I would like to start with a match-up of two wily veterans, Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner. These two teams have known each other quite some time on the floor of this House. They have had wins and losses, and there is no love…
I would like to start with a match-up of two wily veterans, Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner. These two teams have known each other quite some time on the floor of this House. They have had wins and losses, and there is no love lost. Yet despite a spirited effort by the tanned and resilient minority leader, he eventually did succumb to the tenaciousness and, yet some argue, some questionable tactics of Speaker Pelosi, who advances to the next round.
If the gentleman will yield, I just want to add, and this is to watch in later rounds as Speaker Pelosi advances, is one thing that the opponent might want to watch for is she only dribbles on the left. So this could come in handy in later rounds for those of a more conservative bent.
Secondly, I think it is important that we point out to those people watching at home is that in many States wagering is illegal and is certainly frowned upon by most denominations.
Clearly the Cornhusker kickback had a tremendous inside game, and I think overwhelmingly just the sheer determination and tenacity of the American people did defeat the Cornhusker kickback. Although there was a case of a potentially flagrant foul involved, but that would have been the Cornhusker kickback itself.
I would have to agree that in this contest, the Blue Dogs came up lame.
I say we go to the contest of Mr. Rahm Emanuel versus former Member Massa.
Well, I would have to say that in a pointed confrontation, Mr. Emanuel had a finger roll at the end of the game and sent Mr. Massa to the showers. I think this one has to go to Rahm.
I would have to concur in this.
Clearly, around the office cooler, between Mr. Waxman and taxes there was no clear-cut crowd favorite, although most of the early money was on taxes because, as we all know, there is nothing more certain than death and taxes. Well, as so happens in the early rounds of the tournament, the underdog does prevail. And with this expert knowledge of the X's and O's of the insider Washington game and with the help of a deep bench of 16,500 new IRS agents, I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Waxman came out smoking in the field and buried taxes.
When we come to Congress, as the gentleman knows, we are empowered by our constituents' trust to engage in voting, to make decisions on their behalf and to engage in the great debates. And with that comes a constitutionally prescribed duty to the institution to respect its traditions, its customs and its rules because we are not allowed to leave this institution of the House or of the Senate or of the Congress as a whole in a worse condition than when we entered it.
And what we are seeing today with the process that is being used and abused to try to jam this bill on the American people is undermining the American people's faith not only in their Representatives, but in their representative institutions. So this is clearly a case where the process not only has institutional ramifications but, I would argue as well, has potentially constitutional ramifications. As we have heard described in the press, the ``deem as passed'' rule, which some refer to as the Slaughter House rule, could constitute a clear violation of article 1 section 7. And this is where I commence going back to the beginning.
Article 1 section 7 says we have to pass legislation. We are empowered to vote. We are supposed to be accountable. It is fundamental to our representative democracy that we come here and we vote upon the substantive issues that are before us before they are foisted upon the American people as law. To say something is ``deem and passed,'' to use a procedural device to avoid your responsibility to discharge the duties entrusted to you, I believe, is a violation of the Constitution. It will do damage to the institution just as these Cornhusker kickbacks, just as these Louisiana purchases, just as the Florida Gator deal, just as everything else we are seeing to get this bill passed, despite the American people, is doing damage to this institution.
I think like the health care system we all know, our time may be shorter than we think. I like to point out that if we were to change the ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' and ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' educational movie to update it to the shady backroom dealings and such as we have seen here, it would no longer be suitable content for children.
With that, let us move into the bracket our colleague Representative and my fellow Michigander, the great State of Michigan, Mr. Bart Stupak versus the National Abortion Rights Action League. It is my view that despite attacking offensively, NARAL could not withstand the tenacious zoned defense of innocent human life that was put forward by my colleague, Mr. Stupak, and given his height advantage, morally he prevailed.
As we recall, at the time of the Stupak amendment on the House bill, there were some voices from within the Republican Party that said to engage in mischief and to potentially defeat the bill, the pro-life Republicans should vote against the Stupak amendment. And my argument and the argument of so many of us at the time was no. Our commitment to the sanctity and dignity of the unborn will not be changed; it will not be utilized in a way that is diminished simply to engage in a parliamentary attempt to defeat a bill. We will stand for principle.
What we are seeing now is a converse, but because the Senate bill has come back without the language to defend innocent human life that Representative Stupak has not only put into the House bill but has defended in principle here against the Senate bill, you're going to see a lot of Democrats on the other side of the aisle who are going to have to face a crisis of conscience: Will you continue despite what may be your perceived political self-interest to continue to defend the unborn in this process and from the taxpayer funding of abortion? And sadly we have seen so many not.
I appreciate the gentleman's observation. We only have one game left, and that is Medicare, which, of course, Mr. Speaker, you know that both the House and the Senate bill call for a reduction of about one-half trillion dollars from the Medicare program.
Now, the people who have drafted the legislation indicate that that is going to be achieved by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. I have been here long enough to remember MediScare from 1996, when in our budget we proposed to slow the rate of growth of Medicare spending to twice the rate of inflation. I think it was projected to save about half of this one-half trillion dollars
that is now proposed to be cut out in this legislation.
When I ran for reelection in 1996, there were ads on television that said, I hated your grandmother and your grandmother and my own grandmother, and I didn't want them to have medical care. But now, without a whimper, all of a sudden taking twice that amount--and, again, just like I don't understand how you lower cost by putting 30 more million people into the program, how you make Medicare better by taking one-half trillion dollars out.
And then the matchup is the mighty team from PhRMA. And again, Mr. Speaker, you know that PhRMA basically is the trade association for the pharmaceutical industry here on Capitol Hill. There was a pretty well- documented deal made down at the White House that I will ask one of my colleagues to talk about.
But if I had to say that there were two groups that have been demonized during the discussion of this, it is health care insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. They are continually talked about on this floor as being anti-American, villains, gougers, greedy. But we are going to talk about this matchup, and I would just say that when we are talking about one of the sweetheart deals that remains in the bill and will not be removed by fixers, as of this writing, is what I will call the New Jersey needle exchange.
Apparently, there was some difficulty in getting the vote of one of the Senators from New Jersey, and so under this bill there is $1 billion that is going to go to the drug companies, the PhRMA representatives, who apparently are doing everything they can to mess around with people's health care and so forth and so on.
But maybe, Mr. Tiberi, let me turn to you and maybe you could talk a little bit about the discussion that took place between one of our former colleagues, the soon-to-be former head of PhRMA, and the administration relative to their participation in this program.
We would have to. Actually, PhRMA has run up the score in this game. You see one-half trillion dollars cut from senior citizens' Medicare. You see a backroom sweetheart deal for PhRMA. PhRMA, unfortunately, wins out with this administration and Democratic Congress over senior citizens who need their Medicare.
I would also like to point out here the malleable morality of the Democrat Party and the administration when, in 2007, we knew and were told repeatedly by their candidates, even one for the highest office in the land, of how intrinsically evil pharmaceutical companies were. And yet, come 2009, when they are putting together their health care bill, their government takeover of your wellness, all of a sudden PhRMA wasn't so bad when they got on board and took a sweetheart deal to support this.
Now, this, to me, and I am loathe to say it, tragically, how quickly the President's campaign mantra of ``Hope and Change'' has degenerated into hate and tax. When we now see it is the health insurance companies that are evil, well, PhRMA has been redeemed. The only difference is the health insurance companies have not taken a sweetheart backroom deal; PhRMA did. I find that morality objectionable. At least be consistent.
If the gentleman would yield, I would like to say that the residents of Michigan understand that in our constitutional free Republic the equality of treatment under the law cannot be vitiated. And while this provision may have some benefit to us in the short run, there is nothing more damaging to the people of Michigan or America than a Federal Government that treats people disparately and does so to put together a deal that, in the long run, will take over their health care.
I would like to pick between the People and Senator Reid. And I think, clearly, with the talk of reconciliation, we are going to have to go with Senator Reid defeating the people; although, I understand that the people are demanding a rematch in November, where the score is expected to be settled.
If the gentleman will yield, you might want to be careful. Someone may be taping the game.
If the gentleman will yield, they both know each other's games very well, in many ways. They are former teammates. Very well acquainted. But I think just for sheer athletic grace and the ability to pirouette, I would have to give it to the Chief of Staff for the President.
I believe that was settled in the instance of Senator Reid.
Not yet.
Merry Christmas.
If the gentleman will yield, let's go to the bracket between Speaker Pelosi and our colleague, Representative Bart Stupak. While Bart Stupak does has a distinct reach advantage--
Let me rephrase, if I may. While Bart may have a height advantage, the Speaker has the reach advantage on this one.
I think that her offense of fast-breaking arms and legs, combined with our colleague Bart Stupak's shortage of Blue Dog manpower on the bench--I think we're
going to have to give this to the Speaker.
I would agree. I would say that while Mr. Waxman played a better game, he spent too much time on the left side of the court. Whereas, Senator Reid was capable of smothering people with everything under the sun. You cannot argue with the final score. It is the Senate bill here.
I would have to agree with that, but I would just like to point out that the Speaker and Mr. Emanuel, former teammates, know each other's games very well. This was a very, very close contest, but in the end, I believe that Mr. Emanuel was given a technical foul for profane language and the Speaker hit the free throw.
I will yield to the gentleman.
Looking at the chart, I'd like to first note that on the road to the championship game between Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, I see no Republicans to obstruct their path. And I think that that points out the way this process has gone. What we are witnessing now is not an argument between Republicans and Democrats; we're watching an argument amongst Democrats. Because we will have a bipartisan vote on this health care bill--and it will be in opposition. This is heartening to know that as this process goes forward, the bipartisan support for true health care reform in this country between Republicans and Democratic centrists will continue because we are supported by the American people.
Fundamentally, in this debate I think the American people have reached a conclusion: that their government is not working for them. It is not listening to them. It is defying their expressed wishes. This is transcendent of the simple monetary considerations, which are great and which are dire for us. But this is really about your liberty and your relationship to your government. We do not work for government. Government works for the people. And under this health care bill, I would urge everyone to think of something. No matter how imperfect the health care system is right now, it cannot be fixed by the most broken entity in the world today, which is the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, no one in my district believes that the people who run Washington the way they do are going to do anything to improve your health care.
So, in conclusion, I would just like to point out one thing. Do not give this government this type of control over your life.