have happened is that you tell the patient the chance is one in a thousand you might have that. Here's the situation: If over the next 6 hours these sorts of things are evident, then you come back and at that point in time we do it.

He said they took it. Of course it showed nothing positive whatsoever before it came to him. Then he sewed the person up.

He said that expense to the system is one of those kinds of things that was exactly the defensive medicine that we ought to stop. He gets nothing out of that. That's paid into the system. I don't know if it's $900 or something like that for one of these.

He said, I would have been doing my job as a doctor to sit down with the patient and tell him the chances are about one in a thousand that this might be the case, but here's what you can do to make sure that the indications are such that we would have to do it. That's just simple, commonsense medicine and a relationship between the doctor and patient, which is interfered with now because of the specter of the possibility of a lawsuit. It is that kind of real stuff, real occasions that adds tremendously to the cost of medicine.

Now, there's no medical malpractice lawsuit. There probably is never going to be one filed in that case. So some people say well, the cost you're talking about in terms of defensive medicine are not that large. Yes, they are if you talk with the doctors who actually do this.

One very important one that we talked about is to allow people the opportunity for employers or individuals to purchase their policies across State lines. The reason for that is you will multiply tremendously the number of opportunities people have to make choices about what kind of policy would serve them or their employees better than any other.

That's what I grew up hearing in this great country of ours.

That is correct, and those contracts--which that's what insurance policies are--would be enforced in the State in which the person lived. So we're not talking about the insurance companies getting a free ride; we're talking about giving much more choice--the essence of freedom--to the average citizen. That is another major proposal that is contained in a number of different bills that have been introduced by Members on this side of the aisle.

Not the major bills that have been introduced that we have been talking about.

Would the gentleman yield?

On the $500 billion. As part of that $500 billion is at least $133 billion taken out of Medicare advantage. I have 42,000 seniors in my district who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. What is Medicare Advantage? It is the private option put into the Medicare system when the Republicans were in charge. There's a new idea that actually was implemented. It is tremendously successful across the country. Yes, they've got some imperfections that we need to work on, but their bill would destroy it.

There is no better evidence that they want to destroy private options than the fact that this bill destroys the only private option that currently exists in the Medicare system, Medicare Advantage.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion over Fox News, but last night I watched ABC News as they talked about the new poll put out by ABC and The Washington Post. And I scratched my head as I listened to them talk about the fact the American people now support a public option. The American people are rallying to the side of ObamaCare. And I wondered how much out of step with America would my constituents be, could all of these people who showed up at these town hall meetings be; and then I had a chance to look at the questions.

You ought to examine those questions. I mean, they put the public option in a box and tied a red ribbon around it. I might have even voted for it. And if you look at the difference in the responses of those questions as we had through this entire year, it shows there hasn't been that much of a change.

Now, I guess ABC News has joined the White House and the Democratic leadership in having us ignore August. What happened to August, Mr. Speaker? The American people spoke, and yet the leaders in this body and the White House pretended it didn't happen.

We cannot ignore the American people despite what ABC and The Washington Post may try to tell us.

Madam Speaker, before I return to my district this weekend, I thought I might ask the question on this floor once again, what happened to August? What happened to August? What happened to those town hall meetings? What happened to the pleas we heard from average, everyday Americans coming to town hall meetings by ones, twos and threes, coming with families, not coming bused, not coming organized, but just coming out of a concern about what we were about to do on this floor.

And yet I returned here after that period of time, and I have heard deafening silence from the White House about August. I have heard an absolute repudiation of August by the Democrats in the House and in the Senate.

No. We are talking about health care reform as if August did not exist, as if the American people did not exist and as if their concerns were not our concerns.

What happened to August? What happened to August?