Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, to follow up on my friend from California, he is exactly right. There is no good reason for bringing the most dangerous terrorists and terrorist organizers to the most densely populated area in our country. Those of us who have logistically been involved in setting up trials know that every bailiff, every guard, every person involved in the justice system will be at risk, as will their families.

So we know that every President brings their own kinds of experience to the office. This President does not have justice experience. He doesn't have military experience. He doesn't have foreign affairs experience. He doesn't have domestic affairs experience. He voted ``present'' so often. But what he has is community organizing experience, and that will be invaluable in organizing the communities in New York to get them off the island after the terrorists move in during the trial.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to follow up on what my colleague from Texas was talking about, as the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Terrorism. And actually, I'm the ranking Republican member on the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee under the Judiciary, so we have some overlapping space there.

I know my friends, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), in their hearts are very much concerned about the safety and the well-being of this country. This is some serious stuff that's going on here when the President of the United States says that we need to bring at least some of the most feared terrorists in the world into the most densely populated area in America.

Now, having been a judge and a chief justice, having had to work out logistics for major trials that had a lot of publicity, nothing, nothing like this trial will be--I understand perhaps some of the ramifications that our fine President, with his experience in community organizing, may not quite understand. You can't bring terrorists--and the reason I say ``terrorists'' instead of ``alleged terrorists'' is because they've admitted it. You can't bring them to the most densely populated area in our country and not expect there to be terror to follow. I mean, I've tried felony cases, death penalty

cases, and I know there are other friends here in Congress that have also. Death threats arise in those types of cases. I had them. I didn't worry about them when it was me. I worried about them when it was my family, and that happens.

If you think about the consequences logistically of bringing admitted terrorists to the most densely populated area in America, New York City, where they've already struck at least twice. They tried to blow up the World Trade Center. It didn't work the first time. They did some damage, but nothing like the second time, and we're going to bring them right back. We know, thank God, that most Muslims are not jihadists like you find here with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

But when you read the six-page pleading that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy that they want to bring to New York for trial, said in his own pleading--and as I understand it, he did his own interpretation to English. He would make statements, and he would back them up by a reference and a quote in English from the Koran. He says, ``We ask to be near to God''--this Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who our President is inviting to come to New York City. ``We fight you and destroy you and terrorize you.'' Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said this in his pleading. And it wasn't just for him. It was on behalf of the other four defendants in this case.

But he says, ``The jihad in God's cause is a great duty in our religion. We have news for you. The news is you will be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and America will fall politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is near, and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will raise from the ruins, God willing. We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity as the lion emerges from his den. We shall pass over the blades of the sword into the gates of heaven. We ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our 19 martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise.'' Now, this is the guy we want to bring to New York.

Now, having logistically set up major cases for trial, I can tell you that you have jailers who are going to be responsible for these people in jail 24 hours a day. Those shifts change constantly. You will have to be very attentive not only to every single jailer, but to every single jailer's family, because these forces will look for weak links in the jailer and the jailer's family.

You will have bailiffs in the courts who will also be responsible for their safekeeping and security. The bailiffs and their families will have to be viewed as potential weak links to be utilized by the terrorists.

You'll have to think about the clerks who may be marshaling evidence. They and their families will have to worry about being targets.

You will have to think about potential jurors. Even though the names supposedly would be kept secret, you have to worry about them and their families.

And the judge, his name will not be kept secret. The judge and his family will be open targets the rest of their lives.

This is scary stuff from a President who knows how to community organize better than any President we've had, but I don't believe he knows the organizational efforts and the weaknesses that will be brought out.

I would yield to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I appreciate Mr. Shadegg making the point he does about why would we bring them to trial here in the United States, especially in New York City.

There are a lot of people that have never picked up the Constitution. We've got a little pocket Constitution here. But in article I it talks about the legislative powers. Over in section 8 it says that ``Congress shall have power to'' and you go down to ``constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.'' So President Bush made a mistake when he tried to create tribunals by the executive branch without getting Congress involved, and the Supreme Court rightfully struck that down and said you can't do that because article I, section 8 says this is something that Congress must do.

So then Congress did that. We had the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and this is the bill that's been slightly amended here this year, but it still says that, in section 948c, persons subject to military commissions: any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.

I am in the process of drafting this legislation right now that we will file this week that will say they must be tried in military commissions so we don't have an inexperienced President that doesn't realize the consequences of his actions.

I yield to my friend Mr. McCaul.

Pardon?

Some people don't want to call it that and it may be unilateral at this point, but there is a war using terror going on and we either fight it, or we will be overwhelmed by it. So we should be in it, yes.

Reclaiming my time, that is a very important point. Why does he get American citizens' rights? He has not been to America. He masterminded this. He was captured overseas in a foreign country. He's in Guantanamo right now, and the Constitution gives us in Congress the right to set up a military tribunal commission system, which we did.

But I want to come back and I'm going to keep injecting quotes from Khalid Shiekh Mohammed's own pleading himself. This is the guy who our President and Eric Holder, the Attorney General, want to bring to the most densely populated area in America. On page 4 he said, ``In God's book he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, the Mosque in Mecca and the holy city of Mecca even during sacred months.'' He said, ``In God's book,'' verse 9, Al-Tawbah, ``then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.'' This is the guy they want to yield American citizens' rights to who will not be able to----

Take me to New York.

Reclaiming my time briefly, the gentleman from Arizona asked how do they get around the law. Under section 948h of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, it says the ``military commissions under this chapter may be convened by the Secretary of Defense or by any officer or official of the United States designated by the Secretary for that purpose.'' So the Secretary of the Defense serves at the pleasure of the President. And that ``may'' word allows them not to convene, which brings them to court.

Yes.

The gentleman raises a very good question. The problem has been apparently that the Attorney General and the President don't want to charge them with what they've actually done, committed an act of war against this Nation. They want to charge them with a criminal violation and bring that to court. And if they do not charge them with the act of war that brought about the deaths of thousands of Americans, innocent Americans of all walks of life, if they don't want to charge them with the most heinous act of war against this country in our history, and charge them simply with a criminal violation, then they can bring them into the civilians courts.

Yes.

Well, that's another good question. But as far as a--I think there is a breach of a fiduciary duty when you're more concerned about your image among foreign countries than you are with the safety of individuals in New York City, it would seem to be a breach of the fiduciary duty to protect Americans.

Well, let me inject one more comment by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, because I'm going to keep on injecting his own words from his own pleading. We do not--this is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--we do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons, not yet; nevertheless, we fight you with the Almighty God. So if our act of jihad and our fighting with you cause fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is Him that has thrown fear into your hearts which resulted in your infidelity, paganism and your statement that God had a son and your trinity beliefs. That's for Christians. He also says, in God's book, He ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you. Oh I've already read that one. But he quotes from the Koran and says, soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbeliever for that they join companies with Allah for which he has sent no authority. Their place will be in the fire, and the evil is the home of the wrongdoers.

This is the guy we're going to bring to New York City. I yield to my friend.

Well, there is a key issue my friend raises. We treat them as criminals instead of as war terrorists and war criminals, because this won't just put New Yorkers at risk. It will not. It will put our soldiers at risk.

I mean, having tried so many criminal cases, I can tell you, you know, the best thing they do is roll in, they've got photographers, they've got people with the rubber gloves, they take-- the latex gloves--they take DNA evidence, they take fingerprints, they do all of this forensic analysis of the scene as my friends both know because they've used that evidence. Our soldiers cannot afford to bring out a forensic wagon in the middle of a battlefield to check for DNA, to check for fingerprints, to establish a chain of custody. And both of my friends know, if you don't have the chain of custody on a piece of evidence, it's not coming in. It's one of the reasons you don't charge war criminals as criminals in a civilian court because our soldiers should not be put in harm's way trying to gather that kind of forensic evidence.

And the gentleman makes a great point also, that he is not remorseful at all and, in fact, here he has been in prison, and this is filed this year, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says, and this is from his pleading that he himself prepared, so our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God, the Jews, the Christians and pagans. With God willing, we are terrorists to the bone. So many thanks to God. He went on to say, and he quotes the Arab poet that stated, we will terrorize you as long as we live, with swords, fire and airplanes.

It's unbelievable that you would bring a guy like this into the United States of America, put our soldiers at risk for the future, forcing them to try to gather forensic evidence. While people are shooting at them they're going to have to be worried about fingerprints and DNA evidence and gee, did they have witnesses, getting witnesses' names and addresses, locations so they can come back and perhaps bring them to court in New York some day to testify. We just don't do this. We can't afford to do this when people are at war.

Our President, this administration may not realize we're at war, but there are people at war with us, and we fail to respond at our own risk. This is scary stuff. And we have the Military Commission Act of 2006. We're working on language that will make it a requirement so that it is not an option for the President. I mentioned article 1, section 8 that gives power to Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. As a constitutional law professor mentioned this weekend to me as I was visiting with him about this issue. He said, you know, the Supreme Court is really the only court in the country that has a right to exist under the Constitution. Every other court, tribunal, commission, only has their existence at the will of Congress.

And article 3 and section 1 makes that clear: The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Going over, and it says, even the Supreme Court, it talks about all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which the State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In the other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law, in fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

We have an obligation in this Congress to rein in a President that is putting New York City, our soldiers, our military at risk, and we fail to do so at the risk of those we are elected to serve and protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I yield to my friend from Arizona.

If the gentleman would yield, that was a good bill he filed as well, and I appreciate the efforts in doing that.

And I will add that no prisoner of war, no enemy combatant has ever had in the whole history of the world and of mankind.

Nothing illustrates my friend's point better than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's own words on page 6 of his own pleadings where he says, ``We fight you and destroy you and terrorize you.'' He goes on to say, ``So we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America.'' Those are not words of a conspiracy to commit a crime. Those are admissions of participation and an act of war.

I want to direct attention to New York City where I am sure the leaders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that are still loose are already planning. Think about the logistics in New York City. Well, you could provide a safe environment like we have in Guantanamo if you closed all of the tunnels, if you closed all of the bridges, if you closed the area around the court and the area around where these terrorists, these enemy combatants, are being held. You close that area off. Failure to do any of those opens the easy possibility of one car or several cars being filled with explosives and driving near an area and blowing up.

Now, you also have to stop the subways that are running underneath all of these areas. There is no easy way. There is just no way to safeguard the people of New York City.

And my friend brings up the kidnapping of family members of participants in the case, but then there is the also the problem of those who are threatened to be kidnapped.

Now, when you have a big trial, normally it's not uncommon to have bomb threats called in. How many bomb threats do you think will be called in during the course of this trial?

All I can think of is you have an administration that is willing to bow both personally and as a Nation before other nations, bowing our security, our safety in ways that have never been done before.

There is no one who has ever granted an American citizen the kind of rights that are being afforded--and I am sure my friend has been to Guantanamo, as I have, and, in fact, as you get down there, they utilize brilliant legal minds in conjunction with wonderful engineering minds to create a terrific courtroom setting with security. There is a bulletproof glass between the gallery and where the trial will take place. There are areas where people can consult, defendants can consult with their attorneys and that are completely secure. They don't have to worry about privacy issues or being bugged because of the austerity of those facilities. It is very well thought out. It is very difficult to get there. You couldn't get an attack into that area. You couldn't have a terrorist activity take place that would threaten that facility, it was so well thought out.

Oh, and by the way, with regard to Guantanamo, my friend raised this. The prayer rugs, the arrows pointing which way to Mecca, the Korans that are provided in safekeeping--and as we know it was not a guard that tried to flush a Koran. That was not the case. But I asked our own Sam Johnson, who is in this body, who was a POW in Hanoi, if anybody provided him prayer books or prayer rugs or gave him a chance to pray.

Sam said there were no Bibles provided, but they did give them the chance to drop to their knees. They would put a rod across the floor where, when they were beat in the back and dropped to their knees, their knees would hit on the rod and then they were forced to stay with their knees on that rod. And he said, It may not sound like much, but over a period of hours, it becomes so excruciatingly painful that it's just unbearable and you hope and pray you will pass out. That is what has been afforded to Americans before. And we have seen what happened to Daniel Pearl.

They say, well, gee, they may treat ours more harshly if we don't bring them to a criminal trial in New York. How much more harshly do you treat somebody than cutting their heads off while they are gurgling and trying to beg for help? I don't think that is a problem.

We need to treat these people as the war criminals that they are, that they have admitted to be; otherwise, we put our Nation at great risk.

I appreciate so much my friend's wonderful points.

We understand the President just recently, because of the lack of understanding of our military history and the Nation's history, is perhaps apparently the first President ever to fail to understand and believe that President Truman did the right thing in dropping the two bombs that they did.

And so if you are an apologist for America, you believe that consistently we have done the wrong things, you have never been really proud of America before, you don't know that the Japanese had committed to dig in and had planned to withstand an assault even to the death of every single Japanese person on the island of Japan.

If you don't know these facts, if you don't know the fact that perhaps millions of lives were saved by dropping those two bombs because it brought the war to an end rather than forcing the Japanese, as their leaders intended to do, to die to the last person to repel an invasion, then you would be an apologist, if you simply don't know the facts. But this puts us further at risk. We just simply cannot bow to this.

The answer will be when the American people respond and let the White House know and let the Department of Justice know. Burn up the phone lines. Let them know by constant calls. I'm not sure I would email this White House since they have shown what they do with the list. But at least burn up the phone lines letting them know that the Commander in Chief needs to act as a Commander in Chief, and not an apologist in chief and that we should not put our soldiers at further risk by requiring them to gather forensic evidence, that we should not put the people of New York at further risk, and to leave them at Guantanamo to be tried there.

People who understand about war understand that in the whole history of mankind, the precedent is if you as a group declare war on another nation and you or your fellow warriors are captured, then you are held until such time as your fellow group will cease the war, whether it takes years, a 100-year war, a 7-year war, whatever it takes until you convince your people to quit being at war with us, then we hold you until the war is over, and then bring you to trial. That's what the precedent normally is. Whether it's 4 years as World War II, whatever the length of time, we hold you until your people are no longer at war with us as a Nation.

In this case, if you want to rush them, bring them to trial, fine. Do it with a military commission set up under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We are going to try to amend it so that the President has no choice, so that this President learns you do not have the choice to put New Yorkers at risk.

It breaks my heart to think about the families of those victims of 9/ 11 and what they will be subjected to. As a judge, I saw the faces of family members who struggled with the aspect of going through and reliving the trauma of the terrible crime that was committed against them. I saw those faces. I heard their great suffering. I'm afraid it's not going to be nearly what that will be collectively of a city the size of New York as they have to relive 9/11 on the island. They have to relive the possibility of further terrorist attacks.

Certainly terrorist attacks will be threatened during the course of the trial. And, of course, you would expect the defense attorneys to wait until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and these other terrorists have actually put their feet on American soil so they will be granted all the rights of an American citizen such as they were trying to kill as many of as they could. You wait until their feet are on American soil, and then you file your motion to change venue, then you file your motion for discovery, then you file your motions to examine experts and drag those things out as long as you can.

I ended up being asked to take over a civil trial in Texas that several judges had worked on prior to me. It was outside my district. But every judge had been recused for one reason or another. It had gone on for 11 years. I was asked to take it over, and it had been a logistical nightmare. And I was deemed to have done an amazing job in wrapping the case up in 2 years when both parties said when I got into it that they wouldn't bring a case to trial for perhaps 5 years.

But even working as quickly as I did and being as forceful as I was as the judge, not taking any extensions, not granting any type of continuances, forcing everything as quickly as could be done, and yet legally, it still took 2 years to wrap that thing up. And that was considered amazing.

With what is at stake here, the City of New York should suffer no more. No more. I went to New York shortly after 9/11. I saw the suffering. We should not do that to New Yorkers again. My goodness, they have suffered enough.

Having spent 4 years in the Army, being familiar with the military justice system, it isn't a slam dunk for anybody under the UCMJ. There are rights afforded individuals who are tried under the UCMJ. But that is the appropriate place to try people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who says ``We are terrorists to the bone. So many thanks to God.'' We can also be thankful to God that all Muslims, in fact, the vast majority, do not feel as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This man does not need to set foot on American soil. We need to have a President that starts acting like a Commander in Chief, not an apologist in chief, so that we can keep America as safe as we have been for the last 8 years and not as the terror will be reintroduced by the reintroduction of these masterminds in America.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is now expired, and I would conclude.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 17, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the requests over and over for unanimous consent to speak outside the rule. You see that we have a lineup of people over here to do the same thing on our side. The majority has the power to extend debate either by UC, as I understand it, and so my inquiry is:

Would it be in order to go back and forth, making unanimous consents on each side to speak outside the rule and so we can do this in an equitable way, which appears to be what the Speaker is trying to do?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the abuse of process in not allowing people to come to the people's House and just make statements over 18 percent takeover of the U.S. economy.

Madam Speaker, this is well intended. But you read section 501, and it basically says if you make too much to get free health care but you make too little to be able to buy it, you're going to get taxed under this bill. It means well. But it does damage.

For those who have paid into Medicare for 40 years or so, who expected to have it, they get cut hundreds of billions of dollars, but illegals are going to get covered. Come on now.

In the 1960s they meant well with the Great Society, but they offered a check for every child a woman could have out

of wedlock. Meaning well, wanting to help them, but they lured them into a rut with no way out, and they came to my court to be sentenced.

We hurt people when we do the wrong things. For the Declaration of Independence, our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor. This is a ``declaration of dependence'' that pledges Americans' lives, Americans' fortunes, and there is no honor in that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the wonderful work in the Stupak-Pitts amendment, addressing things like the money on page 110 for abortions.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rules is that there is required to be a copy of the bill, and since we have a manager's amendment, that is supposed to be somewhere. A number of us have been trying to find a copy of the manager's amendment since we are going to be voting on it. I hear some aahs, but isn't there supposed to be a copy, and if so, where would that copy be, since we are about to do this to the American people?

And I was just at the desk, Mr. Speaker, so parliamentary inquiry: If you could direct me to that place on the desk where the 200 pages are, it would be very helpful.

Parliamentary inquiry. Does the Speaker know where a copy, as the rule requires, is at the desk so that we can come up and see it at the desk as a requirement of the rules?

I take that as a ``no.''

I appreciate my friend from Utah for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor even for a Texan to pay tribute to the team from New York. Even as a kid growing up, you know, when I was 6 years old and was out on the playground, I was one of many who wanted to be Mickey Mantle, as we started playing, and Roger Maris. You know, the first bat I was ever given for Christmas had Bobby Richardson's name on it. Who could forget his incredible grand slam?

The New York Yankees have always been a franchise that has prided itself on excellence. Sure, they've had some bad years along the way, but nobody touches their record when it comes to the World Series. It probably goes without saying, but my friend from New York does look good in a New York Yankee's hat even though he's not allowed to wear it on the floor.

As I thought about the Yankee team--and you go back to, you know, thinking about an incredible player like Lou Gehrig, and he considered himself the luckiest man in the world. Those were great teams-- excellence on the field of play--and you think about having a closer in the bullpen that, when you get ahead, you bring in Rivera, and he's going to close out, and you're going to win, and he knows it.

You know, some of Reggie Jackson's cockiness sometimes bothered me, but you just knew that, come late in the season, no matter whether he'd had a slump or not, the guy was such an incredible baseball player that he was going to come through. You just knew because he knew.

As I've thought over the years of the incredible excellence of the New York Yankees--and this takes a real effort on my part to pay tribute to that kind of excellence in New York. They have been good so many times--not just good but great. Then it took me to thinking about all of the cities in America, including right here in Washington, D.C., which have not been so fortunate, you know, and where wins have come so difficultly. It's such a struggle. You lose week after week, and you think, Do you know what we need? Maybe we need a public option for baseball teams. Why is it fair that one city gets to have the corner on the market of all of the excellence in baseball? You know, shouldn't we spread that around the country? You know, not everybody has the money that New York City has to spend on baseball, so let's have more choice.

Let's give the government a few baseball teams. That way, people can choose to support the government baseball team when their town really can't afford to have one or they can choose to support the independent baseball teams like those in New York; but we'll probably need to put a cap on New York so that everybody will spend exactly the same amount of money. Nobody can spend more because, you know, there's a bigger TV market in New York, which gives them more revenue and which allows them to pay more for baseball players. Even with a cap, they're able to spend more money, and it just creates unfairness. We should avoid having one team be so excellent, maybe, by spreading it around and by letting people choose a government option baseball team. That's what was occurring to me.

I had a conversation this morning with a Democrat for whom I have tremendous respect, tremendous respect. We come at problems from different directions. He was sincerely saying that he believed that-- you know what?--we don't know enough as patients when a doctor tells us we need treatment or when we need an MRI or a test. We don't know enough to say, No, we don't, or, Maybe we shouldn't. We have to rely on the doctors, and the doctors are out to make a profit. You know, when times get tough, maybe they order more MRIs. Who are we to know? We need that help from the government to make our decisions.

As I thought about it, can you imagine a baseball team that the government runs? I mean, if the Nats played nothing but government-run baseball teams, they would have been in the World Series this year. I mean it's just that pronounced.

My Democratic friend, again, I have the utmost respect. He is truly a good man, but he just believes, in his heart, that people need that help from the government to make their decisions in the most personal areas of their lives. I don't believe that. I believe that you let people spend their own money, that you encourage tax incentives to have health savings accounts of people's own so it's their own money to be spent on health care and that you don't let the insurance companies make those decisions. I don't like them making decisions for me. I'm changing insurance companies at the end of this year, but we don't want the government, some of us, making those calls either. Let's allow the individuals to excel or to fail or to succeed on their own.

For those in our society who simply cannot afford to have health savings accounts, let's give those to them, and then let's provide the catastrophic insurance to cover things above that. That's in my health care bill. Then encourage everyone else who can to go in that direction, and let's not allow the government to make those decisions for us.

I saw socialized medicine in 1973 where the government makes those decisions for people. They don't get that choice, and they would have loved to have had that choice. If you've got your own health savings account and if the insurance company can't tell you what to do and if the government can't tell you what to do and if you're not sure that the doctor's telling you to get an MRI is the thing to do, then you go get a second opinion. You know, of course, that's where the joke comes in.

Somebody like me goes to a doctor, and he says, I think you're ugly.

I want a second opinion.

Well, you know, you're not a very good athlete either.

Anyway, we should be able to get second opinions, not because the government says that we should, not because the insurance companies say we shouldn't, but of our own choice. I believe in the ability and in the propriety of the individuals. That's what the Founders believed in.

The truth of the matter is, if I take my tongue out of my cheek, the New York Yankees excel as individuals and as a team. They are given that ability to excel. Thank God the New York Yankees are not a government option, because they showed us what incredible baseball really can be when people are allowed to reach their full potential. That's what I'd like to see all around, including in health care--not a government takeover, not a government telling us what to do and, thank God, not a government telling baseball teams whether to pull a squeeze play or whether they can or can't intentionally walk somebody. Let the baseball teams make their own decisions, and then you have excellence like we saw this year in the New York Yankees.

You know, I thought about a little limerick Sir Walter Scott wrote. He was around back during those years during and after the American Revolution. But he penned an interesting line that went, ``Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.'' I have heard that all my life, growing up as a kid. ``Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.''

Now, we had the President of the United States come into this Chamber right here and speak from that podium there, and he made the statement that there would be no abortion funded in the health care bill.

Apparently, there are other ways that this will be done or can be done. On page 110 of the health care bill we are supposed to vote on tomorrow, Subsection B is entitled ``Abortions for

which public funding is allowed: The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted.''

Now, we are hearing that tonight we are being held over here, which is fine. I don't mind going all weekend, going the rest of the week, the month, whatever. It is the job. It is fine by me. I think America is safer when we are not in session. But that is fine.

But we are hearing that supposedly we are in session because you have people browbeating Democratic Members who have taken the staunch position, and I think the wonderful position, a very moral position, that funds taken from the hands of law-abiding Americans who believe it is murder to kill a baby who is unborn should not go to fund abortion, and they are taking that wonderful, principled position. Now they are being told that they need to buy into this bill and do the right thing and vote for it.

We have others who have taken the position that if funding is not in this bill for abortion, they are not going to vote for it. So those who are trying to twist arms and get people to vote for this massive, terrible thing for America, this health care monstrosity, this power grab, as it is, are saying that they need to do the right thing for America and vote for this bill.

You have got some who believe what the President said at that podium right there, that there would be no funding in here for illegal aliens to have health insurance. And yet anybody that knows anything about the law knows that if there is no requirement to check the identity of someone who is being furnished free health insurance, then illegal aliens will be provided free health insurance.

So there are those friends across the aisle, Democrats who are principled, saying we need language in here so the President will be able to keep his word and he won't look like a liar. We need the language in there so illegal aliens will not be getting free health care, just like the President promised.

We have also been told by the President repeatedly, if you make less than $250,000, there will not be any tax of any kind levied on you. Yet we find Section 501, among many taxes in this bill that people are being forced and arms twisted to vote for, it is entitled ``tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.'' It turns out the provision basically says if you make too much money to be given free health insurance but you don't make enough to be able to afford to buy health insurance, then this Obama-Pelosi plan will tax you.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. And that is exactly what has happened. This monstrosity of a web has been woven, and now it is catching so many in it as we approach this monstrosity of a health care plan.

I thank my friend from Iowa.

I thought it was a point worth making since we heard on Thursday that AARP has now endorsed the plan. They came out at first and endorsed the Obama-Pelosi plan earlier this year, and then they lost so many members that AARP said, Well, we were basically endorsing a concept but not this particular bill, because people were mad about it. They came out on Thursday, and they put their stamp of approval on it.

It turns out, apparently, that AARP makes more money from selling insurance than they do from their membership dues. They apparently got a heck of a sweetheart deal that was cut with the administration. So, yeah, they're willing to put their stamp of approval on it because there's money in it for them, not for their members. Now, their members are going to get screwed around pretty big. They're going to have a $500 billion cut to Medicare. They're going to really get hurt badly, but the AARP people who run AARP are going to come out real good.

Then I noticed an article tonight that came out, which says: AMA members revolt over ObamaCare endorsement.

It turns out the association, or the AMA's board of trustees, failed to obtain delegate approval before endorsing this new Pelosi-Obama monstrosity. Let's see.

The president of the Florida Medical Association said: The delegates are pretty upset with the board of trustees right now, and they were submitting an emergency resolution to revoke that endorsement. The trouble is it probably won't come to a vote until Monday.

This article says: Rescinding the AMA endorsement would be a significant blow to ObamaCare at a critical point in the debate as reflected in the Democrats' reaction Thursday when they won endorsements from the AMA and AARP.

Well, we know why AARP endorsed.

Anyway, this says: AMA sources confirm a resolution that would effectively revoke the AMA's endorsement will be introduced during the delegates' conference at the association's general meeting in Houston.

The article also points out that the AMA board issued a similar endorsement back in July without delegate approval when it declared the AMA support for the earlier House version of the bill.

Then this article points out that, after that endorsement, 10,000 physicians logged onto Sermo.com. Ten thousand physicians. It's an online physicians' community. They logged on to voice their opinions. According to the Sermo Web site, of the doctors who responded, 94 percent do not support the bill, and 95 percent state that the AMA does not speak for them with its endorsement.

Isn't that something? The AARP is not speaking, really, for retired people. It's speaking for the executives at AARP who are going to do really well. I understand there are some waivers and some neat stuff for them in there. The AMA board, apparently, is not speaking for the medical doctors in America.

I would be glad to yield back.

Well, I can't name you one without a vested interest that supports this, but apparently just today the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, two different groups, announced their opposition to the House bill.

I know from personal experience, when a brain tumor was killing my mother and eventually took her life, these neurologists and neurosurgeons are the ones that knew the most about what was best for my mother in those last years that the tumor was taking her; a brain tumor. Wow. An incredibly brilliant bunch of people, those doctors that work on the brain.

They apparently made no bones about it. They were not happy, apparently, that the AMA came out and endorsed it. They made it a matter of the minds on which they have, since they work on the mind, that this is not a bill that's going to be good for America, it's going to devastate America. In fact, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons' president stated, ``Overall we believe this legislation will ultimately limit patient choice by putting the government between the doctor and the patient which will interfere with vital patient care decisions. As it stands, this House bill could amount to a complete government takeover of health care.''

I think my friend from Iowa just made a great point about why there needs to be this rush to bad judgment by the Speaker and by the administration, and it answers the question of our friend from New Jersey about why this rush to bad judgment. That is exactly if the Democrats go home for the weekend, just when they think they are about to get the last vote by adding something that will get their vote, by twisting the arm--I don't know if we are threatening losses of committees, I understand that's gone on around here in the recent past, but they are so close, they think, to getting this vote done, this travesty against the American people, if they go home, they are going to hear about what's going on.

What I can't help but come back to, when my friend, Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, asked about why rush? We have heard our President and all of those who seek to make excuses for him trying to make up his mind on what to do in Afghanistan say, He doesn't want to rush and make a bad decision. He wants to take his time.

Can you imagine the stress being heaped upon our soldiers who are either in harm's way in Afghanistan or get news, you are about to be sent into harm's way into Afghanistan, and you have a President that can't commit to whether he is going to give them what they need to win in Afghanistan?

I can't imagine anything more stressful and debilitating to hear, You are going to send me into harm's way? You've got a report that has been sitting on your desk since August that says if you don't give us the troops we need, we're going to lose this war. That means I am likely going to be killed while you are trying to make up your mind, and you are playing footsie with different groups and shows and doing all these fun things, and we are over here in harm's way; you can't make up your mind.

Okay. We will give him that he needs to take his time. We understand that he voted ``present'' probably more than anybody else in recent history in the Senate because he couldn't make up his mind down there, but how about giving us the same benefit of the huge doubt we have about his decision-making? Give it to the Congress.

Let us have time so a mistake, a huge mistake, is not made here. This is scary stuff, what is about to be heaped on us. Let us have the same amount of time that he has demanded.

Madam Speaker, an extraordinary thing happened here today, right out here down the hill. There were tens of thousands of people that came out on very short notice. They came out, and these were not the super wealthy. These weren't the Wall Street folks that if you will check, give four to one to Democrats over Republicans. These people didn't care about party at all. They were concerned about the America that they knew, an America where people were given a chance to succeed and a chance to fail. Because as people far more wise than I am have noted over the years, any government that can take away your chance to fail has taken away your chance to succeed.

So people came out on very short notice. These were working people. You could see these were not people of leisure. These were people who had jobs, but they felt like this was something so critical they had to come, make their voices heard. You see them around offices all over the Capitol Hill area.

It was immensely moving. And the way the people all said the pledge to the flag at the start and honored the prayer as it was said to start the proceedings. And I don't know that I have ever heard a group sing the National Anthem with such fervor as a group. It was immensely touching because the people were up here to let their voices be heard and to let people know that the government does not need to take over 18 percent of this country's economy. Haven't we messed up the car companies enough? Haven't we messed up the banks and the lenders and the housing market enough that we're not satisfied yet until we take over 18 percent of the world's economy and muck it up as well? Do we really have to meddle and take over that kind of thing?

The role of the government should be as a referee, not as a player. We shouldn't be out there taking over businesses. You want to speed up the demise of a country, then let the government start becoming the player. Now, the Soviet Union was brutal enough and totalitarian enough. They were able to make a socialist form of government last for 70 years, as a record. Extraordinary. But they were brutal and totalitarian enough, they could force it that far. We won't last that long, not when we've moved the government in charge of everything.

Under the bill--I haven't gotten through the full bill, but I have seen some things that are staggering. I do remember hearing a number of our Nation's leaders saying that there was no way Federal dollars would be paying for abortion, so let me just read straight from page 110, subsection B, titled, Abortions for Which Public Funding is Allowed. And I'm reading the quote from page 110: The services described in this subparagraph are

abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted.

Then it goes on and says, Based on the laws in effect of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved--yeah, right--no money there will be used for abortions, and then there it is in black and white.

We were told that if you liked your plan, you're going to get to keep it. And yet you could go over here--actually, that's an easy section to find. You're not going to be keeping it because it says here--and this is on page 91. This says, Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage. The number one limitation on keeping your insurance, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage. The second limitation is the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions. Good grief. You're going to add beneficiaries to every policy, you're going to change terms and conditions. It turns out that wasn't true either.

It is time to be true and faithful in this job to the American people and the job for which they sent us here. It is time to honor the Constitution.

I so much appreciate my friend, Mr. Smith from New Jersey. Earlier, he was talking about RU-486, and I couldn't help but reflect.

You know, we see people who are so concerned, properly, about our environment, about this wonderful garden

with which we've been blessed, and they fight against the use of chemicals that may affect this wonderful garden. They go to organic food stores so they can buy food that has never had chemicals used. They exercise. They go to health clubs, you know, to stay in good shape because they're so concerned about living clean, wholesome lives. Then they would think about taking a poison into their bodies, and they know at the time they take the poison that it's not good for them, for sure. They know that the very reason for taking it is to kill a life within.

How could we get to this point that such a caring society--one that cares about the environment, that cares so much about the world around us and about the people around us, one that will walk up and just chew out anybody who is smoking because of what it does to their bodies and because of what the secondhand smoke does to them, and one that will protect any others around them from someone's smoking--would take a poison into their own bodies for the very purpose of killing? I mean how does that make sense? How did we get to this point?

Then you realize, well, the reason you do that--take a poison to kill a child, a life within--is you're wanting to avoid the consequences of your conduct. That's the bottom line.

Then you come to realize, if you live in a society that goes on, say, 35 or 36 years where it becomes completely legal and acceptable to even poison or to kill or to decapitate for the sole purpose of avoiding the consequences of what we do, then you get to a point where people would want to avoid any tough decisions, any consequences. So you would get to the point where we are today where, perhaps, 40 percent or so would be willing to say, You know what? I'm willing to give up my freedoms just so I don't have to worry about consequences anymore. I'm going to give up my liberties, give up my freedoms so that my government will take care of all of my health care decisions from now on.

Isn't that wonderful. The government will make our health care decisions. They'll decide which things will be funded and which things will not, and I won't have to think about it anymore. I won't have to worry about it anymore. Just like when I got involved when I shouldn't have and the consequence was a life within me. I didn't have to worry about them because I could just kill that life with no consequences.

There is a woman named Abby Johnson who's self-described as ``extremely pro-choice,'' who said she knew it was time to quit in September when she watched an unborn child ``crumble'' as the baby was vacuumed, dismembered, and destroyed.

I appreciate my friend Chris Smith's bringing this to my attention. Abby Johnson is from Texas. She said, ``The clinic was pushing employees to strive for abortion quotas to boost profits.'' In former clinic director Abby Johnson's words, ``There are definitely client goals. We'd have a goal for every month for abortion clients.'' The article continued, ``The Bryan Texas Planned Parenthood clinic expanded access to abortion to increase earnings.'' They reported that Johnson said, `` `One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week.' ''

Yes, that's the ticket. Just give people poison and let them not only kill a life, but poison their own systems. People that wouldn't dream of smoking, it's okay, take this poison, can kill a life, and hurt yourself.

Well, World Net Daily did an article and they explained that ``RU-486 chemical abortions kill the lining of the uterus, cutting off oxygen and nutrients, resulting in the death of an unborn baby.''

Just like Chris Smith was talking about, you're starving a child.

Johnson said the chemical abortion cost the same as an early first- trimester abortion: between $505 and $695 for each procedure. And Johnson's words were ``Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations . . . they really wanted to increase the number of abortions so they could increase their income.''

Folks, it is wrong. And if you didn't believe abortion was going to get funds under this bill, then you ought to believe it when you read the bill. You go to the trouble to read the bill. And when the subtitle is, and this is Page 110, ``Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed'' and then read through there, gee, public funding must be allowed for abortion because it's in the bill if people will bother to read it.

But we come back to this: We're living in a time when we have got to come back to educating our children that conduct has consequences. And when you make them believe for 35 years that their conduct has no consequences, then you get to the point where we are today. You have a Republican administration running up the deficit and then you have a Democratic administration raising it exponentially because there are no consequences to our conduct. We can break the Nation but we won't go broke. We can, in the face of terrible economic conditions, run up the deficit even more and have no consequences because we know, going back to Roe versus Wade, we have learned in this country you don't have to have consequences to conduct.

We have got to come back to sanity while we have still got a country because we are in this country not because of what we did, what we deserve, but because people who came before us sacrificed, because they knew there were consequences to conduct. And we've got all we have today because of them. And the only way we will ever show we deserve what we have is if we can pass on a country with freedom and liberty, where, yes, there are consequences to conduct to those who come after us. And if we don't turn this thing around, they're not going to get the gift we were given.

I thank my friend from New Jersey for taking this hour and concentrating his time on such a critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a good friend across the aisle just a little bit ago say, Hey, where is the Republican bill? You don't have one scored by CBO? Well, I'm sure he didn't know, but some of us have bills, we have many bills. I've been trying for 2\1/2\ months to get a score from CBO, but I've been shut out. I haven't been able to get a score. And it is a bill that will give coverage to everyone; it will make sure seniors have complete coverage like they've never had before; it would be a savings for people.

But the Democrats have a bill. They cut a deal with pharmaceuticals, forcing people with HSA to buy prescriptions instead of over the counter, cut a deal with some insurance companies so they will have liability limitations, cut a deal where States will be bribed to eliminate caps on attorneys' fees and caps on damages, cut a deal with unions. It appears that there's not adequate requirements for identification, then it's a deal for illegals, and also for abortion.

This is not the bill we should be supporting. Let's get a new bill. We've got it.

Madam Speaker, we have heard people on both sides of the aisle talk about the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, as this unbiased entity, and it has a proud history of being unbiased. But the fact is that after the CBO director got called to the woodshed, to the White House, after CBO delivered a score that the White House did not like, it has become more of a lapdog than a watchdog.

One example is, we keep hearing people across the aisle. There were 1 minutes given over and over last week asking, Where is the Republican bill? We have a number of bills. I have had one filed since the end of July. We have specifically asked CBO to give us a score since August 19. They said show support from your party. Every leader who had an impact--they told us they could help get it scored--has requested it. We have been shut out. We have been shut out. Where is that unbiased body? It is sad they have disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, today Speaker Pelosi, with a lot of fanfare and locked doors, invitation only, which didn't include any Republicans, just as the input in this bill included no Republicans, this is the bill, 1,990 pages. I haven't had a chance to read it. They just got it out today. I have been trying to get through it.

One of the frustrating things we have is we have had hearings and hearings, hours and hours of hearings on the Democratic health bill, H.R. 3200, hour after hour. Think about how many people in America have spent hour after hour reading H.R. 3200.

They carefully examined it because this was the law that was proposed by the Democratic leadership. And they were concerned that this may be voted into law, and they need to know because this is going to be country changing.

So they spent thousands and thousands of hours all across America to review H.R. 3200. Some have gone to the trouble and spent hundreds or thousands of hours, when you consider all the people in America are reading these bills because they're scared, reading the Baucus bill, reading some of the other bills. And then it turns out those were all red herrings. The American public, all the Members of Congress were tricked into wasting their time, spending all those hours reviewing a bill that they knew they weren't going to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, you know, Thomas Jefferson laid out the rules that we follow. They're not Robert's Rules of Order. They're Thomas Jefferson's rules that get modified with each Congress. And that's what we're supposed to follow. And the procedure is well thought out. You have subcommittees that are supposed to have legislative hearings and bring in witnesses and consider all these different aspects, and after they've considered all this, someone starts working together with other people. You're supposed to have bipartisan support. We were told all year long we would have that. Yes, big joke there. So someone, though, is supposed to put together the bill and lots of people working together to get it done, and then you give everybody plenty of time to review the bill at the subcommittee level. And then you have a markup, it's called, in subcommittee, where some of those hearings are very long when they're done properly because they're open to any amendment by anyone on the subcommittee. Once it clears the subcommittee, if it gets voted out of the subcommittee, then it goes to the full committee. And anyone in the full committee can make amendments, as many as they want, and you stay as long as you have to get through all the amendments. That's the process. And then once the amendments are done and the committee votes it out, that is the bill that is supposed to come to the House floor. You bring the bill that was amended and agonized over.

Not in this Congress, oh, no. We're going to spend thousands and thousands of hours, and there's no telling how many of the trees in America got cut down to print out H.R. 3200 so that people could read it because this is going to be really country changing, as the President said. He's going to transform America. He didn't say to what, but he's going to transform America. And then it turns out after all those hearings, amendments, considerations, all that work, behind closed doors they were working on a bait-and-switch scheme. And today it played out. And now we're told by the Democratic leadership, well, we want to make sure you have 72 hours to review this bill.

Well, I'm telling you what. You mark my words. You mark my words. We've got 1,990 pages here, but by the time this bill is voted on, there will be hundreds of pages added, as we've seen over and over, in the wee hours of the morning, and people won't have time to read it. And just like the crap-and-trade bill, it will be up there and they won't even have the whole bill put together in time for us to read the whole bill before we vote on this transforming bill that's going to change and, I would submit humbly, end some lives in America. Not because people are going to be denied treatment but because they're going to be put on lists and be required to wait an inordinate amount of time because you can't cut $500 billion from Medicare and not expect to have some people not get treated.

Another thing you need to realize too, in this new bill, from what we've been able to quickly discern, this Pelosi bill, the 1,990 pages, reduces the size of affordable credits for patients to purchase insurance in the exchange, and instead it expands the eligibility for Medicare to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Well, our seniors are not as stupid as some people in this body think they are. They get it. You're going to cut Medicare $500 billion and you're going to expand coverage to people that have never been covered before, and we're supposed to feel good that we're going to get more coverage than ever? They're not stupid. They understand what's happening.

I have been joined by some of my colleagues here, and I would love to get their input because we've been scrambling to see what we are facing here with this bill.

I would love to yield to my friend Mr. Brady.

Thank you, Mr. Brady.

I think it's important to note that despite all the rhetoric about where are the Republican solutions, we have done everything in our power to try to offer good solutions, to try to sit down, and we have offered good solutions. And they are running into brick walls because the doors are locked. I know the President said, My door's always open. And I'm sure he wouldn't lie about that. But the gates aren't. We can't get to the open door. So it's deeply troubling that we could not submit anything.

As I used to say in deacons meetings, unless one person has a 100 percent lock on God's truth all the time, we really need to listen to each other. There are some Democrats with some good ideas. There are some Republicans with some good ideas. I think my health care proposal, patient-centered health care, patient-controlled health care, is a great idea. It's a good bill. It would score if CBO had not become a lapdog for the Democratic leadership.

I have been trying for 2\1/2\ months to get that bill scored, and I'm told over and over again they don't have time. They run in the Baucus bill that wasn't even a bill. It was a plan. I was told unless you've got a bill you filed, we will not, cannot do a score. Oh, no, not the Baucus bill. They run in and it's a plan, just an outline, and they give him a score on it. I mean how fair is that that this government has got gotten so slanted and people are getting hurt? It isn't right and it isn't fair. And something this important is going to be rushed through.

I heard my friend from North Carolina discussing this earlier today about the time that's been allotted and what's going on. I would like to yield to my friend Ms. Foxx.

I thank my friend from North Carolina, and I appreciate so much those insights. How ironic, here we are the last day, the last hour Congress is in session before the witching hour of Halloween, and as Congresswoman Foxx observed, we have a tax bill masquerading as a health care bill.

We have with us a great medical doctor here in Congress, and I want to point out something that affects doctors and ask him to comment, and on such other things as his insights that can be shared.

On page 140 of this new 1,990-page bill, I want to be fair, it is not 2,000 pages, it is 1,990 pages, but on page 140, it gives us some insights on what has been going on behind closed doors, the deal- making. I have heard around east Texas, and these are smart, wise people, we had some insurance companies come out and say they thought that the President's plan was going to be okay. We have had some pharmaceutical companies say it is going to be okay. And the American Medical Association, some of them said it was going to be okay. The AMA represents maybe 17 percent of the doctors, I think. So you wonder what kind of deals got cut behind closed doors.

On page 140 and 141, some insights, because those of us who have dealt with the law have seen medical malpractice cases, I have been a judge over many malpractice cases, and I have had many of them removed from my court, my district court to Federal court, because there are certain types of medical liability cases where when they could get themselves to be considered as falling under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, then, boom, they could yank it right out of State court into Federal court, and it was governed by ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. And the defense lawyers love to do that, defending the insurance companies, because if they can get a med-mal case to fall under ERISA, that meant that they got it removed to Federal court and they got it basically dismissed, that the plaintiff could get zero damages.

So here we go. How could insurance companies go along with this when it is basically ultimately going to bring an end to private insurance. That is clear. We saw that in H.R. 3200 despite the promises you would never lose your policy. Well, all it would take is if you added one beneficiary to the policy, or if you changed any term or condition. Well, they change every year. So at most, you could keep your policy 1 year and then you fall under the Federal situation.

But here on page 140, it says that in the case of health insurance coverage not offered through the health insurance exchange, and in the case of employment-based health plans, the requirements of this title do not supersede any requirements applicable under titles 22 and 27 of the Public Health Service Act, part 6 and 7 of subtitle B of title 1 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or State law, except insofar as such requirements prevent the application of a requirement of this division as determined by the commissioner.

Now most people will read through that, most laymen will read through that and say, I don't know what that means. It sounds innocuous enough. What it means is for that year or maybe a little more that somebody keeps their insurance policy, if the insurance companies are sued, and we had a terrible case that arose, a court room case, where the insurance company intentionally, and there was a smoking gun memo or letter, as I recall, where the insurance company lawyer was saying just hold it up, and as I recall the woman died. And phenomenal damages should have been coming forth from the insurance company, but instead they got it under ERISA in Federal court, and the case got zero damages.

So you think, wow, the insurance companies, that is the deal they made. So they can fall under ERISA, so even when they intentionally deny coverage to someone, they are protected by ERISA. They can deny coverage, they are protected, and they don't have to pay any damages if that ends up falling through, as ERISA has in the past. There is no reason not to believe that is the case.

So the insurance companies got their deals, but they made a terrible deal because they will not be able to stick around very long. Maybe they will be able to stay solvent for a while trying to compete against the Federal Government. They didn't last long in flood insurance.

But, boy, in 2006 we know that the biggest donors to the Democratic Party were the plaintiff trial lawyers. How in the world would they let that go through? Well, they cut a deal with them, apparently, because that is the next page. The insurance company got their deal. They are going to be protected. They can deny coverage. That is how egregious it has been before, deny coverage knowing it is going to potentially kill somebody to deny coverage, but the insurance company is protected. So they got their deal.

And then the next page, it says in the case of health insurance coverage offered through the health insurance exchange, that is the Federal program, the requirements of this title do not supersede any requirements, including requirements related to genetic information, nondiscrimination, mental health parity applicable under title 27 of the Public Health Service Act, or under State law, except insofar as such requirements prevent the application of requirement of this division as determined by the commissioner, and individual rights, remedies, under State laws shall apply.

So they cut the deal with the insurance company, made them feel really special. And until they go broke because they can't compete with the Federal plan, they may be protected from some of the most egregious insurance decisions. And then on the other hand, you have the trial lawyers, they know ultimately everybody is going to end up on the Federal program. And boy, do they have a deal because this means that they will be able to sue under State law under all of the plans. And that will end up being all of them under the Federal plan. That is the way that this looks to me.

One other thing, and it is a big bill, and this is at page 431 and 432. And this is amazing. This is another perk the trial lawyers got. Having been a lawyer and a judge, I have great respect for the judicial system. When someone has been wronged, rather than an eye for an eye, we allow them to go into court, sue and get damages. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a good system.

But here we are at page 1,431, and it says that the Secretary shall make an incentive payment in an amount determined by the Secretary, and I am sure that is Health and Human Services, to each State that has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section.

So under this bill, this is a new expense. New. New money to be spent by the Federal Government. Now will that be new money for health care for seniors? Oh, no, we are cutting $500 billion out of the seniors' Medicare. This is new money for any State that will follow the rule here on page 1,431 and 1,432, and here is the kicker at subsection 4, you get that incentive pay as determined by the Secretary if it meets these requirements, and that includes the contents of an alternative liability law that are required to get the incentive payments, or in accordance with this paragraph if the litigation alternatives contained in the law consist of certificate of merit, early offer, or both, and the law--and this is unbelievable--the law does not limit attorney's fees or impose caps on damages.

Now, think about the number of States that have been able to save hospitals and save doctors from going out of business so women could get gynecological care, places that hospitals had to close, they came in with tort reform and they were able to open back up and have doctors come in and help because they put caps on damages. And in some places, they put a cap on attorney's fees. We are going to spend Federal dollars bribing every State to get rid of any limit on damages so that the doctors can be tagged. We are going to protect the insurance companies for awhile. We are going to protect the plaintiff's bar permanently. And the doctors, once again, are going to really get hurt.

I know my friend from Louisiana has a reputation as having been a fantastic medical doctor and also knows what it is like to suffer and require treatment himself.

I yield however much time my friend needs and wishes to speak.

I thank you, Dr. Boustany, so much. You've provided so much insight since you've been in Congress. You've been a breath of fresh air. Especially for someone who has been on the other side of the insurance company, has been paid by the insurance company, has performed surgery saving lives and has been on the other side of the doctors providing the treatment. That provides an awful lot of wisdom, and I am so grateful that that wisdom from the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany, is being brought here to the House of Representatives.

I tell you, though--maybe it's part of my background, having been a judge for so many years--you look for evidence to help you know whether to believe or disbelieve what people are saying. As I have listened to our friends across the aisle--not all of them, but many of them that were pushing this bill, this 1,990-page bill--they knew it was going to be coming. We didn't know what was coming or when it was coming, but some of them knew. Knowing that, they have been coming down to this floor, coming to these microphones here and telling horror story after horror story about something that happened because of an insurance company, because of a doctor, because of bad health care problems. One thing after another, and never, ever having one good story to tell about a doctor who came in in the middle of the night. Like the doctor who saved my daughter's life one night when her temperature spiked to 108. Doctors all over this country, health care providers, nurses, most of them are so dedicated and do a great job, and yet we've not heard one good story about some success from the incredible health care in this country. Somebody point out one in the Record because it is something I didn't hear, and I will apologize. But I have not heard one. That's one of the pieces of evidence you can look to to know that something is being put over here on the American people because they're only getting one side of the story. Not one favorable story. That tells you they're trying to scare people.

And another thing you look at, they're saying they are going to pay for this with waste, fraud and abuse. Hundreds of billions of dollars that will be saved by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. You mark my words on this: If they could save even $100 billion on waste, fraud and abuse, it would have been done before now. Those who are not familiar with politics, who are not familiar with the history of our great country, just take a lesson here. Anytime anyone from either party--any party, Independent or whomever--is elected, comes into office and cuts out massive amounts of waste, fraud and abuse within the government system, they can be elected as many times for as many offices as they ever care to run for. Nobody is ever going to beat them because they will always be able to show, Look at the waste, fraud and abuse I eliminated. I did that because I cared. And they will win from now on. Well, we've got this being dangled out there. If you'll give us this trillion-dollar bill--trillion-plus, probably, because we've seen how slanted CBO has become in recent days--but if you will give us this trillion-dollar bill, we'll cut out hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse.

In my courtroom, you would see, through proof, that, if people know that fraud is going on and if they have a duty to do something about it, which elected officials would, and if they do nothing about it, then they're accomplices. Under the Law of Principles under Federal law, under 18 U.S.C. 2, if you aid, abet, encourage, induce, you're as guilty as the principal. So I don't believe they know where hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse are.

Let me also mention, you know, I filed a bill. This came after lots of consultation, including from my friends, from my doctor friends here in Congress and from people around. I've talked to all aspects, including to representatives of AARP, who came and talked to me. Of course, if my bill were to get passed, which would eliminate the need for any senior to ever buy supplemental insurance from AARP, it would financially hurt AARP, but it would be so good for their members. You know, they're not going to support that because that takes money out of their pocket.

A big part of my bill has to do with Health Savings Accounts, not the kind that are still around or that were around previously where you could put money aside pretax and where, if you didn't spend it by the end of the year, you lost it. Huh-uh. We're talking about, in my bill, having a Health Savings Account where you could put money in there pretax, and where it could roll over and grow. If you don't spend it all, it just rolls over and grows. It is yours. It is for health care alone. You have a debit card, and that let's you go into any doctor's office, any hospital, any pharmacy to buy what you need for health care. You use that debit card. Then you buy catastrophic care to cover over that.

Under my bill, employers would still get great tax benefits by buying insurance for their employees, and they would do so by buying catastrophic insurance to cover everything above their Health Savings Accounts, and then they'd put money in their Health Savings Accounts which would be owned by the individual but could only be used for health care. Then we've been told by the statisticians that, as for the kids in their twenties and thirties, as they get older and by the time they get to 65 and get ready to retire, the vast majority will have so much money that they're not going to need Federal Government help. They will not want the Federal Government intervening in their health care because they will be masters of themselves.

In the meantime, to move us to that, I want to be fair to seniors and not promise something that ends up hurting them, like this monstrosity. So, under this bill, we're better off. Since it costs $10,000, on average, for every household in America to pay for Medicare and Medicaid, we're better off just saying, Senior households, here's $3,500 in your Health Savings Account--cash--and we, the Federal Government, will buy you catastrophic insurance to cover everything above that. There's no more need for supplemental insurance. None of that. You're good to go. Then that starts getting the young people moving on the road to getting us out of this trap of Medicare.

Under the bill that we have right here, seniors will have a choice. If you want Medicare, stay on it, but when you see your neighbors are better covered and that they control their own destinies in health care, then you're going to want what they have, and then it will go that way very quickly.

I just want to point out one other thing really quickly--another deal that was cut--and I don't have time to pull it out right now and find it, but let me just point out that there was a deal that was cut for pharmaceuticals. The deal is that, under this monstrous Pelosi health care bill, people will no longer be able to buy over-the-counter medication with their Health Savings Accounts. They'll have to buy prescription drugs if they want to use those Health Savings Accounts that are funded by their employers or they'll have to use their own money that has built up over the years.

I've got a good example here. I have this in my pocket because, since I was 8 years old, I've suffered from hay fever. It's Chlor-Trimeton. Years and years ago, it was a prescription drug. Now I can buy it for $2.34--a big bottle of it. It's embarrassing, frankly, if you get up and your nose starts running. So I have one in my pocket, so that, if my nose starts running, I can take a Chlor-Trimeton so my nose isn't running and so I'm not sniffing here on the floor of the House. Yet, under this bill, I'll have to buy some expensive prescription antihistamine if I'm going to use my Health Savings Account.

That was a deal done, and now we begin to see a little bit. Now that this has come out of the closet, we're beginning to see the deals that were done, and that's one to help the pharmaceuticals.

I will yield to my friend.

I thank you for that observation.

That's exactly right. Some people will not be able to put money into the Health Savings Accounts, and those will be people we will be able to help as the Federal Government, and it will be cheaper to do that than to keep going bankrupt, which is where we're going. The projection is, by 2017-2018, we're going to bankrupt America with Medicare. Why wouldn't you try to do something to rein that in?

Let me just say I disagree with what the President has done. I've been in the Army. I've seen how commanders agonize, and I know General McChrystal was handpicked. He went over there. He gave the President his assessment. We really need at least 40,000 troops. It's very plain. You either put them in there or we're going to lose this war. Now, to me, that seems like that ought not to require more than 72 hours once you get that general's report. My goodness.

He says, The guy I handpicked, if we don't give him 40,000 troops quick, then we're going to lose the war.

That's very clear. He didn't take 72 hours. He is taking 60 days or more and counting. We've got 60,000, 70,000 troops or so over in Afghanistan who are waiting with bated breath to know what the President is going to do, and so are we.

This bill here will affect over 300 million people's lives and the lives of generations to come. We don't get the 60 days that the President has taken to make sure he gets it right. We're told we get 72 hours. You're not going to have time to find all the pitfalls that we've put in there. We're talking about the future of this country and about future generations. They are owed so much better, not because they've done anything to deserve it, not because we've done anything to deserve the blessings that have been heaped upon us, but because those who went before us made the sacrifice of life--of their fortunes, of their sacred honor--and that's why we reap the benefits we do. We owe it to future generations because of what the past generations have done for us, and that is what we have to do.

It breaks my heart to close out this congressional session. We're going home, and the President will make a lot of appearances, and so will Speaker Pelosi. The American people are the ones who are going to get hurt, and the children of the future will get hurt.

Oh, yeah. Congresswoman Capps is a very gracious, delightful Member of Congress, but the Capps amendment is in there, so this type of public option will be able to fund abortions. I mean this stuff is here. We need more than 72 hours. We need at least as much as the President is taking to review Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I know my time has run out, so I yield back at this time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, November 2, 2009, at 12:30 p.m., for morning-hour debate.

Thank you, and I appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Iowa, for yielding.

It is interesting when we talk about people who do not have coverage. As my friend from Iowa knows, earlier today, there were a great many 1- minute speeches given by Republicans and numerous 1-minute speeches given by Democrats.

A Democrat, whom I happen to like a great deal--he has always been most gracious to me--gave a 1-minute in which he pointed out that he had a friend who had called a doctor's office, seeking help with a medical problem.

The doctor's office asked the question, Do you have health insurance? He responded that he did not.

They said, Well, we will see you, but you'll need to bring $250 to pay for the visit and treatment, to which he responded, as I recall, Look, I'm not from this country. I don't have $250.

The doctor's office responded, Well, then you'll need to go to the emergency room.

So this individual is going to get health care, is going to have it provided. Obviously, somehow this person got into this country, and we don't know if he was legally here or illegally here. My friend across the aisle, my Democratic friend, said that's why we've got to have this universal health care bill. That's why we've got to pass this so that people like his friend could have health insurance and could be covered and would not have to go to the ER to get, apparently, his free care.

Well, that, I think, really points out a distinct difference between the approaches of the two parties. That is why, even though the Democrats have about 40 votes more than they need to pass any bill they want to, they still haven't got the votes they need, because our Democratic friends have indicated they can't support the bill that has been presented to them. Yet they take the opportunity to blame Republicans. We're not on board.

When you have someone come into this country--and let's give him the benefit of the doubt--who's here legally, he comes into this country and immediately demands free health care? I mean, that's incredible that somebody would have that kind of demand.

I know that, in China just recently, someone from the United States was

over there, and required a test. He was required to pay the money up front before he could get his testing. That goes on. China, for example, and Europe have been chastising the United States for squandering money--imagine that.

Here you have the Democratic position that somebody from another country who is visiting here, who is not a citizen, who is maybe here legally or illegally should be able to call up and demand that any doctor in the country he wants to see should be forced to see him even though he can't pay for it. It is amazing to me because, you know, I thought the Civil War was fought and won to show, among other things, that the Constitution did not allow people to become or to be made slaves. That's what would happen to the health care profession if you were to allow that kind of thing. By golly, the heavy-handed government is going to demand that you, Doctor--you who went through so many years of training and education and through all those sleepless nights while working as an intern and as a resident--will be required to provide free health care to someone who just comes into this country.

I was recently with a group that went over to the Middle East. We flew on a commercial airline--that is a long flight--and one of our congressional friends said that the lady next to him seemed well-to-do and that she had commented during the long flight that her husband worked with Hamas. Well, we recognize Hamas as being a terrorist organization, and here she's very cavalier about it. Well, he works for Hamas. During the course of the trip, she also volunteered that her son-in-law is with Hamas. Eventually, she said they were about to have their second grandchild, and with this grandchild, they were going to do as was done with the first: This daughter who was pregnant was going to fly over to the United States right before the baby was due, at the end of August, and have the baby. She pointed out that their family liked the option of having American citizens in their family. That's why they call them ``anchor babies.'' That would allow them--her husband with Hamas and her son-in-law with Hamas--to come into the United States as an excuse because they're raising an American citizen. So they get visas. They come over here. They have babies. As she pointed out to a fellow Member of Congress, not knowing who he was: Do you know what the best thing about it is? She'll fly home with her new grandbaby, and she won't have to pay a dime.

That's what's going on, and that's what our friend across the aisle was pointing out earlier today that he thinks should go on, that people should be able to come into this country and demand free health care from whomever. Most of the people I know on our side of the aisle take the position that this country is such a blessing and that, through this country, we've been the most philanthropic country in the history of the world. We've been able to help people around the world in times of crisis, and we're willing to do so in times of crisis; but if we take on the health care expense of the whole world as much as we're doing with pharmaceutical costs--and we seem to be subsidizing the pharmaceutical costs. If we do that with all of the health care costs for anybody who wants to just come in and get free health care--anybody who wants to at any time anybody wants to--we will bankrupt this Nation. This blessing that we've been handed will not be around to be passed on to our descendants.

You know, we've heard over and over--and I get so tired of hearing it because it's so untrue--that Republicans have no solutions. This is a bill that I've filed. It's a health care solution that, I think, trumps anything that I've heard any of the Democrats point out since we now know from Secretary Sebelius that the President, even though he keeps talking about ``my bill'' and ``my plan'' actually doesn't have any bill. He's talking about a set of principles. That was quite a revelation.

Anyway, in my bill, section 301 reads that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a consular officer defined in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a), may not issue or renew an immigrant visa to an alien unless the alien presents evidence, which may be in the form of an attestation, by a sponsoring employer or individual in the United States in whose household the alien intends to reside who will be responsible for providing the requisite coverage, that the alien and the alien's spouse and children who are accompanying or following to join the alien will be covered by a high-deductible health care plan as defined in section 223 and will be an account beneficiary of a health savings account under such section after the alien's admission to the United States as an immigrant for the duration of the alien's residence in the United States or be subject to removal.

In other words, the long and short of this is, under my bill, we welcome immigrants coming into this country. We welcome them. It has made this country strong. Yet, since it's a matter of national security that we not let non-American citizens bankrupt this country, then in the future, if they allow my bill to come to the floor for a vote, anyone wanting to come in will have to prove that they will be covered, that their health insurance needs will be covered. They'll be met before they get visas. If their health insurance expires before their visas do, they will be subject to removal from the country. That would help provide some sanity.

And I know my dear friend from Iowa was with me when we journeyed to the United Kingdom, over to England, to talk about immigration over there, and we had one conversation with some people with the British Government. And it was a bipartisan trip. There were people from both parties who were there. But a lady, she may have been on their type of Social Security, but she pointed out that before you can receive Social Security in the United Kingdom, they require, as I understood, that you be there paying into their system for at least 5 years before you could get a dime. And one of our friends from the other party was outraged: But that's discrimination based on national origin. You shouldn't be forcing them to pay in before they can receive. That doesn't seem fair. And she very calmly, and with that beautiful English accent, pointed out that, Well, in this country we happen to think it's fair that before you receive benefits from everyone else in the country, you help pay into the benefits pool.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

And I note interesting headlines in the news this evening. For example, one article says, the headline, ``Reid Targets Government Takeover of Health Insurance.'' Another says, ``Snowe,'' talking, I'm sure, about Senator Snowe, ``Rejects Reid Public Option Plan.'' Another says, ``Democratic Senator Lincoln, Public Option a Nonstarter.'' Another headline, ``Lieberman Backs GOP Filibuster of the Public Option.'' Another Gallup poll: ``Conservatives Outnumber Moderates.''

So these can't be too good of news. This article from Monday says that in an appearance at a Florida senior center during the day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested a new name for the same approach to ease the opposition, talking about the public option. She suggested, ``the consumer option.'' Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a friend from across the aisle, Democrat from Florida, appearing at Pelosi's side, used the term ``competitive option.''

The article says, ``Critics say that by any name, the approach amounts to a government takeover of the insurance industry,'' with which I would tend to agree. This article quotes Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican to vote with Democrats on health care so far this year, issued a statement saying she was ``deeply disappointed'' in the approach the Democratic leader had chosen.

But, anyway, it can't be too good of news for ramming this bill down America's throat and forcing us to take care of people who come into this country and immediately demand free health care.

We just have a difference of opinion across the aisle as to how that should be handled, but I also do know that we have friends across the aisle that simply do not believe that that will restore our country's ability to avoid bankruptcy by ensuring and providing health care to the world.