Floor Statements

I thank you and I appreciate the insightful words from the gentleman from Iowa, the gentlelady from Minnesota. One of our friends commented earlier tonight that America is a Nation of entrepreneurs. Thank God, it used to be. Thank God, it could be again. But with the oppressiveness that the Federal Government has put on entrepreneurs and people who would do well and start businesses, they are making it next to impossible, because an entrepreneur needs capital. Normally, they have to borrow capital. This Federal Government is sucking the capital out of the country and not leaving anything for entrepreneurs to borrow capital. So I hear people every day I'm back in the district saying, I can't get loans like I need to keep my business going. I sure can't add anybody on--not that I could right now. I'm hearing over and over they're just trying to hang on, hoping the health care gets defeated, the cap-and-trade bill gets defeated.

You look at what is being done, just the atrociousness of the things that are in these bills. You look at what this bill effectively does. This monstrosity here, this is the Senate bill. It's not the House bill. And when you base a bill starting with a lie, that's not a good place to start. But on the front page of this Senate bill it starts with a lie. The Constitution, heaven forbid that anybody should refer back to it, the Constitution indicates that all revenue-generating bills must begin in the House. Well, the Senate didn't like the House bill. So they knew there was too much they wanted to do different in their bill.

So what they did, they took--and it's on the front of the Senate bill. As it says: In the Senate of the United States, December 24, 2009, as they did it on Christmas Eve. What a sad thing to do on Christmas Eve. Resolved, that the bill from the House of Representatives, H.R. 3590, entitled: An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees and for such other purposes, do pass with the following amendments. That's how this starts. That's how this atrocious health care bill that usurps, sucks the capital out of the country, it sucks the authority out of the States, it mandates oppressiveness upon people who would be entrepreneurs. And it starts with a lie. And now we're told we're going to have a rule.

Normally, a rule, anyone can ask--well, if no one objects, then we do not read the bill. But if there's any objection, then they have to read the entire bill. The rule, as I understand it, deems that there can be no reading of the bill; that it's already been read. It is deeming that the bill has been read. Not only that, once the procedural rule of how many minutes for debate and those kind of things is passed, then the bill--they will be deeming the bill passed. It's atrocious.

But I looked at this quote that I carry with me most of the time. I have a number of quotes that I carry in my suit pocket. And this one is from George Washington, when he said, Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

And so as we have looked at this, and I know my friends from Iowa and Minnesota remember President Obama going to the Caterpillar headquarters. Caterpillar is the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer--the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer. And it's in the news today that Caterpillar has sent a letter to the President, Speaker Pelosi, and other leaders, urging lawmakers to vote against the plan ``because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees, and retirees.''

The article here, this is from Chicago Breaking Business. Boy, is that true, Chicago Breaking Business, and business is about to be broke here. This is a quote from the letter, We can ill afford cost increases that places us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors. It says, We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we have raised throughout the year. The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent or more than a $100 million dollars just in the first year.

This is just incredible the Federal Government would do this to our largest manufacturer of construction equipment. I mean they have done so much to drive our businesses overseas. ``Bye-bye jobs.'' This is another reason economists have told us that if this bill passes, signed into law on Sunday, 5 million jobs will be gone.

The article notes that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and value of health care, but unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House or Senate nor the President's proposal meets these goals. It's going to bankrupt this company. They're going to have to go overseas. All these wonderful American workers that are doing such a great job will see their jobs go overseas.

And it brought me back to what my friends know, and I know my friend from Iowa and I have spent a great deal of time going back through the original Declaration of Independence. And if I could, just briefly, I would like to touch on a few things in that and see if instead of King George III, if this doesn't fit what the Federal Government is doing to the States and the people. And keep in mind the Ninth Amendment says, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. They did not intend for the Federal Government to have all this power. They knew that most power would be retained by the people. And the 10th Amendment says, The powers not delegated, specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

With that in mind, remember the Declaration of Independence says governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. They point out that the history of the present King of Great Britain--in our case, the Federal Government--is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations. We see them every day in this body, usurpations of the States and the people's rights. But the Declaration says, All having in direct object the establishment of absolute tyranny over the States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. And one of the things it said is about the King-- think about our Federal Government: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation until his assent should be obtained. And when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

We have heard from nearly 40 States who say, You can't do this to us. You're usurping the powers reserved under the Constitution to the States and the people. You're taking those away. We're ready to file a lawsuit as soon as you pass this unholy bill come Sunday. Sunday, the Lord's day, we're going to pass an unholy bill like this, when the vast majority of the States, over two-thirds of the States, are saying this is wrong. You're usurping our power. You can't do this. It's what they said in the Declaration. Goodness. And the Declaration goes on, He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Well, how about that? A new article today that happened to be in the paper talking about just that very thing. Isn't it interesting?

This is in the news today--yesterday, I'm sorry--from the Hill. It says, Assuming this bill becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need around $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform or, as the Declaration of Independence called it, to harass our people and eat out of their substance. They're going to take tax dollars in order to create 17,000 new IRS agents to go out and harass the people and eat out of their substance.

The Declaration goes on: He has combined with others to subject us to jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, given his assent to their acts of portended legislation. We see that in things that this White House is proposing; that we're going to give Interpol, a foreign intelligence group, the same rights our own intelligence people have in this country. And another point. We're suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

It goes on: In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of free people. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. For support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Man, the power in there. The power in that. And out from that, John Adams wrote this letter to Abigail. On July 4th he wrote her, and he said at the end, You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I'm not. I'm well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration and to support and defend these States, yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, which I trust in God.

Anyway, these are powerful things, and these are on our shoulders to protect the States and the people's rights and not to continue to usurp what was so graciously entrusted to us and to make sure the States had us protected. I thank my friend, and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the misstatements that have been made. I am also tired of the partisan bickering. I came in thinking that the Democrats who said, We want to work together, were serious.

We have been locked out of every single discussion except when the President came to preach to us, and he misrepresented it. Not intentionally, not lying, perhaps somebody who gave him the information was, but he wasn't. This bill that we're going to vote on starts with a lie. It says, This is an act that will modify first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and other purposes. It started with deceit.

Telling people they are going to have insurance, man, if that's true, if we can save money by adding 30 million people to our rolls, we need to go insure everybody in China and then we will be done with the deficit. This bill is a disaster. Seventy-plus percent of the American people want us to throw it out and start over. Let's listen to the people.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my friend across the aisle earlier saying that all lies and distortion must stop, and I am glad that he has finally agreed with us on that proposition. It is important, because, for one thing, people have been misled about what this bill does and doesn't do. I heard one of my friends across the aisle yesterday saying, Gee, great news. I've got 25 names of religious leaders who are pro-life who have now taken a look, and they've said this is okay.

As a pro-life person, I don't believe this changes existing law. They look at page 119, and they see under subparagraph capital B, little I: Abortions for which public funding is prohibited. The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, and based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

So they look at that and say, Oh, okay, that doesn't change existing law. That's great. And they don't look over to page 124 that says, Under this bill you have to provide insurance policies that will actually cover--it says here--there is at least one plan that provides coverage of services described in clause little I of subparagraph B. That's the one that says you can't use Federal funds to pay for abortion. And a few pages over it says you have to provide these policies that will fund abortions from the paragraph we said we won't fund. That's the kind of gamesmanship that's in here, and people will suffer as a result. That's just a small example.

Now we hear over and over that you guys are killing people by not letting them have this plan that we've got for them. Well, we heard the President say in 2007, Gee, the first step will be--this bill is actually what we're talking about passing here. That will be the first step, and then there will be the transition basically into full socialized medicine.

He said Canada had to start with this kind of bill and then go to the full socialized medicine. Well, let's look at what they did. Here you find out that if you want to die quicker from cancer than any other country, don't come to the United States because you'll live longer here. Folks, that's just not right.

I have a bill that does the things that we're talking about, and Newt Gingrich told me back in June, Man, that will revolutionize the discussion of health care. I've been trying since June to get that scored, and I can't get it scored. I'm shut out. Oh, yeah, they're objective. They'll snap their fingers. They'll get you a CBO score the next day, but not for this Republican, even with the support of all the people they said I needed to get it scored. Let's get fair for a change.

I appreciate my colleague saying there is no money in here for abortion because the Henry Hyde amendment doesn't allow it. He is correct with regard to the appropriations through Labor and HHS. That's all the Hyde amendment applies to. It doesn't apply to the trillions of dollars that are appropriated in this bill around Labor- HHS. That is money the Hyde amendment doesn't apply to. My colleague asked us to get real. That's as real as you get. There's money that goes around the Hyde amendment.

Madam Speaker, this bill is based on so many fictions, it should not be passed. One is that we're going to do a rule and then that is going to be self-perpetuating. And that's going to pass the bill. That's a fiction. It ought to be an up-or-down vote on this bill. And if you read the very basics on this bill from the Senate, it says, Resolved, the bill from the House of Representatives, H.R. 3590, entitled: An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces.

We're going to pass this on the backs of the Armed Forces. This should not

be passed by anyone unless they eat it. If they eat it, then I'm in favor of them passing it. Otherwise, don't pass it.

Well, clearly the majority leadership thinks that the American people are so stupid that if you have a rule that says, you know what, if you vote for the rule, then the bill automatically is deemed passed. I just don't know anybody in the American public that can't figure out when you voted for the rule, I don't care what you say, you voted to pass the bill.

As far as it passing constitutional muster, who knows anymore with this Court. But I do know, as the gentlemen, both of you have been talking about the deals and Medicare Advantage, and I have got the Senate bill here, this lovely thing, and the truth is the only people that ought to pass this bill are people that eat it. A little digestive humor there. If you eat it, then yes, you should pass it. But otherwise this bill should not be passed.

But if you look at page 904 of part one of two parts of the Senate health care bill, and you wonder, gee, I wonder why AARP came out a couple weeks ago and said, oh, yes, we like the proposal, we are all on board. Well, you look at the Senate bill, it says that nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept every bid submitted by a Medicare Advantage organization. And so also the Secretary may deny a bid submitted by a Medicare Advantage organization for a Medicare Advantage plan if it proposes significant increases. But the bottom line here is the Secretary doesn't have to accept a bid.

And what is the consequence of saying we are not going to allow any more Medicare Advantage bids, we are just going to cut that out? Do you know what retirement organization is in the business of selling a kind of supplemental insurance?

Well, it seems like maybe they do sell some supplemental medical insurance. So by golly----

Maybe 904 is one of several reasons AARP said, you know what, this could be all right. We could get millions and millions of dollars in new insurance sales.

But did you see that the pharmaceutical industry says they like this bill, they are okay? And I read a headline today that the pharmaceutical industry was going to spend millions trying to get people to vote for it.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

If you look at page 1,957, along the same lines of what kind of deals that are in this bill, this has to do with health savings accounts. We know that there are millions and millions of dollars in health savings accounts that only can be used for health care. Well, I know I have an HSA, and if I can get an over-the-counter drug, a generic drug, that is what I buy.

Well, good deal for the pharmaceutical industry here beginning at page 1,957, because it says that such terms shall include an amount paid for medicine or drug only if such medicine or drug is a prescribed drug.

So you may want--like in my case, I have hay fever. I've had since it since I

was a little kid. I go and get a generic for like $2.50. And now if I want to spend my HSA on it, I can't go spend $2.50. I've got to go pay megabucks to the pharmaceutical companies in order to get a prescription drug.

Wow, maybe that is part of the deal that made them think, You know what? You know Joe Six-Pack, as my friend from Arizona says, may not get anything out of it, but by golly, we're going to make a lot of money on this bill. Let's throw our support behind it, and the President will love us for it, too.

I just appreciate all the work you've done. There are several bills that have been proposed by Republicans.

I appreciate my friend from Iowa so much, and I appreciate the wonderful points you are making. I was here just out off the Chamber for the whole discussion by our colleagues across the aisle.

I always appreciate when people across the aisle attempt to speak for me and what I support and what I would like to have happen and what I will and do vote for and vote against.

But the great thing about debate is that the other side can be presented. Of course, you know, there was the occasion a year and a half ago where the Speaker cut off the microphones and that was prevented, but we stood here on the floor and spoke anyway. That's the great thing about America.

But I would like to correct some things. Although I know my friend had the best of intentions of speaking on Republicans' behalf, but when he said Republicans have no interest in being part of the solution, I have to differ on that. And I appreciate my Democratic friend saying we don't wish to be part of the solution, but that's simply not true. And, in fact, I know Republicans that begged and pleaded to be allowed to have input into this bill, but it's hard to have input into a bill that's negotiated secretly.

You get the union and AARP and you don't tell any Republicans when they're going to be meeting, when they're going to do their secret deals. You get the pharmaceutical industry and, yes, you get insurance companies to be part of secret negotiations. And I can promise you this, every industry, every individual who has come out and said I think this is a great bill on behalf of some industry, they got a deal cut for them in this bill.

Now, this is the Senate bill here. I've had our House bill until this week. That's what I'd been working from. But it looks like they're serious about cramming the Senate bill down our throats, and they use real thin paper and print on both sides so that it's this small.

But some other things that need to be corrected my friend across the aisle said during his time, Our friends on the other side of the aisle support the insurance industry wanting to start all over. Well, my friend's not completely informed, because there are those in the insurance industry that say, You know what? This bill, the Senate bill, it's okay with us. It would be all right. And if you're in the insurance industry and you have the Federal Government mandating that everybody has to buy a policy, then, you know, your eyes get big and you start thinking, Wow, think of all those sales.

Of course, they don't look far enough into the future and realize that that plan and they, themselves, as insurance companies, won't last very long. They'll go the way of private insurances or insurance companies offering flood insurance. When the Federal Government got involved, it's hard for a private company to compete with the Federal Government that goes in the red and stays in the red, as the Federal flood insurance policies have done.

He also commented that the Democrats are holding health insurance accountable. And that's nice to hear being said, but if they were holding health insurance companies accountable, you would not find one insurance company that's going to be okay with this, and there are those out there.

My friend also commented that 67 percent of Americans support an insurance exchange. Well, in the House bill, which we've talked about it, there's the Federal insurance exchange program, and that's what will take over as they finish killing off the private insurance companies.

And as my friend and I both agree, we don't want insurance companies between us and our doctor. We don't want the government between us and our doctor, and the proposals we've made get them out from between us. They get insurance companies back in the position of insuring and out of the business of managing. Why would we want the Federal Government to come in and manage our health care decisions when we don't even want private insurance companies managing our health care insurance?

And I do appreciate my friend's honesty and candor when I understood him to say, first, that we have a moral mission. We have a moral mission, he said, to protect even the terrorists and the criminals on the street, and that that moral mission apparently does not stop at our border. Well, this is just a difference in philosophy.

And I have a few other points that I want to make here, but I feel like my friend from Iowa will want to comment on this because we've had such lengthy discussions about this issue. And it is just a difference in philosophy that we have friends across the aisle that believe we have a moral mission to protect terrorists, to protect criminals on the street, and that that moral mission does not stop at the border.

And see, my belief, and I believe it's shared by my friend from Iowa, is that when I took an oath to the Constitution, when I was in the United States Army, as a prosecutor, as a judge, as a Chief justice, and as a Member of Congress, there was nothing in my oath that I take so seriously about supporting and defending those on the other side of our borders or supporting and defending all enemies, foreign and domestic, that want to kill me. It was not that I want to support and protect and defend all terrorists and enemies, foreign and domestic. No, it was I'm going to help protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic, protect from those enemies, not go across the border and take my morality to other countries and be the policeman of the world. And, in fact, I think we do make a mistake when we begin to be country building, nation building, government building in other nations. Our job is to protect this country. And when there are terrorists in this country, our job is to take them out, eliminate the terrorists so that they are no longer a threat.

Now, what normally happens when people declare war on another group or country and you capture some of those people, in a civilized society like ours, you hold them until such time as their friends, their colleagues, their comrades decide and announce we're no longer at war. Then you can release all of those, except for the ones you believe or have reason to believe, probable cause to believe committed war crimes. Then you go ahead and try them.

But it's just a difference in philosophy. And I'd love to hear my friend from Iowa if he has a comment on that obligation.

Well, I appreciate that very much. I would like to follow up on that with something that our friend across the aisle said before us tonight. He said that when this bill passes, we'll have a lot to run on, and I agree. And I think they'll need to be running a great deal after this bill were to pass because the vast majority of Americans don't want it to pass. That's very clear.

So you ask yourself, Why would the majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the President try to cram a bill down the throat of a majority of Americans that don't want the bill when it could hurt them politically?

Well, there is so much government in this bill that they know if this bill passes, then the government intrusion, whether you want to call it socialism or progressivism, it's the government taking over such a massive part of our lives, basically taking over our lives.

But I would want to point out page 100 of the Senate bill. You know, why were the unions so happy to jump on this? You know, unions are beginning to look at their health insurance policies as--some of them are--as a massive debt, and they'd like to get rid of it, and we know that they'd be unable to do this under the bill. But people will be glad to know, people who are in unions who are retired and have union health insurance, they'll be glad to know that they won't lose their union-negotiated health care, at least not until the date on which the last of the collective bargaining agreements relating to the coverage terminates.

So people will be able to keep, if you're in a union, or, Madam Speaker, people are in a union or they have retired and they have union health care, they can be assured they do not lose their health care--at least not until the date on which the last of the collective bargaining agreements relating to the coverage terminates. And then, of course, once a new union contract has to be negotiated, all bets are off.

So that should provide some comfort if there is a year or two left on a collective bargaining agreement, then they can be comforted. They have got that insurance if they like it, and they can keep it until the collective bargaining agreement terminates.

And I certainly appreciate the question, because we just happen to have a chart here. And this is a chart, as it says, government-run care means lower survival rates for cancer. Now, we have been told by friends across the aisle, well, but if you look at England or you look at other countries, you find that they have a longer life expectancy than we do in America. Well, not if you're looking at cancer survival rates. If you compare apples to apples, you find out, as my friend from Iowa said, there is no better health care anywhere in the world when you want a good, the best survival rate, whether it's cancer, heart disease or whatever.

Now, the place where the statistics get skewed is our life expectancy in the United States has added in and this is terribly unfortunate, a higher murder rate than some of those countries have. And one other thing that really skews the figures in the United States is that when a baby is born, it doesn't matter if that baby is 20 weeks premature, 10 weeks, 8 to 10 weeks, like my wife's and my first child, if that child is born alive and subsequently dies, even if it's

an hour later, that counts in our statistics because in America the majority still feels that every life counts.

Well, in many of the countries that they try to compare us with with our life expectancy, if a baby is born prematurely and dies, they don't count that. We count it here. And when you have a child that dies within an hour or 2 hours, it dramatically brings down the life expectancy. But it's one of the things I love about America. We care about lives here in America. And so you look at this chart, if you could choose a country to go to if you got cancer, well, you could go, this green here is England, but that is not the greatest survival rate.

My goodness, look at prostate cancer, 50.9 percent survival rate. That's not so good. In the United States, we have a 91.9 percent. That is phenomenal, up 41 percent. That means in the United States, if you get prostate cancer, for every two people that get prostate cancer in the United States, most of the time, both of them are going to live. However in England, you have two people that get prostate cancer, one of them will die. And it's so unnecessary because they have access to the same types of health care we do.

Why would you want to go to any other country? So who could blame the Newfoundland prime minister when he had a heart problem, for saying, I love you, Canada, you're my country, I love you and I am totally devoted, but I am flying to the United States for my heart surgery, which he did. He is a smart man, obviously.

But you look at breast cancer, and I've been shown statistics that are not on here. For example, in breast cancer, if a tumor is found localized in a breast, then we have a 98 percent survival rate, 98 percent survival rate, if a cancerous tumor is found localized in the breast. In England, it's about 20 percent less than that. In other words, even though both countries have wonderful technology, when you have a government-run program, you have to put people on lists.

And the President is right. He is not being disingenuous when he says we are not going to deny coverage. For the most part, that is right. What you do is you put them on lists so that they die before they get what they need. And I was talking to a really sweet secretary in Tyler, Texas, my hometown, and she has emigrated from England. And she told me that her mother got cancer in England and died of that cancer because she was in England. Each step of the way, finding the tumor, having surgery, having therapy, all the things that you have, chemo, all those things, you get on a list. She said, my mother was found to have cancer, and she died because she lived in England. After I emigrated to the United States, I was found to have cancer, and she said I'm alive because I was in the United States instead of England. She said, because I didn't go on a list.

And this is not some wealthy person. This is a middle class secretary with a lot of class. And she knows just how good we have it here. And so you've got all men's cancer: 66.3 percent survival rate here; in England, 44.8 percent; 53 percent in Canada. That's a lot of people. We heard our friend from Florida come down and rant and rave about people and you're killing folks in our district. But all I can see when I look at these cancer survival rates and death rates is when you want us to go to a government-run health care--I know it's not intentional, I know it's not intentional--but the fact is you will cause people to die unnecessarily.

There is no reason to have this kind of drop in prostate cancer success, but that's what we have. And it's so unnecessary.

You've got all women's cancer, 62.9; 55.8 in England. There's not quite as big a discrepancy, but if you're one of the 9 percent or 7 percent in these different categories or even 41 percent that are going to die because you don't live in the United States, then you probably think the United States is the place to be for health care. You take out the murder statistics and you make all countries deal with their statistics of premature babies who die after they're born, then you would find the United States at the top of the charts on life expectancy.

So I appreciate the gentleman yielding on that particular issue.

Would the gentleman yield?

If you look at page 122, the exact point is made that you are making. It says that there is at least one such health care plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses i and ii of subparagraph (b).

You look at subparagraph (b)(i), and it says: The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted based on the laws in effect at the date that is six months before the beginning of the plan year.

So this has actually misled people into thinking, oh, there is a provision here that prevents you from using money----

I am sorry. We were told we had 6 minutes, and we have used 4. Okay.

I appreciate my friend yielding. You make great points. This is unprecedented, what is going on--to have the leaders in Congress and in the White House trying to ram through a health care bill that the majority, not just barely over 50 percent like the President won with, but way over 60 percent of Americans do not want this bill passed. Yet they're forcing it through. You wonder, why would someone work so hard to push through a bill that they know is grossly unpopular. Even if you think it's so grossly unpopular, why wouldn't you want to back up and start over?

There are a number of things that have been said that are not true about the Senate bill. Now, you could be cynical like some people and say, Well, I think they're lying. They're dishonest.

I wouldn't say that. I think they're just completely ignorant. And we all have areas of ignorance where there are things we don't know. But I think that just like with the crap-and-trade bill, we had people come down here and say, This bill will not cost a single job. Well, that told you immediately that they had not read the bill, because toward the back of the bill, there was a fund created, and it said that the fund was explicitly for those who lost their jobs. So we know that there is a vast ignorance by people who don't read the bills that they come down here to talk about.

Now, speaking of ignorance, we have David Axelrod down here. I see you have his quote there: The law of the land right now--this is what he said Sunday. I heard him say this. He seems like a really decent guy, so I'm sure that he didn't intend to deceive, but he said? The law of the land right now is that Federal funds should not be used for abortion services. There's nothing in the proposal that he's--Obama's advanced. There's nothing in what would be approved by the Congress that would upset the existing status quo.

And I appreciate my friend for yielding because there are three things about this bill that allow for the Federal funding of abortion and, in fact, can require it.

Number one, until now, all plans regulated by the Office of Personnel Management have been required to exclude nonfederally covered abortions. So the Senate bill allows all but one of the federally subsidized health care plans in each area to cover abortion. They'll say, Now, you may have one plan that doesn't take care of people like it needs to. We'll offer one plan over here that probably nobody's going to want to buy that will not cover abortions, but the plans that may well be what most people need will cover abortions. So if you want to buy the plan that you're going to need, then you're going to have to cover abortions. That's one thing that's very clear. So that's one way.

A second way under the Senate bill, it authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment. And the billions of dollars that are here--this is under section 10503, Community Health Centers and the National Health Service Corps. Well, I don't want to make the President look bad, so I will call it ``corpse'' also. The Service Corps Funds, subsection B funding, it's authorized to be appropriated, and it is appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated to the CHC fund--that's Community Health Center fund. And then subsection 1 of that to be transferred to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide enhanced funding for the Community Health Center program; $700,000 for fiscal year 2011, $800 million for fiscal year 2012, $1 billion for fiscal year 2013, $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2014, and $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2015.

Now, the reason that's significant is that the Hyde amendment, which is existing law, only pertains to money appropriated--actually, appropriated in the Labor and HHS bill. This money is not being appropriated in the labor and HHS bill. It is not covered by the Hyde amendment, and that's why I'm sure that it's got to be ignorance instead of the lie that David Axelrod is demonstrating. He probably doesn't realize that the Henry Hyde amendment only pertains to money appropriated through Labor and HHS. This is separate money that is not restricted, and so it can go to community health centers to provide abortions. That is allowed under this bill, and people need to understand that.

This is the Senate bill. This is the one that the House is expected to vote on this week, maybe Saturday. This is the bill that the House is going to vote on. So anybody that comes in here and thinks--or has been sold a bill of goods, because so often if you don't read the bill and you allow somebody to tell you who you think may have read the bill that, Oh, no, no, no. That's not--Oh, no, it doesn't change existing law, they just don't know. It does change existing law. You just have to read it and understand the implication of the Hyde amendment, what's covered and, you know, the implication here.

But there's another thing, too. Section 1303 of the Senate bill that we're expected to vote on only limits the direct use of Federal tax credit to fund abortion coverage. The credit still could be used to pay premiums for health care plans that allow abortions. So the Federal tax law, the Federal tax dollars, through their credits, are going to fund health care plans that allow abortion. That's a third way that the Senate bill that we're going to supposedly vote on the end of this week will fund abortions.

Now I know there are people in this body who think that's a great thing, to fund abortions with Federal funds. Others, like me and my friends here, believe that it is not appropriate to take money away from people who know in their hearts it's murder to kill an unborn child and make them take their tax dollars and pay for abortion. That's been the law of the land for over 30 years, and it is changed dramatically by the Senate bill. And people just need to understand, if they're going to vote for this bill or they're going to vote for a rule if it's self-effectuating, then they are going to vote for and bring into effect a dramatic change to the law on Federal funding of abortions.

Well, I can imagine that it's an innocent mistake by those who are talking about the bill. I do not

believe it's an innocent mistake by those who've drafted this bill. It's unfortunate that we don't know who they are. We were not privy to those private sessions that were not under C-SPAN cameras, that were not covered--or reporters were not allowed. Nobody was allowed to see. Certainly there were no Republican in the House or Senate that were allowed in there when this stuff was drafted.

So, yes, I think it can be an innocent mistake, and I believe it is by many who don't realize what this does. But to answer the gentleman's question, it's certainly not innocent by those who've drafted this to spend billions in tax dollars of tax money that can fund abortion.

My understanding is we're not going to be given that opportunity to amend the bill here in the House. The House will have to pass the bill exactly as the Senate did. And actually, there was an effort in the Senate to amend the bill to put Stupak-type language in there, and they voted it down. Now, why would anybody in the Senate fight that kind of battle and work so hard to try to get that kind of Stupak language in the Senate bill and go to all the grueling fight that they had to try to get it in there if it was unnecessary?

Will the gentleman yield for just a moment?

I appreciate that. And my friend, Dr. Burgess, has done probably more work in the area of health care reform and potential legislation than anybody I know of in the House. And so, it'd be great to hear from him tonight.

But I think it was critical, and it is critical for people to understand, who are really wrestling with whether or not they can satisfy their conscience and their concern over Federal tax dollars being pried out of people's hands to fund abortions against their will. It's important that those people understand that David Axelrod-- apparently, we're told he's an honorable man, so are they all, so are they all honorable men--but that he apparently was ignorant of the law of which he spoke because he's just wrong, completely, on three counts. And so if anybody's trying to salve their conscience over Federal funding of abortion, they need to understand there are three ways that Federal funding will pay for abortions if this Senate bill is passed. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate so much the points my friend from California has been making. Here there have been discussions about health care and the White House wanting to take that over for the American people, and it really is highlighted by something that I ran into just this morning at the White House.

Now, we know from the prior hearings that were held that apparently the Social Secretary had a meeting with people at security at the White House and decided to change protocol so she wouldn't be there, and so some people got waved in that shouldn't have gotten waved in. As a result, what has happened now, with Members of Congress, it used to be that if you gave 24 hours' notice with Social Security numbers, date of birth, all that kind of thing, you could get six people into the White House at 8 o'clock, 7:45, something like that the next morning. Now, under this White House that was changed to where they want 48 hours. Okay, fine.

As a result of the incompetent handling over letting people into the White House that shouldn't have been, not by the Secret Service, not by the armed guards there--now they have doubled the number of guards that are out there--they now make both Members of Congress and those people who are obviously law-abiding and have had their security checked and double-checked with not one smudge on their record, now they have to go clear down a block away to 15th Street and go through security there.

The Member of Congress, like today in the rain, has to go down a block and then go through security there, with double the number of guards, and then come up and go through security again and go through guards again, all not because Secret Service messed up or the armed guards that are now doubled in number, but because somebody in the White House staff screwed up. Now they are deciding to punish Members of Congress and law-abiding citizens that normally just get in.

The point here is that this is a circus over there. Nobody seems to know what is going on. When accountability was demanded and the Social Secretary was requested by Members of Congress to come testify, they said, ``We are not going to let you come testify.''

The same thing happened on the Auto Task Force. Could you have them at least come tell us about their secret meetings, these czars and all that stuff? ``We are not going to be accountable.''

It is a circus going on over there, and now the people in the circus want to be in charge of your health care. Good grief. It is time to say we don't want clowns in charge of something as important as our health care. I don't even want them in charge of algal blooms.

With that, I appreciate the time.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak here on the floor. The topic again will be health care because, even though most of Americans are more concerned about the economy, as am I, and jobs, because the President keeps trying to shove this thing into the lap of Americans--actually, it will control the lap of Americans--we have to deal with this until we can start over, start fresh, get the special interest groups, the unions, AARP, those people who have been meeting in the last few weeks behind closed doors, away from C-SPAN cameras, getting special deals for themselves, we start over and start fresh. And the number one most important aspect is not the unions. It is not AARP. It is retired people. It is seniors. It is Americans across the country. It is the poor. It is the wealthy. It is everybody.

Those people who are United States citizens, those are the number one concern, should be, under a newly negotiated bill.

I just got sent a copy of an e-mail that has gone all over the country apparently from a group called Organizing Against America--I'm sorry, Organizing for America, it just sounds like they're organizing against America--and it has an individual's name, first name. It says: ``President Obama has called for the House to vote to move health reform forward as early as next week. Your representative''--in this case, Louis Gohmert--``voted last fall to allow insurance companies to continue to jack up rates, drop coverage when folks need it the most, and discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.'' You know, the rules of the House do not prevent me from calling this what it is: that's a lie; that's simply not true.

But it goes on to say: ``We're in the final margin, one last chance to do the right thing.'' It says: ``Call Representative Gohmert today,'' and it says: ``Let them know''--that's not correct grammar, but that's not the only thing that's not correct--``know that there is a political price to favoring big insurance companies over the American people.

``Organizing Against America''--I'm sorry, ``Organizing for America supporters in Texas have pledged 506,830 volunteer hours to fight for candidates who support reform.''

So, anyway, what they're not apparently aware of is that the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority in my district, they know what this bill--I've got four volumes to get it all, that's the bill that was passed in the House--they know what this represents. It's a government takeover not just of health care, but a whole lot more than that. Anyway, that's the stuff that's going out in this hour of desperation to try to cram this bill through, cram it down on America.

I heard our valiant Speaker Pelosi, I saw and heard the video of the Speaker saying we've got to pass this bill so that we can find out what's in it. I understand that she was talking about apparently there's a big fog around the bill and we really won't see what's in the bill until we pass it and then the fog is lifted; but some of us have been concerned that we need to look at this

bill, and everybody needs to know what's in it now and not wait until later.

We also know that secretly negotiated--I saw an AARP rep and union rep saying that before this summit the President was going to have his health care bill that would be discussed at the summit between Republicans and Democrats. I know my friend, Eric Cantor, brought a copy of the bill, and it seemed like that made people mad. I suggested that they have a copy of the Senate bill and the House bill there so that when somebody made a representation that wasn't accurate as to what was represented in the bill, you could immediately turn to the bill during the summit and correct whatever inaccuracy was painted.

Well, one of the problems with the President's health care bill, like my friend, Ms. Foxx, pointed out earlier, is that there is still no President's bill. He came in here and spoke from the second level up there and kept referring to ``my bill,'' ``this bill,'' ``my plan,'' ``this plan''; but as I asked Secretary Sebelius later, I said, I've been trying to find a copy of the President's bill; he keeps referring to it, said he was going to call us out if we misrepresented it, and I just want to know where I get a copy of it. And that's when she told us, Well, actually, I think he was talking about a set of proposals or principles.

Well, I was told by CBO that they could not score my plan until I had it in a hard and fast bill. So we did, we got it in bill form. And that took a lot of work because legislative counsel, who prepares the bills in legislative form, were so tied up with all the Democratic bills that were being filed and being shoved to the front so quickly. But we finally got it done. It took, I think, around 6 weeks or so. And then we got it filed. And then we couldn't get a CBO scoring. We were finally told in August, well, you know, you don't have the request from the highest-ranking Republican on the committee of jurisdiction, Energy and Commerce. So I talked to Republican Joe Barton, and Joe said, yeah, it sounds great; let's get it done. He said to send a request that my bill be scored.

Then, about 1 month later, we were told, well, we haven't scored it. You still don't have the approval of the highest-ranking Republican on the Joint Tax Committee. So I got Dave Camp, told him about the bill, showed him what I had. He said, sure. He sends over a letter saying, Please score Gohmert's bill. That was in September, I think September 19, something like that, 20th, somewhere around there.

In the meantime, anytime a Democratic leader doesn't have a bill, just has an idea, a plan, wow, they can rush that in to CBO. Every now and then CBO will say, you know, you just don't give us enough to work from, we're making presumptions, but here's a score usually is what they get to anyway. That is something that is so grossly unfair.

There is a summary of 70 health care bills in this document here that have been filed by Republicans to help reform health care. So if someone bothered to read that before they sent out a false e-mail saying we don't want to do anything to reform insurance, they would find out they're wrong. We've got all kinds of good proposals because the truth is, and I'll say it again, all the people I know want health care reformed. They don't want insurance companies between us and our doctors or between any American and their doctors. And they don't want government in between them and their doctors. That's what we're trying to get to.

And even though CBO hasn't been kind enough to, after all these months--and we have the data here that shows what CBO has done. There have been 50 total health care bills formally scored in the 111th Congress, and six of them--six--have been Republican plans. We've got 70 others we'd like to get scored, but they're not going to get to those, they're not even going to get to mine. In the 111th Congress there have been a total all together of 530 bills that have been scored by CBO: 442 were for Democrats, 88 were from Republicans. But we didn't even get that good of odds as far as the health care scoring. So we are obviously working at a severe disadvantage here.

I know that there are so many things the President said that even though they're inaccurate, he has no intent to deceive. It's just that when you're President of the United States, obviously you can't have all the facts at your fingertip. You have to rely on people who work for you to give you accurate information. Unfortunately, our good President has not been given all the accurate information he needs in order to address things properly.

I've been joined by my good friend from Georgia, and I would like to yield such time as Mr. Lynn Westmoreland might need.

I appreciate so much the insights from the gentleman from Georgia. You make such good points.

Madam Speaker, I've heard people say before, Well, you know, I see you go down to the House floor and just pour your heart out, and you're really trying to convince people of what's right. I wonder. It has got to be pretty frustrating when there's not more than a handful of people around on the House floor.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is, since C-SPAN came about, every Member of Congress whom I know has a television in his or her office, and they watch C-SPAN. A lot of folks will have more than one so that you can monitor C-SPAN and watch the news. You can monitor what is being said, and you can monitor debate. We've been told there may be 200,000 or there may be many more people watching on C-SPAN. Yet this is a chance, under the Constitution, under the Speech or Debate Clause, to come in and to try to bring light. Light is the best disinfectant to any kind of infection. That's what we're trying to do, to shed some light on this.

We have been joined by my dear friend, Ms. Virginia Foxx. When you're talking about someone who has been the president of a university before--and I know her work hours as they're not unlike my work hours-- I know that she comes to the floor informed.

I yield such time as Ms. Foxx may need.

I appreciate the comments of the gentlelady, Ms. Foxx. They were really on target. Thank you so much.

When she mentions banana republics, I actually had the experience in 1973 of being an exchange student to the Soviet Union for a summer, and I got to see firsthand how the former Soviet Union operated before, of course, it went broke. It couldn't borrow enough money. It couldn't print enough money, so it went broke.

In looking at the President's comment in his speech on March 3 of this year, it was after the so-called health care summit, and I am quoting: ``My proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves, because if it is good enough for Members of Congress, it is good enough for the people who pay their salaries.'' And there was applause on that.

But apparently he hasn't read the bill that was passed in the House that he is trying to join and mesh up in his so-called proposal. This is in the first volume. Let me get over here to that, the benefit package levels. It says, ``The commissioner,'' this is another czar- type person he will appoint, ``shall specify benefits to be made available under the exchange participating health benefit plans.''

Then subparagraph B, ``Limitation on health benefit plans offered by offering entities.'' I haven't seen anything in the President's proposal that changes this. It says, ``In every area of the United States,'' and it will be cut up into different service areas, it says, ``the entity only offers one basic plan.''

The commissioner will designate what has to be in the health care insurance policy. Then their idea of that is you will have a slew of insurance companies that will offer the same policy, one basic plan. And then you could, if you wanted to, as an insurance company, offer an enhanced plan. But the big deal is the same exact plan will be offered by different insurance companies.

I had an experience that this reminds me of so much when I was in a city stay in Moscow. We had read and heard that the largest department store in the world was in Moscow, and the Russian letters in the English equivalent are GUM, which stood for governmental universal store or department store.

I needed some 110 film for my little camera. There were probably a dozen camera stores on three or four different levels, and there were several different sections. It was enormous. I went to every one of them, and every single one had the exact same products, the exact same prices. And that is what we are talking about in this plan. There is no choice. And it won't be long, there will only be one insurance company, and that will be the Federal Government.

We have been joined by my good friend from California, former attorney general, former Member of Congress before coming back, who has always terrific insights. I yield to Mr. Lungren.

There is nobody talking with an accent that I have heard.

That is indeed my understanding.

A judge, and was briefly chief justice of an intermediary court filling an unexpired term. And that is my understanding. But I also know the gentleman from California was the highest ranking legal officer in the State of California and very articulately has set out his, as well as my, understanding.

But I am curious as to the gentleman's opinion of whether or not this really meets constitutional muster. Nobody knows what the Supreme Court would do. Some project maybe 5 or 6 years before it got there, since we were unsuccessful in getting any fast track in the House version or the Senate version.

I am curious about the gentleman's opinion.

We have a friend from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. Do you have anything to add on that point?

I want to yield more time to my friend from California.

I thank the gentleman for the question. It's a great question because we know when Scott Brown was elected, he said, I'm the 41st vote against this. There are not 60 votes to do what they are saying, which as you're pointing out, the Stupak amendment--if our pro- life friends across the aisle were to get talked into voting for the Senate bill as is, on the promise that, oh, gee, we will bring that amendment up, and we are sure it will pass--I just don't see how anybody can make that claim because it has already been made clear at the other end of the Hall that they are not getting 60 votes to do it.

No, they don't. And there is no reason to believe that anything could happen other than what we've already seen. They're not going to have 60 votes to do it, which is why they are trying to do it on a reconciliation gimmick.

Well, it is hard to know; but I believe if the Speaker tells Bart Stupak, we are going to get the amendment, your Stupak amendment passed in the House through reconciliation, we'll get it done, and we should get it done in the Senate, I'm sure if she tells him that she will get it done in the House, then she probably will. But there is no way on this Earth that she can guarantee what will happen in the Senate because it's not going to happen.

The gentleman is exactly right.

And I want to emphasize how important the Stupak language was. We did hear our friends across the aisle say, look, there is no money that will be allowed under the House bill for abortion. And I know they believe that when they said it or they really wouldn't have said it. The trouble is one of the problems in this body is we have ended up having such massive bills come so fast that people do not read the bills, because on page 110 of the very bill that was under debate that the Stupak amendment was to address, this is page 110, subsection 4b, the subsection titled, ``Abortions For Which Public Funding is Allowed,'' then it goes on to say the services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, and then it goes and sets out conditions.

The point is they hadn't read that bill or they would never have gotten up and said, there is no money in this bill for Federal tax dollars for abortion. It was there, and it is there if you don't have the Stupak amendment.

That is exactly right.

That they can't get on any other bill itself. It makes no sense.

That is such a great point. I was talking with some of my

constituents this past weekend who are scared to death this thing is going to pass. Some of them work for lower wages, and they are on their spouse's insurance with their employer.

There are companies that exist only because they are able to hire people who don't need health insurance, and so they are able to hire them without providing health insurance. Under the bill, they are going to get hit with an 8 percent tax. And I'm hearing employers say, we can't pay the 8 percent tax. They've either got to take an 8 percent cut or lay people off.

There's been one estimate confirmed by a number of people that if this bill passes, if this bill becomes law at the worst time conceivable, more Americans out of work than ever in history, it will put 5\1/2\ million people out of work. This is incredible. I have heard friends across the aisle talk about how important it is to help the working poor, the lower middle class, that is who we really want to help. Under the bill, if they can't afford the mandated type of insurance, then they are going to get hit with an additional tax, the very people that can't afford it. In addition to that, they are going to be hit with other taxes to help pay for this bill. It is not a friend of the working poor in America.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the gentlemen. My time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in tribute to Charlie Wilson. He was a constituent of mine. He was an inspiration to me. For those that don't know, he was born in Trinity, Texas, and had education at Sam Houston State University, but he also attended the U.S. Naval Academy. He loved this country. He was willing to lay down his life for this country.

Between 1956 and 1960, Charlie Wilson served in the United States Navy, obtained the rank of lieutenant, and the man knew about defending America. It was a part of his heart and soul and was something he carried with him throughout his life. His political career began in 1960 when he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives. And as my friend Mr. Edwards mentioned, the official version is that it began in 1960 when he was elected to the House of Representatives in Texas, but actually, it did begin when his neighbor poisoned his dog, and Charlie got so active as a young high school kid that he started taking people to the polls to make sure there were enough people to defeat the man that poisoned his dog. That was really his start in politics. But he saw what one person could do if they were determined enough and sincere enough and gave it their all.

But to give a little more of his history, he served in the Texas House of Representatives for 6 years and was then elected to the Texas Senate in 1960. Then in 1972, the Second Congressional District of Texas elected Charlie to the U.S. House of Representatives. And it wasn't until 1996 that he decided not to run again. The slogan that he used throughout his campaign--it really pretty well summarized the man, ``Wilson gets it done,'' and Charlie did.

He is from what some people call the Bible Belt, and what I've heard from constituents many times is, Yes, we knew about Charlie's issues, but the thing about Charlie, he was always honest about them. And I will never forget when we were naming the VA clinic for the man who is the reason it's in Lufkin, Texas. The VA Secretary came and he spoke, and then I had the honor of introducing Charlie, and Charlie got up and he was really emotional. He told the crowd there--there was a huge crowd there that assembled in his honor there at the civic center--and he said very emotionally, I love you people. Sixteen times you overlooked my personal indiscretions and allowed me to represent you.

Now, there are not many politicians that would stand up and say, You overlooked my personal indiscretions 16 times and let me represent you, but Charlie did. That was Charlie, and he made no bones about who he was or what he was.

And in fact, when Tip O'Neill had put him on the Ethics Committee and a reporter said, Well, what are you doing on the Ethics Committee? He responded a famous quote: ``Well, I love women, and I love whiskey, and we deserve to be represented on that committee too.'' He made no bones about it. His constituents loved him. He was always honest about things, and that goes so far, and everyone should take notice of that fact, that America loves people who are honest with them. He took care of his seniors. I heard that over and over. You know, Charlie Wilson took care of those who couldn't take care of themselves. And it was one of the reasons that people loved him in east Texas, and it's one of the things that inspires me, having seen what he did.

You know, here I was a Republican, he was a Democrat. He always made time if I had questions: What do you think about Afghanistan? Because nobody knew more about Afghanistan than Charlie. He always had sage advice, and I really appreciated that. And I would like to also quote Jim Turner that followed Charlie in Congress. Jim described him as a dedicated public servant who fought hard for the people of his district.

And I would just like to also pay tribute--and I know that Barbara, his widow, is still mourning his loss and will for a long time to come. Barbara Wilson made a difference in Charlie's life. Barbara sustained and prolonged Charlie's life. He loved her. He loved her family. They loved him. And she made a difference in his life, just as he made a difference in this country. Just as Charlie showed what one man can do when he puts his mind to it, this body ought to always be inspired by the memory of the great, late Charlie Wilson.

Well, looking at the chart you have there that has the quote on it about reconciliation, it brings us back to what is being discussed. The reporters all out here in the hall have been there for much of the night, and they are starting to go away because apparently they think there is not going to be any agreement. But what people need to understand is what is being pushed here called reconciliation. What a misnomer. Reconcile? That is not what happens.

The Senate has passed a bill, and they are not going to get 60 votes to do a new bill, so they are trying to push the House into passing exactly what the Senate did. But we have got fine, upstanding pro- lifers like Bart Stupak and a dozen others, and they say if you are going to have a bill that pries tax money out of the hands of people who believe with all their heart, as I do, that it is immoral to kill unborn children, and you are going to take their money and use it to do that, then we can't vote for this bill.

So what we hear being discussed is, Well, if you will just vote for the Senate bill that allows the government to take away taxpayer money and use it for abortions, then we may be able to get you an amendment to come back. It has to be signed into law, has to become law before you can amend it, but then we may be able to amend that to then put in the Stupak language that prevents tax dollars from being used for abortion.

But the thing that our colleagues have to understand is please don't get roped into that. The Speaker knows how the process works. But if it becomes law and the bill provides for the funding of abortion, you may or may not get the amendment passed. It may pass through the House, but then the Senate has to pass it, and there is no way anyone in the House can guarantee what the Senate will do. Then the people who everybody, well-intentioned, no intention to deceive, but anyway, the bottom line is they end up not getting what they are promised, not because of deception. It just doesn't happen.

Well, I think there's actually great wisdom in what President Obama said that's on the chart right behind you, and that is, Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt. The President called that exactly right.

I need to ask my friend, I can't see the date there. Was that last week that he said that? When was that?

That's right.

And as we understand now, in 2005, Senator Obama was moving forward, campaigning, moving toward a Presidential run. But I tell you, it just blessed my heart to hear President Obama say in the summit at the Blair House, when he said to Senator McCain, We're not campaigning any more. I said, Hallelujah. The President's going to stop campaigning. I tell you, that was such good news to me because that means the President's going to quit campaigning and just try to govern. If he were to going to campaign, he would probably have gone off to who knows where--Missouri or somewhere today--and given another speech. The fact that we're not campaigning anymore means he's back here trying to figure out how we can reform health care without cramming it down the throats of 60 to 70 percent of Americans that don't want this bad medicine that's about to be rammed down their throat.

Well, it's because it's not friendly. I was privileged back in 1973 for the summer to be an exchange student in the Soviet Union. I saw socialized medicine firsthand, and that's where this is going. It's socialized medicine where the government controls it. I don't want the insurance companies between me and my doctor, and that means I also don't want any of that just massive amount of government between me and my doctor, but that's where this takes us.

And you wonder, Why would a group risk losing the majority in Congress to pass a bill like this when they know what's at stake politically? And the answer is, it puts in place so much government that once it's in place, it won't matter which party is in the majority. It's kind of like the Department of Education or other things that are not enumerated powers in the Constitution. Once it's there, you can't do anything about it. The school districts lose billions of dollars over the years that have been usurped by just a bureaucracy in Washington. It's going to happen with health care.

And just quickly, let me tell you, what inspired me to get with professionals, health care professionals, economists to come up with a solution was, when I saw that if you added together the amount of money we spend on Medicare and Medicaid and divide that by the total number of households in all of the United States, it's an average of over $10,000 from every household in America to fund Medicare and Medicaid.

When I saw that, I was thinking, My goodness, all that government, all that we're paying for, we're better off if we said to every household that has people on Medicare or Medicaid or even SCHIP, here's $3,500 cash from the Federal Government in a health savings account you control with a debit card, and we will buy you private insurance that's catastrophic care to cover everything above that. You don't have to buy any more supplemental coverage or wraparound coverage.

And I know that scares AARP because they made a lot of money off of that supplemental insurance. But this will help seniors. You give them a

choice. You want to keep having Medicare, you want to keep having Medicaid, or do you want us to give you cash you control and get the insurance company and the government out between you and your doctor? And I think people, when you give them that voluntary choice, they will make the choices that will save us from bankruptcy that Medicare is driving us to. I yield back.

That's actually a lot cheaper than what we're doing now. It would save money. But let me just say this: I know a lot of people kowtow to CBO. Let me tell you that in this Congress--and the director has called me and said, Oh, we are very objective. And I know they do the best they can to being objective. But I'm telling you, since he got woodshedded at the White House, let me tell you, there have been I believe it's been 56 health care bills that have been scored by CBO.

We have about 70 bills from Republican Study Committee members to reform health care. Seventy bills, they are bills. And you know how many we have gotten scored on the Republican side? Six, six bills. I have been begging and writing all kinds of ways. I have had ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, Joe Barton, request my bill be scored. I've had Dave Camp when they said, Well, you don't have the Joint Commission ranking member. Well, then, Dave Camp requested. I can't get it scored. And I realize by making a big deal about CBO not scoring Republican plans, that they may say, Oh, Gohmert, we'll take your bill, and we'll score it, and you're not going to like the way it comes out. I realize that's a risk. But I'm telling you, it has been so abusive that CBO has done virtually nothing.

About a tenth of the Republican bills that they have scored are Democratic bills. And if they want to bring some equity to this and some objectiveness, it is time CBO started scoring Republican bills and not just Democratic bills. I had to get that out.

What you're talking about is exactly what Thomas Jefferson talked about when he said the natural course of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain. And I thought Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal made a great point this morning, in talking with him, when he said, people inherently know in America that if you add 30 million people to the same health care coverage you're not going to save money. If you were to save money by adding 30 million people to our health insurance or Medicare, then, as he said, we might as well say, you know what? We'll insure everybody in China, and that will get us out of the deficit. It's not true; it doesn't work. We've got to be practical and stop government from taking over where liberty is yielding.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

Truly, the examples that were given here today of children who have lost their lives, children who have suffered is untenable. There is nobody in this body that I can imagine who would think this is appropriate. Of course it is not. Our hearts go out to the families, all of us who have raised children, had children go through school. I have a great fear of something like that.

But there was also a fear that our Founders had. There was a fear of even coming together for the Constitutional Convention because they were afraid that it would allow for a Constitution that would set in motion a Federal Government that would continue to take away the powers of the people in the local government and the State government. So the only way they were able to come together on this Constitution was to assure the people there that if they would pass the Constitution, they would put together 10 amendments to make sure that the Federal Government would never do the very things we're doing here.

There is no State that would put up with this knowingly. Every State would say, This is ridiculous; of course we don't want children killed in school. But what gets me is during my first 2

years here when we were in the majority in this body, I was one of the few Republicans that said No Child Left Behind is not appropriate. And I was joined by many across the aisle who said the Federal Government shouldn't have a program like No Child Left Behind. You don't know more here in Washington than people know back in the school districts. And I appreciated the support of my colleagues across the aisle. I told that to the White House. That's an area we are going to disagree on because you should not be mandating back to the States and the local governments and the local school boards, because they are competent.

I know that it's not the intent of this bill, but the underlying message is, You people back in your States and local school boards and local governments are a bunch of morons. You can't figure out that sitting on a precious little child and killing them is inappropriate. So the big, smart Federal Government has to come in and let you know that that's not appropriate. We don't need that. We didn't need No Child Left Behind as a mandate rammed down the throats of the State and local government. We don't need this. We need logic and reason, and we need proper schooling; but it doesn't come at the tip of a fisted mandate from Washington.

We need to encourage the States to do the right thing. But under the 10th Amendment, the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States or reserved to the States. We doggone sure ought to respect that.

It is a privilege to be on the floor any time when you know the history of this place and what all is going on before us. I'm so grateful for my friend from Missouri, my friend from Utah pointing out such important things about the health care debate that is ongoing. It is critical. We're talking about the lives of Americans. This is not something that should be considered lightly or done too quickly.

It is incredibly ironic to realize here we are now into March of 2010, and beginning back over a year ago we were told there is no time to waste. We do not have time for Republicans to have any input. We don't really want to hear from Americans. This is too important, we were told, to delay. We have got to have this done by May. Well, even though the Democrats have plenty of votes to more than pass this bill, they didn't get it done by May. They could have done it without any votes from Republicans, yet it was the Democrats themselves that were not able to pass this bill, and the reason is there were Democrats who were also concerned about what was in this bill, just as many of them are still very concerned that what's in the bill is not appropriate and not good for the people in their districts or their States. So here we are.

Then we heard, Well, we need to get this done by July 4th. Then we heard we need to get it done by the August recess. Then, we need to get it done before Halloween. Well, then we need to get it done by Thanksgiving. Each time, the need to pass it immediately was given as a reason that there just wasn't time to incorporate any Republican ideas.

The trouble is, these were not Republican ideas. These are ideas that come from some of the smartest people in the country; that come from doctors, that come from economists, people that have worked through these issues, and yet still the effort has been made to ask America-- not ask, but demand America stick out your tongue and say ``ah'' while we cram this down your throat.

It needs to be looked at even more closely. And there is a technique that's been known in debate world as creating a straw dog. You create the straw dog and say that's what your opponent believes and is trying to do. You get righteously indignant, and you beat up the straw dog, showing how you tore your opponent up because your opponent had this ridiculous idea. The problem was, in that debate device it's simply not accurate because that is not what the opponent was saying.

In this case, I don't really see us as having opponents. We are out here trying to do what is best for America, and yet most of America, through their representatives, have not had a chance to be heard. That includes many represented by Democrats.

We are joined by my friend from Utah. And I would be glad to yield such time as Mr. Bishop might use.

Sure.

The answer is that yes, you can keep your plan if you like it for maybe a year, then you lose it. Maybe 2 if you are lucky. On the other part, if you like your doctor--and the gentleman from Utah has quoted it exactly. I have the text of the President's speech here. He said, ``If you like your plan you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.'' The thing is nobody, not even my dear friends here on the floor with me, can promise you that if you like your doctor you get to keep your doctor. I will give you one good reason why.

I have talked to numerous doctors that are my age and older who have told me, many of them, that I have not accumulated what I had hoped to by this time. But they are very sincere, and they say, But it has gotten so frustrating dealing with the government over Medicare and Medicaid, and even dealing with insurance companies, they've had enough. And I have been told, I am sure my friends have been, too, that if this bill passes they are walking away from the practice of medicine. They are walking away. It will not be worth it. I have heard that from so many people.

So for somebody to say if we pass this bill, and I don't care who it is, any Democrat or any Republican that were to say if we pass this bill and you like your doctor you can keep him, it is wrong. You can't make that promise because many of the doctors you like the best have already said we are walking away.

One of the things I love about being on the same committee with the gentleman from Utah is he may not be a lawyer, but he has incredible insight and discernment and can shoot right to the crux of an issue. So when we do that, as the gentleman has asked, and we look at page 91 of the House bill, and I have asked others, look at the 11-page summary the President proposed and then look at the 19-page summary of the summary that the White House gave to us, both the 11- page summary and the White House 19-page summary of the summary, and see if you can tell if one single letter of the law under section 202 of the House bill is changed.

I have been told by attorneys that have looked at it, it does not appear the President is proposing any change to page 91 of the House bill. So when you look for the answer, Do you keep

your insurance?, well, you look to the language. And the language is this:

``Section 202, Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.

``(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined. Grandfathered health insurance coverage means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met.'' And Y1 is just the day that the new bill starts.

``Number one, Limitation on New Enrollment.'' In order to keep your insurance if you like it, number one, and I quote, ``The individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.'' So if you add a single additional insured to the policy that you have--you are on a company policy, or if you are like a couple of guys that told me recently that their unions negotiated a fantastic health care plan, they love it, they are not worried about the rest of the country because they get to keep their plan. Unfortunately, as I asked, Does anybody ever get added to your health care policy?

And they said, Well, yeah, people retire all the time and they get in there and we all have the same great policy.

I had to explain, Bad news. As soon as they add one more person on your health care policy, you lose your policy. And then that throws you over under the Federal insurance exchange program that the government controls.

There will be private insurance companies that will be allowed initially, until they go broke, they will be allowed to offer policies, but they are mandated exactly what they have to provide in those policies.

But here is the real kicker, the second limitation on changes in terms or conditions. The second condition about keeping your policy is this, and I quote, ``The issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost sharing.'' Now, that is why I replied to the gentleman earlier, the answer is you might get to keep your insurance policy for a year, 2 years if you're lucky. But there is no way that you could have an insurance policy go for more than a couple of years without having to make some changes in their terms and conditions.

For one thing, we know that health care, with medicine, knowledge, and practice changes all the time. We find out that some types of procedures are more dangerous than we knew. And so a policy said we will no longer cover that because the benefits do not outweigh the risks that are involved. Another thing is you have new technology, sometimes less expensive ways to treat something. Well, obviously you want those included in your coverage. They would be added. That changes a term or condition. So within 1 year or 2 years everybody in the country that liked their policy, just as the President promised, get to keep it for about a year or 2, and then they lost it.

So when the President says you get to keep it, that is accurate. He just doesn't tell you you won't keep it very long.

I would be glad to yield to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

The gentleman asks a good question. I appreciate the question, because once again, that affords great insight. If you look over at page 167 of the bill that was passed in the House, and as best I can tell, even though all we have is the 11-page summary and then the 19-page summary of the summary----

The gentleman is correct.

Absolutely. We would have even more information. And that would be more helpful. But the best we can tell, since the President did not propose a specific bill, once again very elusive in what is being proposed, page 167 does not appear to have been changed. And that says the commissioner shall specify--that is the Federal commissioner under this bill--the benefits to be made available under the Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

Now, that means every plan that has had a term or condition change or has added an additional insured, those have been lost, and then within a couple of years everybody is under this. So the commissioner shall, one of about 3,000 or so ``shalls'' in the bill, specify benefits to be made available. And then it goes on and says the entity offers only one basic plan for such service. So the commissioner is going to require that everybody provide exactly the same plan.

One-size-fits-all for the area.

The gentleman is exactly correct.

If you go on further, everybody that is offering insurance in an area has to offer the same exact basic plan. It is a basic plan. And then if an insurance company provides that one basic plan, they may offer one enhanced plan. But again, the commissioner specifies exactly what that plan is. And if you offer an enhanced plan, you may also have one premium plan for such area.

But the bottom line is there will be many areas in the country, once everybody loses their own health insurance within a couple of years, everybody goes under this plan, the commissioner tells everybody what has to be in their plan. Everybody. And you have no choice, you have to go with what they said. And so the other thing is that once an insurance company provides that, they have no flexibility.

Now there is debate about whether or not there would be a public option or a publicly financed insurance company to compete. We know how that works. We saw it with flood insurance. When the Federal Government comes in and provides that alternative, that competition, you run the private insurance companies out of business because the Federal Government operates in the red, run the private businesses out, and then the Federal Government does as our Federal flood insurance program has, continue to run deeper and deeper into red ink.

The gentleman is correct.

And one of the great ironies in this is we have so many friends across the aisle that I know are very sincere when they believe with all their hearts they want to help what they call the little guy in America. I am sure they haven't read this bill as thoroughly as I have. But if they will trouble themselves to do so, they will see that under the bill that passed the House that we just had to rush through, if you make just above the poverty line as determined in the bill so you don't get free health insurance, but you don't make enough to buy the policy that the Federal Government mandates, you pay an extra percentage, I believe it is 2 percent on your income tax. We are talking about low middle class, some of those folks working two and three jobs just to keep food on the table.

And what is the majority going to do to them? Why, if you can't afford as good a plan as we order you to get, we're going to increase your income tax.

You can't afford insurance, and yet you're going to increase the income

tax? I just know that there are people that care deeply about the poor, those who are the working poor, doing what they can to struggle to get by. And yet they're going to hammer those very people. It's just ludicrous.

That's exactly right. And I know the President before us mentioned--well, you know, States require you to buy car insurance. The fact is, you buy insurance for the privilege, as the law has determined, to drive on the road. You don't have to drive just to live in America. If this bill passes, you will have to buy insurance just to live in America, or you will be fined; you will be hammered with the extra amount of money you will have to pay.

And let me finish one other thing about that insurance. There is no State in the United States of America that requires anyone to insure their car for damages to their own car or damages physically to themselves. The only requirement in any State is for insurance to cover against the damage you may do to someone else. So once again, this will be breaking brand-new ground, never done in history, not envisioned by the Constitution, not anywhere in the enumerated powers. You have to buy insurance on yourself just to live. So I yield to my friend.

If the Supreme Court takes a fair and literal look at the Constitution, they will know this was not an enumerated power reserved to the Federal Government. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, it's reserved to the States and the people.

I would like to point out one other thing. In this article that was already out, that came out so quickly after the President's speech today--it's from CNN. It can be found on the CNN Web site. But they point out that the President is proposing four different things. First of all, combating waste, fraud and abuse, and I will come back to that. But this article says: ``Obama is also considering a Republican- supported idea to appropriate $50 million to help States find alternative resolutions to medical malpractice disputes, including health costs.''

Well, when this information came out today during the President's speech, I was in a meeting with about 50 other Republican Members of Congress, and I couldn't believe that statement. He said this was a Republican idea, and he said, You know, we're embracing this Republican idea.

I want to know which one of my moronic Republican friends proposed such a ridiculous program as that. Nobody knew of any Republican who proposed that. I know the President wouldn't lie, but I'm sure there is a Republican somewhere in the country--maybe somebody that deems themselves half socialist, half Republican that proposed this. I can't find anybody who knows of a Member in Congress who has proposed this bill because we don't need to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services $50 million, $50 billion or one red dime to come up with a way to help States find alternative resolutions for medical malpractice disputes. That's already in the House bill, and what this provides is a fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to bribe States-- that's my word. Any State that has a cap on attorneys' fees or a cap on noneconomic damages, the Secretary is authorized to pay whatever sums are necessary, in her opinion, basically to reward a State that gets rid of any caps like that. That's what it boils down to.

No. Actually, pain and suffering is noneconomic damages. So attorneys' fees and things like pain and suffering, which is hard to put a figure on.

Well, the gentleman is accurate. It is the reverse, but the States are not going to be told, You have to get rid of your caps. We have already seen in Texas and California medical malpractice insurance rates come plummeting down.

I'm sure the gentleman then would agree there is no need for further study or to try to look for ways to have alternative resolutions to medical malpractice disputes. We've seen what works, and yet it's not going to force States to get rid of their caps on pain and suffering or attorneys' fees. It merely will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to generously reward any State that will get rid of their caps on damages and attorneys' fees.

Let me also mention this, that is only one of the proposals. Another is that health care exchange plans are what is being proposed in this supposedly cut-down bill. The health care exchange plan is the skeletal structure that allows the government to take over health care. So to say it's scaled back, you know, the snake is still in there. It's just going to have to go a little further to bite you. So this is not a good proposal. It's not a fair proposal.

And one other thing in the President's speech that I thought was very unfair, he says, On the other end of the spectrum, there are those--and this includes most Republicans in Congress. Now I prefer to speak for myself and not have somebody who profoundly disagrees with me tell me what I believe. But according to this, the President's speech, this includes most Republicans in Congress who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry.

The gentleman from Missouri and I have been on this floor many times, and in the last 5 years--particularly that I've been here, I know the gentleman's been here longer than I have--but repeatedly I know we have all said, I don't want the government between me and my doctor, and I want the insurance company restricted so they're not between me and my doctor. I don't want the insurance company to just run amok and run wild. I want us to get back to a doctor-patient relationship.

So when somebody speaks for us and in the next paragraph, the President says, I don't believe--as opposed to the crazy Republicans he mentioned in paragraph four--I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America, we've been saying that same thing for years. We agree on that. We don't want the government, we don't want insurance companies to have more control over our health than we do. It's time to put the patients back in charge.

Yeah, I called it a straw dog. A straw horse, I have heard that used as well.

Well, I would direct your attention to the Declaration of Health Care Independence. I know my friend Mr. Akin was there when we unveiled that declaration here in the Capitol when I think we've got 100 or more Members of Congress that have signed on to that. There are thousands and thousands of people across the country that have gone online and looked for a Declaration of Health Care Independence and found Web sites where they could sign on so that people could keep building the pressure.

So the truth is, I'm very gratified by some of the comments the President made here because, once again, he is embracing many of the things that we have had in this Declaration of Health Care Independence for some time. And the wonderful thing about these 10 points that we asked people to pledge who signed this is that the President has already said that he supports these things. I would just like to run through these 10 again.

Number one, protect the vital doctor-patient relationship. As the President should know, we have signed a pledge to that effect. That's what we want. So we're gratified to see him include it in his speech today, but we've been there. We were hoping we could get him to sign it before now to join with us to show that we are of one accord. I yield to my friend.

Well, and I heard the brilliant gentleman Frank Luntz at a focus group that analyzed the summit. Fifteen of the people in there had voted for President Obama, 15 of them had voted for John McCain, and it was interesting to hear some of the observations. I loved what one gentleman said. He didn't sound like a lawyer. He just sounded like a good commonsense person. He said, I just know that I have never been in a government office in line to get some service and seen a government employee come running out and say, Let me open another window. This line is too long. But he said, You know, we've seen that in private businesses because if you make somebody wait in the line too long, they'll go to the next business and not stay in your business. And his point was, he did not want those people who would not come around and open an extra window to be the ones that are in charge of his health care. I thought it was a beautiful point.

Well, we sure know about that, don't we.

Number two on the list of pledges is, Reject any addition to the crushing national debt heaped upon all Americans. And I know there's been--in the summit there are all these wonderful, glowing things that were said about the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. Everybody talks about the CBO scoring. Well, the CBO scoring says this. CBO scoring is sacrosanct, and I know people have paid great tribute to it. But I still remember last year when the President was not happy with CBO and called the Director over to the White House. There was a little woodshedding that apparently went on. We were not allowed to see that on C-SPAN. That would have been a real interesting conversation.

I sure would have tuned in to watch that. But of course if it had been on C-SPAN, the content of the conversation may have been a whole lot different. But we do know what has occurred in this Congress since last year. Now, it bugs me to no end to continue to hear, as I did--and I heard a friend from across the aisle say in just a ridiculous misrepresentation that the Republicans--again, they don't have any plans. They don't want any changes. That is absolutely ridiculous.

In our Republican Study Committee--the more conservative of the Republican Members of Congress is generally the way it's touted. There are Republicans that aren't conservative that aren't part of the RSC. But we have just a summary of 70 bills to help reform health care, not to give more control to the insurance companies, not to give more control to government, but to help reform health care so that it's patient controlled, and it's affordable, accessible, all of these things.

These are real bills. They have numbers on them. Let me just share with you, I had addressed I guess probably around November the fact that I had been trying to get my health care bill scored since August. I realize who is in the majority and with that comes lots of privilege. We sure know about that. It is hard to get a meeting room, the kind we used to have, and the kind we used to provide to the other side, just to have a meeting. But we do with what they allow us to have. But we can meet outside. That doesn't stop us from doing what we need to do.

But when it comes to CBO, I appreciated getting a call from the Director of CBO and I appreciated all of the glowing things that were said about the wonderful bipartisan gentleman he is, but the trouble is you have to look at what has been produced since that woodshedding at the White House. I really do believe he wants to be fair, and I really believe he thinks he is fair. But when it comes to health care bills, there have been 50 bills that have been formally scored that are Democrat-requested scores for their bills, and there have been six Republican bills formally scored. We have been able to get about one- tenth of the bills scored that the Democrats have. I have been trying since August. I made the request in writing of CBO back in August.

Then eventually I am told, well, you don't have the highest ranking Republican on the committee of jurisdiction requesting it. So I talked to Joe Barton, our highest ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee where Chairman Waxman rammed this thing through the committee. He sent a letter requesting that CBO score my bill. We waited awhile. Okay, do you have it in the works? Is it coming? Then we were told you don't have a request from the highest ranking Republican on the Joint Tax Committee. So I asked Dave Camp, a wonderful colleague. Dave said absolutely. He shoots a letter over to CBO and says score Gohmert's bill. That was back in September. And since then, on a spur of the moment, it could be a Democratic Senator or the Speaker or Chairman Waxman or somebody down here, man, they request one, they won't even have a full bill, and until just last week when they were given an 11-page summary and 19-page summary of the summary, thank God CBO finally did the appropriate thing and said that we can't score a summary and a summary of a summary. We don't have enough to work with to give you a score. Thank goodness they finally said that, because they have sure scored some stuff that wasn't appropriate to be scored.

And they have still not scored my bill. I would go ahead and point out that it is not just in health care that CBO has scored 50 Democratic bills and six Republican bills, which does not include mine, despite the efforts and the requests from the highest ranking Republicans. From the legislation that has formally been scored by CBO in the 111th Congress, there have been a total of 530 bills scored; 442 of those were Democratic bills and 88 were Republican bills.

So I appreciate very much the Director of CBO, Mr. Elmendorf. He sounds very sincere that he is doing everything that he can to be fair and objective. But you as the CBO Director, knowing that you really probably would rather not be woodshedded again at the White House and knowing that if you do not allow any of these wonderful Republican ideas to be scored, you can profoundly change the discussion on health care in America. You can

prevent some of the best ideas in America on health care that didn't just come from the people whose names are on the bill. The ideas on my health care bill, they came from brilliant people from around the country who have dealt with the issue. I appreciate Newt Gingrich sending friends of his over, some of the brightest minds on health care helping come up with some of the best proposals. I appreciated Newt's help and those he sent over. And now you get a score and see what you've got. I appreciated his direction. I can't get a score because the so-called fair and objective CBO wants to score 50 Democratic bills, six Republican bills, and one of those will not be mine. It could make a difference.

Now I realize, and I have waited a long time to get loud and vocal about the ignoring that Republicans have had from CBO because I know by making such a big deal about their lack of objectiveness in the number of Republican bills scored by CBO that I am inviting CBO to come in, and there are so many variables in any bill, Democrat or Republican, where they can take a presumption and that presumption can just run the cost right through the roof or run it right down through the floor, and that is all dependent upon the presumptions that they make. So I realize by coming forward there is a good chance that if one day a rather angry and upset CBO finally gets around to scoring my bill, they are probably going to fix my wagon. I understand that. I understand that the presumptions might not be what they should be in order to give the bill a proper scoring to my way of thinking, but I just felt like we had to say something to point out that the emperor doesn't have the beautiful set of clothes that everyone is going around saying he has. There is a lack of objectivity certainly in the bills that are being scored.

I appreciate that observation from my friend from Missouri. I would like to finish the declarations, the pledges that he and I have both made.

Number 3 is improve, rather than diminish, the quality of care that Americans enjoy.

Now, we have heard so many horror stories, terrible situations where someone did not get proper health care. And nobody wants to see that happen. But despite the problems, most of us here contend that we have the best health care available of anywhere in the world. It is right here in America. We saw a good example of that after years and years of hearing some friends say we need to have a health care system like Canada. We need to have a health care system like England. Well, you start hearing stories like the secretary in Tyler. She told me she immigrated from England. She said her mother had cancer in England. And what happens in that scenario, you are put on a list. You are put on a list to get a mammogram, to have surgery, a biopsy, to get radiation or chemo. Whatever you are going to get, you are put on a list. She said my mother died from cancer not because it was not curable, but because she lived in England.

She said I was found to have cancer. I didn't have to wait on some list to get it taken care of. She said I know I'm alive because I moved to America and didn't stay in England, which brings me to an article in February. This was from the National Post, ``Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States. Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media. The Premier's press secretary confirmed the report Monday evening. Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it will be paid for. Ms. Dunderdale will become acting Premier while Williams is away. He is expected to be away from 4 to 6 weeks. For many, the Premier's need for heart surgery comes as a surprise, especially in light of the fact that he is an avid hockey player and has shown no outward signs of illness as of late. On Friday, Mr. Williams met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and while speaking to reporters seemed healthy and in good spirits. A decision to leave Canada for the surgery, especially if it is available here, raises questions about the Premier's confidence in Newfoundland's health care system.''

So you have a Premier from Canada, his health care is important to him. He wants to keep being the Premier, and so he comes to the United States, or already has. As I understand it, he already has had the surgery here in the United States. We have the best health care that has ever been anywhere in the world in time or in geography. It's here.

Well, and it is so important that people understand that. To say that no one will be denied care or coverage is accurate to a point, but the fact is they're told in Canada and England, gee, we're not going to deny you treatment or care, we just have to put you on this list.

The gentleman brings up an important point about how much greater the

survivability rates are in the United States from diseases like cancer, but some want to try to compare apples and onions and say they both taste and smell alike when they're not at all the same. The fact is, when you hear some people say, well, in this country--England, Canada, you know, these other countries--they apparently have much better health care, even though they have government-run health care, because people have a longer average life span. Well, that's not exactly fair to put that on the health care in the country because it's sad, but true, when you make those comparisons, we have a much higher murder rate in America than they do in England or Canada. Those numbers go into the statistics.

Another involves what was explained by a health care expert that most countries do not include preemies, premature babies, the death of premature babies in their numbers. Well, we sure do here because every little baby born counts, premature or otherwise, unless it's one of those horrible tragedies where somebody aborts a baby and realizes they're alive and goes ahead and takes action to make sure they're killed or allowed to die on their own without proper care.

But number four on the pledges of the Declaration of Health Care Independence is, ``Be negotiated publicly, transparently, with genuine accountability and oversight and be free from political favoritism.'' Well, we saw an effort last Thursday at the summit to look like there was going to be a publicly, transparently negotiated health care bill, but the President announced beforehand, here's the bill we're going with and the summary of what we're going to do to that, and the summary of the summary. It had all been negotiated behind closed doors. You had a union representative, an AARP representative who said, oh, we've already worked this out in secret behind closed doors where nobody saw what was negotiated. Now we're going to bring the Republicans in and put a little window dressing on it.

Well, I don't know how many people or Members of Congress who are certified as mediators or have been through the certification process. It's pretty extensive to become an arbitrator, an international arbitrator, but I've been through those processes. And I can tell you that what happened last Thursday was not a negotiation or a mediation. It was structured to look like perhaps it was, with the President being the objective and all-caring mediator in the middle, but the trouble is the mediator kept cutting off one side when they said something that he didn't want to go there.

I'll tell you the most gratifying comment to me that just touched me deeply--and I was so proud of the President because it meant a lot to me to hear him realize this--when John McCain was speaking and the President pointed out that the President had finally realized, for the first time since November of 2008, that we're not campaigning anymore. That meant a lot to me that the President finally realized it was time for him to quit campaigning and actually work on the bills rather than the campaign. But then, after that I read this weekend that the White House is already preparing the next campaign for 2012, so apparently maybe it only lasted a day or two they weren't campaigning.

But number five, ``Treat private citizens at least as well as political officials.'' Well, Americans weren't fooled, went in--and this is just one volume; there are four volumes of this, the House bill, and I don't have time to pull out the other--but in there, to address America's concern that Congress was being treated more specially than rank-and-file citizens, they added a line in there that said, Under the Federal Insurance Exchange program, that Members of Congress may be covered under that if they want to be. Most people, no matter how low you read what was in the bill, they pick up on that pesky little word ``may.''

Over 3,000 ``shalls,'' but that was a big little ``may'' there.

That is absolutely correct.

And we just have a few minutes left, let me finish the 10 here.

Number six, ``Protect taxpayers from funding of abortion or abortion coverage.'' And one might wonder, well, is the President really on board with that? He has said it more than once. He said it standing right there at that podium right behind the gentleman from Missouri that no abortions would be funded by Federal tax dollars. Well, this is just getting him to agree, if he would, to what he said was the real case.

Number seven, ``Reject all new mandates on patients, employers, individuals or States.'' Now, the President, in his speech today, said we want to loosen all the controls on insurance. No, we want to loosen the controls on patients; that's what we want to loosen. Patients need more control, not the insurance companies and not the government.

And then eight, ``Prohibit expansion of taxpayer-funded health care to those unlawfully present in the United States.'' One of the things in my bill, if you're going to get a visa to come into this country, then you will do--and some countries already require it--then you have to show that you will have health care insurance coverage while you're in this country or you don't get a visa. And if your health care insurance expires while you're here, the visa does too--you've gotta go.

It also provides that since we've been told there are probably 1.5 billion people in the world that would love to emigrate to the United States--and that would destroy this country because we can't handle that many immigrants, even temporarily. We can't let people bankrupt this country, and therefore, another provision in my bill says, if you're illegally in this country and you present for health care--we believe in following the law, the courts have said it, we believe we've followed the law--we will provide you health care coverage even if you're illegally here that one time. And when you're well enough to travel, you're going to be deported. And if you're ever found back in this country again after you were here illegally and got free health care, it's a prison sentence. We can't let people bankrupt this country or there is no hope for those other 1.5 billion that want to at least come here at some point.

And then number nine, ``Guarantee equal protection under the law and the Constitution.''

Ten, ``Empower, rather than limit, an open and accessible marketplace of health care choice and opportunity.''

I know the Speaker knows that we begin our practice every day with prayer, and that it goes back to 1787--I believe it was June 28 at the Constitutional Convention. They had gone on for about 5 weeks and accomplished nothing. And some people say Ben

Franklin was a deist. He said these words: ``I have lived, sir, a long time. And the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?''

He went on, and Franklin said, ``We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' He said, ``I firmly believe this. And I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.'' And he went on to speak longer and then said, ``I, therefore, move henceforth we begin every day with prayer in this room.'' And from that day, June 28, 1787, to this day today that we are about to wrap up, we begin with prayer.

So America works when people let their elected representatives hear from them and let them know their mind. It works when we do what Ben Franklin suggested. That doesn't sound like a deist.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 4, 2010, at 10 a.m.

I appreciate my friend from Iowa, and I appreciate the points that he's been making.

You heard so much information today. It was a bit mind-boggling when you think about the number of people that were in the so-called summit today, and not only did they not have a copy of the bills that they were going to try to ram down America's throat, they seemed to be a little miffed when people like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan had data right at their fingertips to talk about, because it's very discomforting, I would imagine, if you get very indignant and say there's no money in any of these bills for abortion.

We heard the same thing right here on this floor just within feet of where my friend from Iowa is. We heard people say when we debated the House bill that there is no money in this bill for abortion. And I don't infer any evil intent or intent to deceive, but I know when people say that, since clearly they have no intent to deceive, they just hadn't read the bill before they came to the floor or went to the summit to try to convince people about.

And let's face it. It was called a summit today. Summit meaning height. It was the height of something. And we'll let the Speaker figure out for us what that height was, but it was the height of something, the summit of something.

But the President himself, I think he was within maybe 1 minute of taking 2 hours of all that time by himself. And I was certified as a mediator. I went through training and certification as an international arbitrator. I know something about coming together and mediating. And when you have one side sitting here and another side sitting over here and you say I am going to be fair-handed between the time, and you take individually more time beating up on the poor little guys over here who got even less time among that whole group. I am not sure how many there were on each side, but certainly over a dozen. And the one mediator takes 2 hours of the time just pushing his position, belittling the position of others. And any time he is corrected, since obviously he has no intent to deceive, so when he makes a mistake on exactly what the facts are, having somebody try to correct it and then having them interrupted, as my friend points out.

But like we had the discussion here on the floor, our friend Bart Stupak across the aisle had an amendment to take out the abortion provisions that would allow Federal funding for abortion. So gee, why in the world would you need an amendment to take out the abortion funding if there were no abortion funding in the bill? But, as I am sure my friend from Iowa knows, if you went to page 110 of the House bill, there is, and, of course, I have been through, I got tags all through this stuff as you can see, because I was trying to go through to see what was fact and what was fiction. But right here on page 110, subsection capital B, ``Abortions''--this is the topic--``Abortions for which public funding is allowed.'' And then it goes on and sets things out like that.

So when somebody comes to the floor and says there is no public funding for abortion in this bill at all, and we know also that the Senate refused to allow anything close to the Stupak amendment to cut out Federal funding, then we know that this same kind of language was in the bill that was going to survive and that they were going to work from. Because as I have heard my friend Mr. Stupak say, if that language is not taken out with a Stupak-type amendment, he can't vote for it, nor can maybe 40 of our friends across the aisle. But ``Abortions for which the public funding is allowed.'' Now, you know people did not read that on the floor. And our Speaker did not know that that language was there. I am sure she didn't prepare the bill.

And we also know that they didn't read some of the other provisions. Because I am sure that when people from the President on down say, ``If you like your health care you are going to get to keep it,'' I am sure they didn't intend to deceive anybody. I am sure they didn't. But it also tells me they hadn't read the bill that is before us. And this language, from the best I can tell, as my friend pointed out earlier, from the 11-page summary and then the 19-page summary of the summary. Both of those can be obtained, of course, from the White House Web site. You can either look at their 11-page summary or their 19-page summary of the summary. But I can't find that this language is removed in their summary or summary of the summary. So if you look at page 91 of the bill, it's entitled, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.''

This is the provision that will allow you to keep your coverage if you like it. So, being an old judge, chief justice, I kind of feel like I appreciate the representations, but as I used to tell the lawyers that argued before me, I appreciate your opinion, but I would really rather see the language for myself so I can read it and figure out what it really says.

So, you go look at the language itself, and voila, subsection A, ``Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage.'' And it describes that, ``The term grandfathered health insurance coverage means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1.'' That is the first date that the bill goes into effect. And then you have got two basic subparagraphs, number one, ``Limitation on new enrollment.'' And that says, and I will quote from that subsection, in order to keep your coverage if you like it, it says, ``The individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage.''

Now, you get what that means. It means the two different gentlemen I have had over the last few weeks that approached me back in my district, and one of them said, ``I am not concerned at all about what you're doing about health care because I was part of a union and a part of a big corporation. I retired. They got me a great health care plan, and I'm pleased with it. And I'm not worried about anybody else.'' The other, as it turned out, had been part of the same union, part of the same company and retired. He was concerned, and he said, ``Tell me more about how I can keep my policy.''

For people like that, all they would have to do is read this individual provision. So the gentleman who said, I'm really not worried, I said, ``Well, let me ask you, since this says here that you can't keep your coverage even if you like it if another individual is enrolled in such coverage, I have to ask, does anybody ever get added to your health care coverage from your union that you were part of and retired from and now have this great retired medical policy?'' And he says, ``Well, yeah, people retire all the time.'' Bad news. That is really bad news, because that means they get added to the policy. That means under ``Limitation on New Enrollment,'' number one, you're eliminated from keeping your coverage and you get bounced over onto the Federal insurance exchange program.

The second limitation might affect some other Americans who like their insurance and would like to keep it. It is this. The title is, ``Limitation on changes in terms or conditions.'' I am just reading from the bill. I'm not making this up. ``The issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost sharing.'' You get that? If the insurance company that has the policy you like, like these two gentlemen that retired from a major company after having their union negotiate a good policy, if any term or condition in their policy changes, if the benefits change at all, they add benefits, they take any benefits away, they say, well, you know

what, we found out this treatment was not safe so we're removing it from something we'll provide coverage for, you find out something is a brand new treatment that works, we add that, well, you've changed your benefits. And it says here you can't change your benefits if you're going to keep it. And if you change the copay, if you change the deductible, if you change the price of the policy, bad news. Under number two, you lose your policy and you get kicked over under the Federal insurance exchange program.

Now, I was intrigued today to hear one of our Democratic friends there at the White House summit give a wonderful example about the Federal insurance exchange program. He gave this example or something like this. I was listening to two or three things at the same time, I had hearings and meetings and things going on. But as I understood it, he said, ``Well, like when I want to go look for a flight or make travel arrangements, I will go onto Orbitz or Expedia or something like that. Well, that's all this Federal insurance program is. You know, it helps you find the best policy.''

Well, that is a wonderful point. I have been trying to find where the government owns Orbitz and Expedia. I can't find that they own those programs. The best I can determine, whether it's Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, whatever, I can't find the government owns any of those. I can't find that it is a Federal Orbitz, a Federal Expedia, Travelocity, whatever it is. I can't find that. Apparently, these are private companies. And apparently, from what he said, he likes what the private companies are doing.

Well, we want people in America to have choice. We want them to have the best choice. And I bet you if you asked Americans, and said, ``We're thinking about creating a travel agency, and the government will make all your travel arrangements for you. You just contact our government office. We're going to give you an option to all the other airlines, all the other travel agencies. We're just going to let the government do that because we feel like you are owed a public option when you travel.'' I wonder how many people would ever go to the Federal option, because it is not competitive.

The Federal Government never has to compete. It can run in the red. They don't care. Their salaries are not dependent on how well the company does.

And so I also want to point out that if you look here at section 501, the title of section 501 is ``Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage.'' ``Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage.'' And this place is supposed to care about the little guys, the guys that are out there working from dawn until dusk and some of them into the night to try to make enough money and then go to another job and moonlight to try to help the family, help the kids have what they need to get through school? And you're going to say, You know what? You make a little too much to be under the poverty line that will allow us to just give you free health insurance or health care, so under section 501, we're just going to have to tax you because you're not buying a Cadillac insurance policy.

But then again, we also know if you have a Cadillac insurance policy--which to me, Cadillacs are great cars. I used to have one before I ever came to Congress. I can't afford one now, but they were good cars. And, unfortunately, Cadillacs may not be what they used to be now that the government motors owns them or makes them.

But nonetheless, can you imagine the arrogance of a government that tells people, You're not buying as expensive of an insurance policy that I think you ought to have so I am going to tax you for it?

And in the summary, the President's plan points out--or the changes to the House and Senate bill says, in the summary, You know what? The medical device tax--what some of us referred to as the wheelchair tax. Of course, they initially stuck the medical device tax in there, and there was no threshold above which you had to be to pay an extra tax if you had the misfortune of needing a medical device. And so some began to refer to it as the tampon tax, because that meets the requirements of a medical device and it could be taxed. And the threshold of a hundred dollars is put in there.

So the President says, You know what? We may just create a whole new excise tax that everybody is going to have to pay. Sorry about that $250,000 exclusion I told you about at one time, but you're still going to have to pay more taxes. This is chock full of this stuff. That is why most Americans do not want this bill.

And if you look, there are all kinds of, still, pot sweeteners for Senators or Representatives that were reluctant. They changed some of those, but the pot sweeteners were in there to try to get their vote. They don't help all Americans. They sweeten the pot only for those votes that they think they need to get it passed. That is not right. That is not good for all Americans. That's not consistent with the equal protection that is promised to all Americans under the Constitution. You ought to have equal opportunity, and they don't have it.

I appreciate so much the time as my friend has yielded.