[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H460-H465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   TELEVISE HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Owens). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker for the recognition.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of another workday on 
Capitol Hill. It's a snowy night outside in the Nation's Capitol, and 
we are having a conversation, you and I, here on the House floor. I 
will do most of the talking, but I know that my remarks must be 
addressed to the Chair, and they certainly are addressed to the Chair. 
But, Mr. Speaker, both you and I know that people can listen in on our 
conversation because the cameras of C-SPAN are here in the Chamber. And 
although they don't record the faces and presence of everyone else on 
both sides of the aisle who are here in the Chamber, they do record 
what we say here and they do record the conversation that goes on 
between us. And people across the country, whether it be late at night, 
as it is here on the east coast, or very early in the evening, as it is 
in the Mountain States or on the west coast, the people across the 
country have an opportunity to tune in and see what is happening on the 
floor of the people's House in their Nation's Capital.
  It almost seems like it's always been that way, but it hasn't. March 
19, 1979--if I've done my research correctly--was the first broadcast 
of the proceedings from the floor of the House. So not quite 30 years 
ago. In fact, we'll have the 30-year anniversary here in just a few 
weeks--I suspect that will be a big celebration--of the C-SPAN cameras 
coming to cover the activities of the House. Yes, the other body as 
well. They cover the high-level meetings that go on here on Capitol 
Hill and, of course, meetings that are of importance in State 
legislatures across the country.
  It is the public service access channel for all things government, 
and people of my generation, people who came of age during the Nixon 
administration and the Watergate years and the excesses of some of 
those activities, people of my generation equate C-SPAN with good 
governance. C-SPAN is sort of like the rainbow after the rainstorm 
which is the promise that we will never have to go through that again 
because C-SPAN is there, and C-SPAN will keep the lights on and C-SPAN 
will keep the sunshine in on the legislative process. And if what we 
are doing here in the people's House is not to the people's liking, 
they shall be aware of it, and they shall be able to register their 
displeasure and change some of our faces if they can't change our 
hearts, such as the ideal in the American democracy.
  So C-SPAN is important. C-SPAN is equivalent with good governance. C-
SPAN is equivalent with open governance. And that's why many of us, 
toward the end of the year, all of the things that were happening in 
the end of December and the beginning of January, were somewhat taken 
aback by the fact that Brian Lamb, the chief executive officer of C-
SPAN, wrote a letter to the White House and said, Hey, let's bring the 
cameras in to all of these health care negotiations that are going on 
in the Capitol and the White

[[Page H461]]

House and points in between. We'll provide the camera. You provide the 
discussion, and the American people can tune in, if they like, and see 
if they like what they see or not.
  Of course, Mr. Lamb's invitation was declined by both the White House 
and the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate, and the 
cameras stayed off and the deals were done in the dark. And as a 
consequence, arguably, that's one of the reasons why the health care 
bill still languishes out there somewhere. No one really is sure what 
its health or state is today. I submit to you that despite the effects 
of the election in Massachusetts 2 weeks ago, one of the main drivers 
of the lack of success was the lack of transparency during that debate 
and during that process.
  It has been a year full of twists and turns as we watched how health 
care policy has risen and fallen and risen again and then fallen again 
through the course of many twists and turns this past year, but C-SPAN 
should have been there. In fact, we were promised that C-SPAN would be 
there. We weren't promised it once or twice or three times. We were 
promised over and over again. And we weren't promised that C-SPAN would 
be there by myself, Mr. Speaker, or yourself, Mr. Speaker. We were 
promised that C-SPAN would be in the room by the person who was then 
the candidate for the highest elected office in the land, who 
ultimately won that office and was inaugurated just a little over a 
year ago.

                              {time}  2100

  Barack Obama repeatedly said that he would invite the C-SPAN cameras 
into the room. We'll have everyone around a big table; everyone will 
get to see who's on whose side, and who's on the side of the special 
interests, and who's on the side of the people because C-SPAN will be 
there and C-SPAN will report dispassionately, and people will be able 
to make up their own minds; the ultimate we report, you decide 
scenario.
  But it didn't happen that way. And as a consequence, whether you 
liked the health care legislation or didn't like the health care 
legislation, as a consequence, right now its fate is very, very much in 
limbo. What I wanted to do tonight was just sort of take us through 
some of the history that has gone on over this past year. I want to 
talk specifically about something that happened in my committee, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, last week on Wednesday when we heard 
a resolution of inquiry in the committee, and what the result of that 
hearing was and what people can actually look to next. But interwoven 
through this entire process is the fact that the whole reason we're 
having this discussion is because the lights were turned off, the 
cameras were silenced, and the American people could not participate, 
if they so chose, in at least the observation of the debate, in the 
observation of the deal-making, if you will, that occurred in both the 
House and the Senate and the White House as this bill worked its way 
through the process.
  So it's no wonder that people were skeptical of this bill last 
summer. We heard about that in the summer town halls. It's no wonder 
that people were skeptical of this bill as it came through the House in 
November and then the Senate on Christmas Eve. And then it's no wonder 
that people continued to be skeptical as it worked its way ultimately 
to the nondecision that it has achieved today.
  So here we have the quote from Brian Lamb on December 30, 2009, the 
CEO of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb sent a letter to the Congressional leadership 
requesting that they ``open all important negotiations, including any 
conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage because the 
legislation will affect the lives of every single American.'' I would 
just add to that every single American for the next three generations 
at least, so far-reaching was the scope of the legislation to be 
considered.
  You know, several years ago, long before I was in any way active in 
politics, the first President Bush, the 41st President of the United 
States, made a very famous statement that perhaps he came to regret 
afterwards, which was ``Read my lips--no new taxes.'' That one quote 
was replayed over and over and over again, and it may have at least 
participated in the event that cost the 41st president a second term in 
office. And we had the situation this past 2 years, while the current 
President was running where he repeatedly made statements about his 
commitment to transparency, about a new way of governing and, oh, by 
the way, we'll throw the doors and the window open, invite the C-SPAN 
cameras in, and you'll all be able to see what has transpired.
  Going back on that word, I submit, will be every bit as significant 
as the ``read my lips'' quote has become. Well, let's go through a few 
of these, because, again, they are important. While the theme, 
thematically they're all very similar, there are differences. The first 
one, this is January 2008 at the Democratic debate: ``Not negotiating 
behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting 
those negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people can see what the 
choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American 
people in this process.''
  January 2008 the Democratic Debate. The second quotation on this 
board: ``These negotiations will be on C-SPAN. The public will be a 
part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being 
made.''
  January 2008, to an editorial board at the San Francisco Chronicle. 
Important concepts that the then-presidential candidate and now 
President discussed at those venues, important concepts that he 
emphasized multiple times during the runup to the Presidential 
election. The third quote in our series: ``I respect what the Clintons 
tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one 
really big mistake, and that is, they took all their people and all 
their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work 
on this process publicly. It will be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming 
over the Net.''
  November 14, 2008, in a Google question-and-answer. This was after 
the actual presidential election had been won by Mr. Obama that this 
quote was made. You know, I stop for an observation here for a moment. 
I was a physician in practice in 1993 and 1994 when the Clintons very 
famously took everyone, the 500 folks, behind closed doors and made all 
these deals. It was kind of a little bit of levity around the doctors' 
lounge that one day a doctor would be elected President of the United 
States and bring 500 other doctors into a room and lock them all 
together and help figure out a way that we could figure out how much to 
pay lawyers in the future. Okay. That's my attempt at humor for the 
night, Mr. Speaker.
  Number 4: ``We'll have these negotiations televised on C-SPAN so the 
people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents 
and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the 
insurance companies.'' August 8, 2008, Virginia town hall. This is 
probably one, of all of the series of quotes, this is one of the most 
important, because, again, the presidential candidate was saying, Look, 
these negotiations are going to be going on. You're going to have 
people around the table, Members of Congress, Senators, and yes, the 
special interests will be there. In this case, the drug companies were 
mentioned. In this case the insurance companies were mentioned. There 
are other special interest groups of course, unions that negotiate 
through competitive bidding, negotiate insurance contracts, they might 
have an interest. An organization like the American Association of 
Retired Persons that sells insurance, they might have an interest 
around the table. But nevertheless, the special interests will be there 
because, after all, this is Washington, D.C., and the very least that 
the people should ask is that the cameras be turned on and the event be 
filmed so that they can watch it as it occurs, or they can refer back 
to it after the fact.
  Many of these videos, of course, would have been captured in 
perpetuity up on YouTube or some other site, so the American people 
would have had an ability to look in there and gauge for themselves, 
hey, is my Senator really arguing more on behalf of the people of his 
or her State, or are they arguing more on behalf of the drug company or 
the insurance company, medical device company or the labor union? We 
didn't get that chance. It was promised to us but not delivered.

[[Page H462]]

  Number 5: ``But here's the thing. We're going to do all these 
negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people will be able to 
watch these negotiations.'' March 1, 2008, State of Ohio, town hall.
  Number 6: ``We will have a public process for forming this plan. It 
will be televised on C-SPAN. I can't guarantee you that it will be 
exciting, so that not everyone will be watching, but it will be 
transparent and it will be accountable to the American people.'' 
November 27, 2007, Keene Sentinel.
  Number 7. ``I want the negotiations to take place on C-SPAN.'' May 
2008, Saint Petersburg Times. Number 8, ``I'll put forward my plan. But 
what I'll say is, `look, if you've got better ideas, I'm happy to 
listen to them.' But all this will have to be done on C-SPAN in front 
of the public.'' April 25, 2008, Indiana town hall.
  What a great idea, Mr. President. I simply could not agree with you 
more. Well, Mr. Speaker, as it turns out, in May of last year, May the 
11th, the White House engaged in a major stakeholder meeting at the 
beginning of this health reform debate. The attendees at the White 
House in May were the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the 
American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, the 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American 
Hospital Association, the Service Employees International Union.
  Now, each of these individuals was there because, number one, they 
provide a service to the American people and they have a very strong 
interest in the process going forward of what was going to happen with 
health care reform. So I don't fault any of these groups to responding 
to the call of the White House. Hey, will you come down here and talk 
to us as we get this process started because we don't want to leave 
anyone not included in this process? So I think the fact that these six 
groups showed up down at the White House, I think that's fine. That's 
what the process was supposed to be about.
  Now, when these participants emerged from the meeting, an agreement 
was announced that they would work to decrease by 1\1/2\ percentage 
points the annual health care spending growth rate, saving upwards of 
$2 trillion over 10 years time. Since then, however, questions, 
questions that I have submitted, questions that others have submitted 
to the White House as to how this would be accomplished have simply 
been left unanswered. Now, whatever happened down at the White House 
last May, call them gentlemen's agreements, backroom negotiations, 
power politics, we know that they happened. What none of us in this 
Chamber and none of us in the other body know is what was agreed to.
  Along the way I started to read and hear reports in the press about 
amendments being rejected in committee hearings and markups because of 
previously agreed-to deals. Now, in the other body, in the Senate 
Finance Committee's markup, Senator Nelson of Florida introduced an 
amendment regarding drug prices. The Senator from Delaware, Senator 
Carper, arguing against that amendment said, whether you like PHARMA or 
not, we have a deal. We have a deal. Well, what deal? Who has a deal? 
Where was the deal made, and who was it made with?
  Secondly, in the same markup, the Finance Committee endorsed a 
commission to slow Medicare spending. Now, I may not agree with the 
principle involved in that, but nevertheless, let's have this debate 
out in the open and let it win or lose on its merits. But in that same 
markup in the Senate Finance Committee they endorsed a commission to 
slow Medicare spending. However, the bill had to be rescored and 
rewritten, had to go back to the Congressional Budget Office to be 
rescored to exclude hospitals because, according to Congress Daily, 
``They already negotiated a cost cutting agreement'' with the White 
House. They had a deal. They had a deal. What deal? Who made that deal? 
Under whose authority was that deal made?
  Number three, Senators Dorgan and McCain introduced a floor amendment 
on prescription drug reimportation in December. According to The Hill, 
the newspaper that's circulated up here in the Capitol, according to 
The Hill, ``A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical 
industry held up and helped defeat the amendment.'' What deal? With 
who? On whose authority was this deal made?
  Now, for all my affection for Senator McCain, I disagree with him 
about reimportation. But at the same time, let's have that debate. 
Let's have that debate and let the people hear what the pros and cons 
are, but let's not carve up a deal behind closed doors. Even though my 
position arguably won in that exchange, that doesn't make me feel any 
better that some sort of deal was cut behind closed doors that then 
would not allow reimportation to be included or considered in the 
process.

                              {time}  2115

  You know, Mr. Speaker, here's the frustration: as a Member of 
Congress, the press seems to know more about these deals and this 
process than any of us in this body or the other body. The press knows 
more about this stuff than we do.
  Now, while the Democratic majority was pushing a health reform bill 
through both Chambers of Congress and Members were expected to debate 
these far-reaching bills, real deals were being cut down at the White 
House; the real deals were being cut down in the Speaker's Office or 
over in the Majority leader's office with ample input by the White 
House, I might add, but all behind closed doors and very few people in 
the room besides a few select Members of the House and the Senate, of 
course the people from the White House, and of course respective staff 
members from those offices.
  But none of us who were elected by the good and long-suffering people 
of the United States of America to represent their interests, none of 
us were included in that process on either side. Now, I am saying this 
as a Republican. We're in the minority, okay. We lost the last 
election. Maybe we don't deserve a place at the table. What about 
Democrats? Shouldn't Democrats who are freshman, Democrats who've been 
here four terms, five terms, six terms, shouldn't they have at least 
had the opportunity to at least know what was going on in those deals? 
To the best any of us know, no one from either side, outside of a few 
select persons in Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate 
and, of course, the White House, was involved in those negotiations. 
They clearly circumvented the legislative process.
  Now, the six groups that I referenced early in this discussion, while 
they were meeting at the White House, our very own Committee on Energy 
and Commerce was marking up what at the time was called H.R. 3200, 
which was the original health care bill that went through all three 
committees of jurisdiction of the House, a 1,000-page bill--eventually 
got a lot longer--but that's another story. But while we were marking 
this up, this stuff was going on down at the White House. And, again, 
none of us knew any of these things. Now, how could our markup be 
viewed with any integrity if the real deals were being cut at the White 
House?
  And I'll tell you something else--and this is particularly, 
particularly troubling--we worked on that bill in good faith in 
committee. I submitted I can't tell you how many amendments. I prepared 
50. A lot of my amendments were shot down along party lines. Okay. I 
get that. That's what the deal about partisan makeup is. That's why 
elections are important; and, Mr. Speaker, I hope people pay attention 
to that fact. But I did get some amendments accepted, and some of those 
passed on a voice vote where there was no objection from the other 
side. One in particular was a bill that took part of the old concept of 
the patient bill of rights from the late 1990s that if we're going to 
have a public option insurance company, patients should at least have 
the opportunity for internal and external review, that is, a review 
board from inside the insurance company or one outside the insurance 
company if they don't like the insurance that was rendered.
  So internal and external review was a very important part of what was 
called the patient bill of rights legislation. Charlie Norwood from 
Georgia was the principle author of that concept along with John 
Dingell, who's the chairman emeritus on our committee. So clearly a 
bipartisan concept from within our committee.

[[Page H463]]

  I submitted an amendment that essentially embodied that internal/
external review. It was accepted by the committee unanimously, and Mr. 
Dingell and I both spoke on it in committee; and it seemed like, well, 
if nothing else, Charlie Norwood's legacy will be enclosed in this bill 
in the form of this amendment.
  But we passed that bill out of committee July 31. We went home for 
our summer recess. We had the summer town halls, which are another 
story in and of themselves. Many people may remember some of the 
excitement around the country when the health care town halls were 
going on this summer.
  Then we come back in September and most of October, and then we get a 
new copy of the bill. It's now 2,000 pages. You say, Well, it's 2,000 
pages because you added a lot of amendments in committee. Yeah. But 
guess what? Those amendments were gone. They were struck from the bill. 
No discussion. No one called me up and said, Hey, look, we're sorry, 
but your amendment that you offered in committee kind of conflicts with 
some other language in the bill. We've got to take it out. No 
discussion as to what occurred, and that amendment was removed from the 
bill.
  It wasn't just me. It wasn't just a personal vendetta against a 
relatively junior Member from Texas. Mr. Walden, who was going to be on 
the floor with me tonight, the ranking member of the Oversight and 
Investigation Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, had amendments that 
he had gotten into the bill, and those were struck at the same time.
  And you have to ask yourself, well, why would you strike an amendment 
on internal and external review? What's the purpose? Who gains there? 
Was there one of those six groups that were down at the White House 
that didn't like the language of the bill so they had to get it out of 
there? Was there someone in the Speaker's Office or on the Speaker's 
staff who had a problem with the fact that that language was in there? 
Was it perhaps a lingering bit of friction between the former chairman 
of the committee and the Speaker? No one knows. No one knows. All we're 
left with is to fantasize about what might have caused that relatively 
innocuous amendment to be stricken from the bill.
  And, again, it wasn't just my amendment. Other amendments were 
stricken from the bill, too, and was it because they crossed some line 
with some of the deals that were struck with this group of six 
individuals down at the White House?
  Now, after months of frustration with working on the bill through 
committee and getting amendments in and having them struck, I sent a 
letter to the White House in September, and I requested full disclosure 
on what had happened to those meetings in May and June specifically to 
the following areas: number one, a list of all agreements entered into 
in writing or in principle between any and all individuals associated 
with the White House and any and all individuals, groups, associations, 
companies, or entities who are stakeholders in health care reform, as 
well as the nature, sum, and substance of the agreements;
  Number two, the name of any and all individuals associated with the 
White House who participated in the decision-making process during 
these negotiations and the names and dates and titles of meetings that 
they participated in regarding negotiations with the aforementioned 
entities in question one.
  So we wanted to know who was there, and we wanted to know who 
negotiated and what the parameters of those negotiations were, who in 
the White House had the clout and the authority to make these 
decisions. And then, number three, the names of any and all 
individuals, groups, associations, companies, or entities who requested 
a meeting with the White House regarding health care reform who were 
denied a meeting.
  So who were the stakeholders who were locked out of these meetings? 
We had six different groups around the table. Were there others who 
wished to be there but were not permitted? A question we just simply 
don't know how to answer today.

  I noted in my letter that during the Democratic Presidential primary 
debate on January 31, 2008, then-candidate Obama said, That's what I 
will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed 
doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those 
negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the 
choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American 
people in this process.
  You know what? I agree with the President on that part. Part of what 
we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And can 
there be any doubt, can there be any doubt after watching the anxiety 
in this country in August during the summer town halls, after watching 
the gubernatorial returns in November from New Jersey and Virginia and 
then 2 weeks ago the senatorial returns from Massachusetts, can there 
be any doubt that they failed to enlist the American people in this 
process? And as a consequence--as a consequence--the American people 
have said and keep saying, No, we don't want this health care bill, we 
don't trust a 1,000-page bill; we really don't trust 2,000-page bills 
and 2,700-page bills are simply out of the question. You guys never 
read it. You wouldn't take this insurance yourself. No way are we going 
to accept this.
  And underneath it all, underlying it all, is the fact the American 
people were shut out of the room during the process after they had been 
promised a front row aisle seat to the proceedings on C-SPAN.
  Now, I sent that letter to the White House in September. Answering my 
letter would have been the chance for the White House to prove to 
America that this actually was a good campaign promise and they really 
were for transparency down at the White House. But I didn't get an 
answer.
  December 16, this House was rapidly trying to wrap up its business. 
The Weather Channel was forecasting a huge snowstorm for that weekend. 
Everyone in the House of Representatives wanted to get out of here and 
to their district. They didn't want to be stuck here in the Nation's 
Capital for a single day more than necessary, and we were rapidly 
wrapping up our work. And on December 16 I introduced a resolution, 
House Resolution 983 for people who want to look it up at home, because 
it became clear to me that the White House had no intention of 
responding to my letter.
  So I introduced a bill, which was a resolution of inquiry. Now, this 
is a kind of an uncommon parliamentary tool. It's very powerful, puts 
some power in the hands of the minority. We don't have many tools at 
our disposal, and we don't have many tools that are very powerful at 
our disposal; but, realistically, it was my only option. I had no place 
else to go because I had been rebuffed by the White House. I have been 
rebuffed in committee. I had been rebuffed at the Speaker's Office. I 
had nowhere else to go.
  So to me it was very important that the details of any negotiations 
made behind closed doors be made public for all to see: the integrity 
of the process, literally the integrity of the whole health care reform 
effort, the whole health care reform legislation, the integrity of the 
whole health care reform legislation is in fact at stake.
  Now, President Obama promised to run the most transparent and open 
administration in history, and his decision to sequester, his decision 
to hoard, his decision to hide and obscure this information from 
Congress and from the American people is, in fact, indefensible.
  Now, on January 26, just last week, I got a letter from the White 
House. Months of silence. One hundred and nineteen days from the date I 
sent the letter, right before the scheduled markup of the resolution of 
inquiry, I did receive a response from the White House.
  The response was 81 pages long. There was a two-page letter from 
White House counsel Robert Bauer. There were 24 pages printed off the 
White House Web site. Anybody can go get them and print them off. There 
is a thank-you letter from the President to the six groups for showing 
up on May 11. There were some blog posts. There were some speech 
transcripts. There were some press releases, 18 pages of already-
published White House visitor logs, 36 pages of print-offs from Web 
sites of the six groups.
  And you know, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to finally get a response 
from the White House; but, you know, it

[[Page H464]]

wasn't what we were asking for in the resolution of inquiry, and it's 
not the information needed to really understand the scope of the 
agreements that were entered into.
  Now think about it for a minute. You have these six very powerful 
groups--AdvaMed, Pharma, AMA, American Hospital Association, the 
Service Employee International Union, all meeting down at the White 
House coming up with proposals to shave $2 trillion off health care 
expenses over the next 10 years, $2 trillion and no one wrote anything 
down. Mr. Speaker, do you believe that? That strains credulity, doesn't 
it? $2 trillion in deals and just a handshake? Just a wink and a nod? 
Nothing written down? Nothing on paper?
  Mr. Speaker, would you make a deal like that? More importantly, Mr. 
Speaker, would you ask the American people to accept a deal like that?
  Well, last week on January 27, the Energy and Commerce Committee 
began a markup of the resolution of inquiry. The markup was called not 
by me but by the chairman of the committee because the committee had to 
consider this resolution, and if the committee failed to consider the 
resolution, it automatically becomes a privileged resolution: we come 
directly to floor of the House.

                              {time}  2130

  Now, in fact, Henry Waxman, Chairman Waxman, the chairman of my 
committee, a Democrat on the other side of most issues, agreed to help. 
He agreed to help me. He agreed to help Ranking Member Barton get 
answers, not to everything I submitted, but to six out of the ten 
things that I had requested. It certainly showed a step in the right 
direction. In fact, it was the first positive step toward getting any 
sort of sunlight onto these deals that were cut down at the White 
House.
  So the committee will soon send a letter to the White House signed by 
Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton of the full committee asking 
for more information. What that information will comprise, number one, 
a list of all agreements entered into in writing as well as the 
details, including the sum and substance, of all deals and agreements; 
number two, the names of any individuals, groups, associations, or 
companies that attended meetings at the White House regarding health 
care; the name of the administration officials who attended the 
meetings on health care in the White House. As part of the release of 
visitor logs, we know who brings people into the White House. We just 
now want to know who met with the person who was being allowed in. The 
time and date of such health care meetings, and who, from the 
administration and from the outside groups was in attendance; written 
materials memorializing any agreements made during the meetings with 
administration officials and provided to outside participants; finally, 
number six, any paper or electronic communication, including emails in 
the possession of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the 
staff of Health and Human Services, between HHS and the health industry 
in regard to health reform negotiations or the White House deals.
  That's what I will get. I asked for more than I actually will 
receive. What I will not get are written notes made by a stenographer 
or other note-taker of meetings with White House officials and/or 
outside groups memorializing discussions or agreements; number two, I 
will not get written material summarizing negotiations or agreements 
made with administration officials and outside groups and possessed by 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services or other officials within 
the Department of Health and Human Services; I will not get written 
material memorializing discussions between the President, his senior 
advisers and those in attendance written for the President and not 
provided to outside groups; and number four, I will not get internal 
emails within Health and Human Services and all agencies regarding the 
possible implementation of policies discussed at White House meetings 
in regard to health reform.
  So those are some significant omissions. But the six things will be 
requested of the White House by the chairman, and for that we are very 
grateful. Of course, the White House will assert, if any of these other 
four had been included in that list, the White House would assert 
executive privilege and it likely would lead to a court fight, and 
likely the White House's assertion of executive privilege would be 
upheld.
  But I will say one thing. It has certainly shown me some of the items 
that, in fact, I should be allowed to see occur because they are 
communications at the level of the Federal agency. Internal 
communications of the White House and internal communications between 
the President's advisers are not, are not going to be made available 
because that's White House executive privilege.
  We've had the interposition of multiple czars this past year. Well, 
every Presidential administration has had czars. We've certainly seen a 
great number of those positions now come into being, and because of the 
position of the White House czar, those emails between the health care 
czar and the President's Chief of Staff, for example, the health care 
czar and anyone else in the President's inner circle, those emails are 
protected under executive privilege, so having the czar in the White 
House is another way of helping to keep that information from public 
view.
  Information that comes from the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services through the Federal agency, that information is information 
that I was allowed to request. But information from the health care 
czar to the White House Chief of Staff is information that I will not 
receive. And that is a shame because I really believe that within those 
communications, within those communications is really where these deals 
would occur.
  But at least with the six things that are going to be allowed, at 
least with getting that information out into the open, certainly 
provides some additional places for, if the press is at all curious 
about this--they may not be, they have been relatively incurious about 
many of these aspects through the course of this last year. But if 
there is any curiosity on the part of the fourth estate, this will 
perhaps give them some direction to go into where they might inquire 
further to get additional information. It's an honest attempt to 
understand the deals that were made.
  I'm a member of the American Medical Association. I pay my dues every 
year. I have to admit I was somewhat surprised when the AMA agreed to 
endorse the bill when it included none, none, zero, none of their top 
priorities. It didn't include anything about tort reform in the bill. 
It didn't include anything about SGR or physician payment reform. It 
didn't include anything about the ability of physicians to get together 
and negotiate price. None of that was included in the bills that we 
saw, and yet the AMA endorsed H.R. 3200 before it ever got to our 
committee for a markup.
  What was in it for them? Why would they do this when their top issues 
were not included in the bill? That is something as an AMA member, not 
as a Member of Congress necessarily, but as an AMA member, I would like 
to know.
  Last Monday, the President said: I didn't make a bunch of deals. Now, 
this claim contradicts everything that has been reported. If he didn't, 
somebody did. Who did? And again, on whose behalf and under what 
authority? There is nothing inherently wrong with the President 
engaging in such an important topic or encouraging groups to act in the 
best interest of the public. There is nothing wrong with the groups 
acting in their own self-interest or the self-interest of the members 
of their industry. But we don't know if the deals struck were in the 
best interest of the public. We don't know if the deals that were 
sealed were the best deals for the American people.
  The American people certainly don't know because they were completely 
shut out of the process. Now, these questions will linger over my 
Committee of Energy and Commerce and the Senate Finance Committee. 
Indeed, this very House will have the specter of those questions 
lingering until we fill in its history. And it's really as simple as 
that. So my resolution of inquiry last week was simply to fill in a few 
of those pages in the historical record which otherwise are going to be 
lost to the sands of time.
  Let me reiterate, this is not about the groups included in the 
resolution. I

[[Page H465]]

know there are plenty of people on both sides who like to beat up on 
any number of people who are part of the six groups. There are people 
who like to beat up on unions. There are people who like to beat up on 
drug companies. This isn't about--this isn't about any of the people 
who responded to the President's call and went down to the White House 
that day to work for, arguably, what would be a good thing in reforming 
some aspects of our Nation's health care system.

  The problem is that the American people didn't get to see what it was 
they had on the table, what the offers were, what the counteroffers 
were, what wasn't offered, and who agreed to what, who was on the side 
of the people and who was on the side of the special interests. As the 
President said, we didn't get to see that.
  As it stands now, I asked, I want to know what the White House 
negotiated, with whom, and on what terms. I want to know how those 
deals influenced the legislative process. Certainly, there were several 
times where we bumped up against it. Certainly, the Senate Finance 
Committee did, and they were told, Hold on, you can't do that. We've 
got a deal. But did it also influence the legislative process when my 
amendments and Greg Walden's amendments were stripped out of the 
committee-passed bill and were stripped out of the Speaker's office 
never to see the light of day? So was that part of the legislative 
process influenced by those deals? We will never know if we don't get 
that information.
  And I want to know why a President who committed himself to 
transparency feels really no need to heed requests for transparency by 
the committee; why the President who ran on transparency feels no need 
to heed a request for documents by an elected Member of Congress, why 
they think it is okay to just simply not respond to a letter, ignore 
it, and we hope it goes away.
  Now, last week, the President, on one of the interviews, said that 
his lack of transparency was ``a mistake.'' If true, if he feels it is 
a mistake, he can correct the mistake. It's not too late. He can 
correct the mistake by turning over the information requested, and, in 
fact, turning over all of the information, saying, Do you know what? We 
are not going to hide behind executive privilege here. If there is an 
e-mail between my Chief of Staff and the health care czar that you 
think is important, we're willing to let you see that as well. We're 
willing to let the American people see that, because we have nothing to 
hide.
  If they don't do that, what are we left to surmise? That they've got 
something to hide. And what would they have to hide? I don't know. Here 
the fantasy can become worse than the reality. It would be better for 
the White House to provide this information. Again, the truth, the 
truth will, in all likelihood, be much less significant than what each 
of us will be left to imagine on our own if we are not provided that 
information.
  Now, to fully understand the policy choices going forward, we need to 
know what took place at the White House last year. I can't say it 
enough. I can't say it in enough different ways. The American people 
expect us to act in their interest rather than protect the business 
interests of those currying favor in Washington. We hear that all the 
time. In fact, we hear this President say that lobbyists won't have any 
access to his administration, and then we have secret deals with six 
groups that play a big role, a big role, in the cost of delivering 
health care in this country, and we don't get to see that.
  If any member of those six groups down at the White House sought 
protections or made unreciprocated concessions to Washington 
politicians, I think the American people deserve to know. The American 
people would likely want to know that information. These negotiations 
may have produced consensus on policy changes that are proper and 
needed, but we will never be certain until the facts are known. And if 
the facts aren't known, then the reality is not known. And if the 
reality is not known, then the fantasy becomes the reality, the worst 
excess that you could imagine is probably what happened; otherwise, 
they would open the books and tell us.
  Now, I will just leave you with the same thought one last time about 
the promises made during the Presidential campaign and after about how 
this process would be an open process, how this process would be an 
inclusive process, and inclusive not just to Members of Congress on 
both sides of the aisle, which it has not been, but an inclusive 
process that would include the American people; because, after all, 
these decisions on health care, yeah, they're tough, yeah, there are 
going to be likely some winners and losers in whatever is finally 
crafted by the House and Senate, but it's going to affect the delivery 
of health care. It's going to affect the life of every doctor, nurse, 
hospital administrator, every mother, father, child, every husband, 
wife, every citizen of the United States, not just next year, not just 
the year after that, and not just the year after that, but for the next 
three generations; how health care is delivered in the country, who 
gets what, who pays for it, when it's administered, who can't get what 
they need. All of that is going to be governed by language in this 
legislation.
  And if there were outside influences on crafting that language in 
this legislation, we need to know about that because, otherwise, we 
don't know the questions to ask. We don't know whether to embrace or 
reject the legislation, because we simply don't know who, what, and 
where was involved in the process. And as a consequence, it makes it 
impossible, literally impossible, to evaluate the worth of this 
legislation.
  So here we sit, on Groundhog Day, sort of revisiting what happened 
over the last year with health care reform. On February 2 of 2010, the 
passage of a comprehensive health care bill looks as unlikely as at any 
time in our history past of this Congress. A year ago, it looked like a 
certainty. Today, it looks extremely problematic.

                              {time}  2145

  And what is the one thing that could have given us a better bill, 
given us a better process, given people some reason to be behind this 
legislation that Congress is considering?
  The one thing that could have happened that didn't was opening the 
process up, turning on the C-SPAN cameras, inviting them in to that big 
conference table in the Speaker's office or that big conference table 
in the majority leader's office over in the Senate, or that big 
conference table down in the Cabinet room at the White House. Turn 
those cameras on, let the American people see who was around that 
table, who was willing to talk, who was willing to give, who was only 
willing to get. That would bring powerful information to provide to the 
American people.
  The President could have recruited, could have recruited from the 
American people, folks who like this legislation who would then ask for 
it. But, instead, they pushed everyone away, pushed them away from the 
table, turned off the camera, turned off the lights. ``Don't look at 
the man behind the curtain. We know what is best for you. This bill 
will be good for you. Trust us. You will like this bill once we get it 
passed.'' Well, that is nonsense. The American people know that is 
nonsense.
  Turn on the lights, turn on C-SPAN, let the people in, and let's give 
this bill the full public airing that it has deserved.

                          ____________________