[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 41 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1721-H1728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        MARCH MADNESS--DC STYLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I want to thank the minority leader for giving us the 
leadership hour on our side this evening. I will be joined by a number 
of Members. Already joining me on the floor, Mr. McCotter from Michigan 
and Mr. Tiberi from the great State of Ohio.
  Before we begin with our subject matter, when this group gathered a 
little while ago we, in an attempt to bring some levity, which there is 
not very much of here to the situation, we used probably in my mind one 
of the greatest games ever invented, the game of Operation. You go home 
and they say, Wow, boy, that was a good one. I was particularly proud 
of the ``You got to be kidney'' in talking about some of the provisions 
in the health care bill under consideration at the time.
  But I got a letter after we did that special order from the lawyers 
at Hasbro, saying basically I was violating their copyright, and so on 
forth and so on. Apparently some of those lawyers were absent the day 
they taught constitutional law, because not only the speech and debate 
clause in the Constitution, but also the fair use doctrine sort of made 
that not accurate.
  Having said that, I don't want to further inflame the lawyers at this 
New

[[Page H1722]]

York law firm, and so we are not going to talk about this, nor am I 
going to use this chart this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are going to talk about, however, is March 
Madness. It is now upon us. People all across the country saw the 
President of the United States, because he is a big basketball fan and 
he likes to play basketball, pick his brackets. I think that if I read 
the news reports right, he picked Kansas to win it all. And I think 
last year, if I remember right, President Obama nailed the winner. He 
picked it and off he went.
  I think a lot of people who had brackets took a bath on Georgetown 
yesterday, but other than that, most other people's brackets are in 
shape.
  But I thought we would use the theme of March Madness and what has 
gone on here on Capitol Hill, and sort of talk about some of the match-
ups that have happened. We are a little further along than the NCAA 
tournament, so we start and we are down to the Sweet 16. I thought we 
would talk about the relationship of what is going on.
  Let me turn first to the gentleman from Michigan. Pick a game and 
let's talk about it.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. She is indeed a wily veteran.
  Does my colleague from Ohio agree that the Speaker beat the minority 
leader?
  Mr. TIBERI. I think there is no doubt at this point.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Okay. I would simply add not only did she beat the 
minority leader, she humiliated the minority leader in that there is 
not--well, there is one proposal by Republicans in this health care 
bill we are going to vote on on Sunday. But that is it. Out of 2,700 
pages, the most they could do is squeeze in one Republican provision. 
And that was actually by Senator Grassley of Iowa, who indicated that 
primary care physicians should get paid a little bit more for taking 
care of people.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank you so much.
  So we declare the Speaker of the House the winner of round one. I 
just want to mention that these regionals are taking place in some 
interesting locations. They are interesting because of other things 
that are included in the bill that we will talk about.
  Mr. Broun of Georgia, when he was here, talked about the Louisiana 
purchase and Gator aid. We'll get into that in a minute.
  But, Tiberi, pick a game, and let's talk about it.
  Mr. TIBERI. I was going to pick a game, and I'm going to pick the 
People versus the Cornhusker Kickback, but I think it is important at 
the very top there for you to point out on the chart that you have got 
at Florida Gators, and you just mentioned at LSU. We could add Montana 
because there is a special provision for Montana as well. 
Unfortunately, they lost in the tournament yesterday. We could add the 
University of Connecticut. Connecticut has got a nice little special 
provision that is staying in the bill. New Jersey is getting another 
special little deal. And apparently North Dakota in the reconciliation. 
I don't know how you have got it just to the two, Florida and LSU. But 
since we are talking about special deals in special places, I think I 
will do the People versus the special deal in the Cornhusker Kickback.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I appreciate that. I would just say to the gentleman, 
the reason we don't have all of those venues is we can't make a chart 
big enough.
  Mr. TIBERI. For all the special deals.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. For all the sweetheart deals that are included in it. 
You know, the great thing is each one of them now has sort of a 
nickname that is becoming a household word in America. So I bet most 
people, Mr. Speaker, have heard of the Cornhusker kickback, most have 
heard of the Louisiana purchase. But we're going to attempt to coin 
some new ones for the new ones because they really are coming up fast 
and furious.
  So a billion dollars is going to the drug companies in New Jersey. So 
I think we should call that the New Jersey needle exchange. And today 
there was news--and I think that the senator involved has since asked 
that it be withdrawn--but all banks in the country are going to be 
removed from student lending except one in North Dakota. So I think we 
call that the Bismarck bank job. But we were already done with this by 
the time the news broke.
  I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TIBERI. This chart was put together before we found out that not 
just health care was going to be in the health care bill. That actually 
now we're going to be debating a student loan bill which is how the 
Bismarck bombshell, Bismarck bank job--but now we have student loan, 
the takeover of the student loan business in the health care bill. I 
think America has to be aware of that as well.
  Back to the issue at hand. The people versus the Cornhusker kickback. 
That special deal the people want. Is that correct?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. That is correct.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, and we're going to give that game to the 
people.
  And you know, Mr. Speaker, you may not remember what the Cornhusker 
kickback was. Well, basically, people who don't have insurance are 
going to have the ability throughout the many States to apply for 
insurance through the State Medicaid program. And sort of one of the 
dirty little secrets of this bill is, how do you reduce costs by 
including 30 million more people into a program? Of course you don't. 
It's going to cost more money.
  In our State of Ohio, Mr. Tiberi's and mine, the estimate is $656 
million to take this uninsured population and cover them. And I would 
just say that the President indicates that we agree on 80 percent of 
it. I agree that the uninsured should have access to health coverage, 
but it comes with a price. And I think what doesn't get acknowledged is 
the price.
  So the Cornhusker kickback involved a senator from Nebraska basically 
saying that it's going to cost his people in Nebraska more money to 
take the uninsured and put them in the Medicaid program--like every 
other State in the Union--but he didn't want his people to pay it. 
Well, and so at the end of the day, the reason that the people rose up 
and the reason that the people, I think, prevailed in it, it's not 
fair. How is that fair that people in Michigan and Ohio and every other 
State of the Union are going to participate in this plan. I mean, if 
you like the plan to cover more people but Nebraska isn't going to have 
to pay a dime? And that is why I think the people prevailed.
  And today or Sunday when we vote on whatever we're going to vote on, 
the Cornhusker kickback has been defeated by the people.
  Mr. TIBERI. The people won on the Cornhusker kickback, but I think 
it's important to note, as this chart partially does, that there is 
still Florida gator aid that is in this bill that the majority is going 
to have to defend, there is still the Louisiana purchase.
  Now, there is a water deal for a couple of Members in California that 
Members are going to have to defend. There is a deal in Arizona. We 
mentioned

[[Page H1723]]

Montana. We mentioned Bismarck. We also mentioned Connecticut and New 
Jersey, just to name a few. Special sweetheart deals.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. And apparently they're still being made. There was a 
newspaper article the other day where the Speaker is quoted as saying, 
The store is now closed. And that meant no more special deals, I think. 
But that came as a surprise to some of us. One, I didn't know that the 
store was open, and two, I didn't think I knew there was a store. But 
apparently there was a store, and it was open, but now the Speaker has 
closed it. I suppose unless they don't have the votes necessary to pass 
the bill on Sunday then perhaps they'll reopen for Sunday hours and 
violate the blue laws of the State and let people shop.
  Mr. TIBERI. I do have a suggestion that may be a sequel to March 
madness, D.C. style. We could play the game of The Price is Right and 
talk about some of these sweetheart deals in our next hour that we have 
next week.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I'm going to take one over here from the Florida 
venue. I will start at the top.
  You have MoveOn.org against the Blue Dogs. MoveOn.org is, of course, 
the liberal organization funded by George Soros and others that has 
really become sort of the main grassroots motivator for the liberal 
left. The Blue Dogs are conservative Democrats--if there is such a 
thing--primarily from border States with the southern States, and they 
have been giving the Speaker and her team fits all year long on cap-
and-trade--cap-and-tax as we called it--and a variety of other things. 
So they're tough to bring along.
  In this particular matchup, I think the MoveOn.org had like a 7-
footer and came in and basically began threatening primary elections 
against any Blue Dog who wouldn't come to heel and support this bill 
even though it may not be what the people from their districts want 
them to do.
  So unless either of you have an objection, I'm going to give this 
game to MoveOn.org.
  Mr. TIBERI. I think in a rout.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I would have to agree that in this contest, the Blue 
Dogs came up lame.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. All right. Mr. McCotter, it's up to you. Pick a game.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I say we go to the contest of Mr. Rahm Emanuel versus 
former Member Massa.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, you can't see this chart, but I just 
have ``Rahm'' here, I couldn't fit ``Emanuel'' in the box.
  But this refers to the distinguished chief of staff for the President 
of the United States, Rahm Emanuel, who, of course, was an honorable 
Member of this House serving a district near Chicago, Illinois, until 
he was tapped by the President to serve as the chief of staff. And Eric 
Massa was a Representative--and I say ``was'' because he has resigned--
from the State of New York. And there was a pretty well-publicized 
dust-up between the two.
  And why don't you tell us who won.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Do you agree with that?
  Mr. TIBERI. Hard to argue with that.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Give that to Mr. Emanuel. Mr. Tiberi, you're up. Pick 
a game.

  Mr. TIBERI. Let's go with Waxman versus taxes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. All right.
  Over in the Louisiana area because of the Louisiana purchase.
  And again, just in case, Mr. Speaker, you've forgotten what the 
Louisiana purchase was, like Nebraska--even though it didn't get the 
same attention as Nebraska--like Nebraska, the Senator from Louisiana 
didn't want her people to have to pay increased costs that are going to 
be occasioned by this bill. So I think a number like $300 million is 
slated to go to Louisiana.
  But go ahead. Let us talk about Mr. Waxman, who is, of course, the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And 
``taxes'' is pretty self-explanatory.
  Mr. TIBERI. Obviously the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee wrote most of the bill coming out of the House with the 
leadership on the Democratic side. And taxes are what more Americans 
are going to pay a heck of a lot more of.
  In fact, I know the Speaker is aware that most of the benefits of 
this bill don't actually kick in until 2014, when my daughters are 
going--when my youngest daughters are going to kindergarten, in 2014.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. How old are they now?
  Mr. TIBERI. They're 1. So in 2014 they'll be entering kindergarten, 
and that is when the benefits will begin.
  However, the tax increases will begin right away. And in fact, the 
Senate bill not only increases payroll taxes, but now we have a 
reconciliation bill that increases or begins taxing on the payrolls of 
American workers for the very first time unearned income. So when we 
are trying to convince Americans to save more, now suddenly their 
annuities and their interest income from a bank and their retirement 
accounts and all of these other things, rents, are going to now be 
taxed for the first time on payroll taxes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. What about what's built up in a pension? We all have 
thrift savings accounts as Federal employees. We take a portion of our 
pretax dollars, put them in there. And until the last couple of years 
they were doing okay, but they would build up X amount of interest 
during the course of the years.
  Mr. TIBERI. We're cracking the door open for the first time on life 
insurance. And it's a concern to many agents in the industry.
  It's not only on that side of the aisle that we have a view of tax 
increases. We're taxing the medical devices, we're taxing wheelchairs, 
we're taxing insurance plans. We are having for the very first time 
something that you as a lawyer, I'm sure, would question the 
constitutionality of. We're going to tax for the very first time health 
insurance in terms of, if you don't pay it, if you don't have health 
insurance--which you're mandated to--you're going to have an IRS agent 
come knocking on your door.
  The very first time we're going to get the IRS involved in your 
health care, and we're going to have to have the IRS--one estimate is 
$1 billion dollars a year to hire agents over the next 10 years to 
monitor yours and mine and the people's health care. So the IRS is 
going to be involved in everybody's health care. Not to mention all of 
the other Federal Government employees who we're empowering.
  But we are increasing taxes, we are cutting Medicare, and we are 
increasing the IRS by about 16,500 people to deal with our health care.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. So I hear you're saying we're going to give the game 
to Waxman?
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I think you're right.
  I would just add the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, has talked 
about increased cost. And a lot of people are saying it's not going to 
cost anything; it's going to reduce the deficit. Just today a company 
that is pretty well known around the world--and certainly known in the 
President's home State of Illinois--Caterpillar Incorporated, said that 
the health care legislation being considered by the U.S. House and 
voted on Sunday will increase the company's health care costs by more 
than $100 million in the first year alone.
  In a letter Thursday to the Speaker and the Republican leader, 
Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan because of the 
substantial cost burdens it would place on its shareholders, employees, 
and retirees. If they're right, and you're a retiree from Caterpillar, 
based upon what you were just saying, Mr. Tiberi, it's sort of a double 
whammy. One is that their health care benefits are going to be

[[Page H1724]]

taxed potentially; two, their health care benefits may cost them more 
in terms of premiums or copays that they receive as a retiree. And 
three, if they have retired and put their money in the bank and are 
drawing interest, that interest is now subject to taxation.
  And I forgot to ask you. What's the rate of taxation on interest in a 
bank account that a senior citizen is earning under this proposal?
  Mr. TIBERI. For the very first time, it taxes payroll for that 
unearned income at 3.8 percent. So 3.8 percent for the very first time 
on unearned income. And it actually raises by .9 percent, almost 1 
percent, earned income on the payroll tax.
  I'm going to add just one other mention to this. In Washington, D.C., 
we're spending $1 trillion dollars. The Democratic bill spends $1 
trillion dollars to save money. Kind of an oxymoron. Only in 
Washington, D.C., can we spend a trillion dollars to save money.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. It's kind of like being in a hole and trying to get 
out and digging the hole deeper. That is the analogy I would use.
  I'm going to pick off an easy one where I don't think we're going to 
have any disagreements.
  Just like over in the House we had the distinguished Speaker and the 
distinguished minority leader. Same situation over in the Senate. 
You've got Senate Majority Leader Reid of Nevada and Mitch McConnell, 
who is the Senate Republican leader from Kentucky. And there was this 
big health care powwow down at Blair House a few weeks ago.

                              {time}  1945

  It was on TV 6 hours. I watched most of it, and I thought it was 
great. I thought the President did a wonderful job. And the President 
said, This thing should be bipartisan. There are things we agree on. We 
should work it out.
  Well, the AP, the Associated Press, moved a story, I apologize, I 
don't have it right here at my fingertips but--here it is. The 
Associated Press moved a story and basically the story talked about 
what the President said at that pow-wow and what the Congress, the 
Democrats in Congress, have given him. It's kind of illuminating. The 
President said he would give Federal authorities the power to block 
unreasonable rate increases. I don't know about you guys, but when I go 
back to my district, I hear from human resources people in every 
company that no longer are their health care costs going up 5, 6, 7 
percent; it's double-digits. And if they're lucky, it's only in the 
tens and the teens. But in some instances it's more. So I think that 
some people were sort of excited about the idea that, in fact, there 
would be some oversight over these increases, but that's missing in the 
bill.
  There were several Republican ideas, and this goes to Senator 
McConnell, that the President said he wanted to include in the bill. 
There was also a--one of them was a plan, I remember watching this from 
Senator Coburn of Oklahoma--to say one of the ways that you root out 
waste, fraud and abuse is to send patients, people pretending to be 
patients, and so people that are scamming either the system that is set 
up in the bill or the Medicaid or the Medicare system, they go to jail. 
And I think that is entirely appropriate. But none of those were 
adopted.
  And the special deals, we have talked a little bit about Louisiana, 
Florida and the Cornhuskers, the President said he would eliminate all 
of the special deals that we have talked about and we are going to 
continue to talk about.
  As we stand here tonight, the only deals that have been eliminated 
are the Cornhusker kickback, which actually, you know, it hasn't been 
eliminated in that it is still in the Senate bill. And so maybe the 
gentleman can talk to us about this strange procedure we are going 
through, because my understanding is there is going to be two votes, 
but never a vote on the Senate bill which contains the Cornhusker 
kickback and some of the other things.
  So, Mr. McCotter, you're sort of the parliamentarian around here in 
waiting. Why don't you talk to us a little bit about the process?
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman. And basically, again, Mr. 
Speaker, I know you know, but we are being told there is going to be 
two votes, one on Sunday and then maybe one on Monday. The Sunday vote 
will be on a rule. It's not even going to be on a bill; it's going to 
be on a House resolution, which is a rule, that's going to authorize 
the vote that takes place, we think, on Monday; but included in there 
is something called the self-executing clause, and so it will self-
execute passage of the Senate health care bill, which does, to my 
point, does include still the Cornhusker kickback and also the issue in 
Florida.
  And we talked about Gator aid, but we never talked about what Gator 
aid was. And so the Medicare program which, of course, provides health 
care for millions and millions of seniors, has a program in it called 
Medicare Advantage. And it's optional. You don't have to sign up for 
it, but you can if you want to. I have about 14,000 people that live in 
my district that are in Medicare Advantage, and it has high 
satisfaction numbers. There are some people who don't like it, and 
there are some people who criticize it.
  So the Senate bill, which was going to be deemed without a vote--and 
that really caught me by surprise. I got up, I think it was Wednesday, 
Tuesday or Wednesday morning, and one of the headlines above the fold 
in the Washington Post, Mrs. Pelosi, of course who is the distinguished 
Speaker of the House, may seek to pass health care bill without a vote. 
I said, holy mackerel, I thought I had missed something while I had 
been asleep, sort of the Rip Van Winkle thing. But, no, that is exactly 
where they are headed.
  But the Florida deal was--again, Mr. Speaker, you know that there are 
a lot of retired people in Florida because the weather is warm and so 
forth and so on, and in order to ameliorate a problem that a Senator 
from Florida had, every State in the Union, all 49 States, plus the 
District of Columbia, that have people on Medicare Advantage can no 
longer be on Medicare Advantage. It's wiped out--except the 800,000 
Floridians who happen to be on and enjoy Medicare Advantage.
  Now, again, just like the Cornhusker kickback where Nebraska and 
Louisiana don't have to pay, why is it fair that--again even if you 
love this bill, the underlying policy--why is it fair that in one State 
if you like Medicare Advantage you get to stay on it and in 49 other 
States you don't? So currently the way they have designed this is that 
the House, the Senate bill will be deemed on Sunday under this self-
executing rule, and then they have promised a bill with a series of 
fixes.

[[Page H1725]]

  Now the big problem with the series of fixes is, when the Senate bill 
is deemed on Sunday, the President can sign it right away. It becomes 
the law of the land if he signs it with the Cornhusker kickback, with 
the Louisiana purchase and with the Gator aid. Now we have heard, and I 
think to be fair to our friends in the majority, the draft of their 
fixes bill would remove those two, two out of 12 of the deals that the 
President said would be gone. But it still has to go over to the other 
body. It still has to pass. And then through a process known as 
reconciliation, they have indicated that they don't think that their 
rules will permit them to pass it as it leaves here, that it's going to 
be modified again, which means it has to come back here.

  At the time, the Democratic Party had a 60-vote majority over in the 
United States Senate. They couldn't get 60 people on their own team to 
row in the same direction without giving away these sweetheart deals. I 
would be nervous if I was voting on Sunday on the promise, like Wimpy 
from Pop-eye, I will glady pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. I 
would be nervous. And I don't think it is a done deal. We are going to 
give that game to Harry Reid.
  Mr. TIBERI. I think that's pretty clear; but just to further 
demonstrate, I had a group of students ask me, with respect to the 
process in Washington, D.C. because they had learned in their 
government book that a bill passes the House, a bill passes the Senate, 
it goes to conference committee, and then they work out the 
differences, kind of come to an agreement, and it goes back to the 
House and back to the Senate, when did that change? I think we all have 
maybe a future business in publishing to change the process because we 
haven't had conference committees in the past year in this Congress. We 
have had backroom deals.
  And here is another one. And after this Senate bill is deemed and 
passed through procedural trickery, maybe on Sunday, as the gentleman 
from Ohio said, that will go to the President's desk. That will have 
the Cornhusker kickback in it, and then the underlying bill of 
reconciliation will then come to the floor with all these changes in 
it, including something that will strike the Cornhusker kickback out, 
but not the other sweetheart deals, which will also include the student 
loan bill, among other health care items as well. That will pass with a 
majority vote here in the House.
  But as the gentleman said, it has to pass unchanged in the Senate in 
order for it to become law and go to the President's desk. That is a 
huge promise, a huge promise that many Members of this House on the 
Democratic side are crossing their fingers in hope for because many of 
them who are voting for this bill now, voting for this deemed bill, 
this rule that has the deemed language in it, have been fairly critical 
of the Senate bill which they are technically not voting on, they are 
deeming it passed.
  And I think the American people have had it up to their eyeballs with 
this trickery and chicanery.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman. It makes 
it a tricky business.
  Because I had mentioned the President of the United States a couple 
of times, you will note that I don't have President Obama in the Sweet 
16, because I will tell you as I went through this Associated Press 
story and I have watched his negotiations on this bill, when he says we 
agree on 80 percent of it and we should work this out in a bipartisan 
way, I believe him. I really believe that he would not have written 
this bill the way that it is currently being written. And I don't think 
he would say that the process has been okay.
  As a matter of fact, the aforementioned AP story comes down to--it 
reports that it came down to President Obama making promises that 
Congress didn't keep. That I think is the appropriate distinction here. 
I don't think that when the President made the promises to include 
these four or five Republican ideas he was not telling the truth. I 
think he was serious. I think he wanted them in the bill. But when the 
bill got written, they are not in here.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I would say it's a pretty well known axiom in sports, 
at least in football, the home team relies on the 12th man. And in this 
particular instance, the issue was whether or not taxpayer funds would 
be utilized in the purchasing of these sort of cooperative health care 
things that people could sign up for and that those plans could provide 
abortion services. And so Mr. Stupak is a very devout, pro-life 
Representative, and obviously NARAL is not. They are on the side of 
pro-choice we call it. And so when it came--when the House bill--and 
the reason we are not doing the House bill is when the House bill came 
up a little while ago, Mr. Stupak and 12, which would be the 12th man, 
Members of the Democratic Party said they are not going to vote for 
this unless you fix it.
  And they gave an amendment vote, and we had a vote over here in the 
House, and that satisfied Mr. Stupak for the moment, defeating NARAL. 
In my opinion, I agree with you, we will go to Mr. Tiberi in a minute, 
but now they find themselves in the same position, why there is so much 
angst here on Capitol Hill over the last few days is because they have 
to get to this magic number of 216, and at least at the moment some of 
these people who thought that there were not going to be taxpayer funds 
used to purchase insurance to provide abortion believe that it does.
  And so, Tiberi, we are going to give this game to Stupak if that's 
all right with you.
  Mr. TIBERI. I would certainly give it to Mr. Stupak and the brave 
Members who stood by him on the Democrat side.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. We're almost down to the Great Eight.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I appreciate the gentleman's observation.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.

                              {time}  2000

  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

[[Page H1726]]

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.
  Mr. TIBERI. I certainly wasn't there, but I will rely on press 
reports of what happened.
  But just today, one of our Democratic colleagues who voted for the 
House bill and announced that he was not voting for the special rule 
that will deem the Senate bill law, said--and I am paraphrasing--that 
he is voting against this bill because it actually benefits health 
insurance companies and benefits the pharmaceutical industry.
  Now, the pharmaceutical industry actually has run ads all over the 
country urging a ``yes'' vote on this bill even though many in the 
White House have publicly attacked them and publicly attacked the 
health insurance reform industry. It is ironic, but there, apparently 
at the beginning of this process, was a special deal between the 
President and what was then the head of this trade association to 
protect them from having any sort of provisions in the bill that might 
allow for reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada.
  But in addition to that, on the Medicare side, I think my colleague 
from Ohio has already mentioned it, we are now seeing in this bill and 
more in the reconciliation bill that comes maybe Sunday, maybe Monday, 
a huge cut in Medicare. Not just Medicare Advantage, which a third of 
my seniors have the Medicare Advantage plan in my district, but actual 
cuts to Medicare, which Medicare's own actuary, his words not our 
words, said that he believes that the cut is so significant that it 
will leave providers, doctors, to stop treating Medicare beneficiaries 
because they won't be reimbursed enough for their services.
  Now, in my district, and I am sure in the gentleman from Michigan's 
district and the gentleman from northeastern Ohio's district, I am 
already seeing doctors begin the process of not treating Medicare 
patients because they don't get reimbursed for every dollar that they 
treat a patient. They are getting reimbursed 80 cents or 85 cents.
  Nothing in that bill changes this. In fact, the actuary states that 
this $500 billion cut will make it much worse. And that doesn't even 
begin to talk about the impact it has on hospitals and other providers 
as well.
  So this is a huge policy issue that we are going to see, once the 
benefits side and the cuts occur, that Americans have no idea what is 
coming with respect to this huge change in policy.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. McCotter, before I go to you for your comments, 
we agreed that PhRMA takes out Medicare in this particular round one?
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, I want to just elaborate for a minute on the 
gentleman's point about the insurance companies, because in all of the 
remarks--and the President was recently in Strongsville, Ohio, which is 
a suburb of Cleveland, giving what was described as his closing 
argument to get it done. Again, the health care insurance companies are 
singled out for being particularly greedy and so forth and so on. So, 
like the pharmaceutical companies, you wouldn't think that there would 
be any special provisions for medical insurance companies in the bill. 
But if you said that, you would be wrong, because, again, Nebraska 
rears its ugly head, but also the State of Michigan.
  In Michigan and Nebraska--and, Mr. Speaker, to those who may follow 
along at home or on the Internet, if you go to section 10905 of the 
Senate bill, which we will deem on Sunday, it levees an annual new 
health fee, the taxes we are talking about, on all health care 
insurers. And, again, that additional tax on everybody's health care 
coverage--which, again, something that mystifies some of us on this 
side is: If you recognize we have a problem with preexisting 
conditions, if you recognize we have a problem with people that we need 
to get coverage so that they get adequate care, why do we have to horse 
around with the other 85 percent of the people in the country who are 
satisfied with what they have?

  But, in order to raise money for this program, a new tax is put on 
health insurance companies; however, the bill provides an exemption to 
a narrow group of companies. This section will specifically exempt Blue 
Cross/Blue Shield of Nebraska and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan.
  Now, I know that the gentleman from Michigan, probably his 
constituents may see some benefits from that, but I doubt you are 
jumping for joy over that. Again, like all of these special deals, that 
is not fair. I mean, how can it be fair in a competitive marketplace if 
you are buying insurance from a health care insurance company and one 
company has to pay a tax and two companies--well, all companies have to 
pay a new tax except for two?
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman.
  And I want to go back to Mr. Tiberi's observation, because the 
published reports that I saw about PhRMA were

[[Page H1727]]

not only reimportation of drugs from Canada, that they would be 
protected from that--and that actually gets into our next matchup, 
Waxman versus PhRMA, because the reported deal in the newspapers was 
that the pharmaceutical companies would pony up $8 billion over the 
next 10 years, and in return for that--because, again, money needs to 
be raised. People are arguing about the numbers and what it does to the 
budget, but I think almost every American understands it is 
counterintuitive that you can insure more people and it is going to 
cost less.
  Mr. TIBERI. And, actually, one of the Democratic leaders in the 
Senate took to the floor last week and in a speech actually came clean 
with respect to a statement that he said that actually insurance costs 
and health costs would continue to go up, and that is what we have said 
all along.
  This doesn't deal with costs of health. This doesn't deal with costs 
of insurance. This deals with putting a whole lot more people on 
Medicaid, not fixing Medicaid. This deals with a whole lot of new 
taxes. This deals with restricting certain things like Medicare 
Advantage to give people less choices. This gives people less choices 
for health savings accounts. It reduces people who might have a 
flexible savings account, reduces that from $5,000 to $2,500 in taxable 
benefits.
  The American people, once they find out what is in this bill, are 
going to be shocked at what is actually in this bill, aside from things 
like student loans that have nothing to do with health care, but 
actually on the health care side.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. And I want to move to this Waxman-PhRMA matchup 
because, as we have indicated, the distinguished chairman of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee is a crafty veteran, not tall in terms of 
height, but he has been around the game a long time and he knows the 
way the game is played.
  PhRMA, with a lot of muscle, came into this thing, and they thought 
that the deal that they made was, if they ponied up $8 billion, they 
would be held harmless, not only from reimporting drugs from Canada--
which I really don't understand. Everything that I have read says that 
if you could reimport drugs from Canada, you could cut the cost about 
28 percent. Even if it is only 20 percent, who cares. But the argument 
that has been made by both Republican and Democratic administrations is 
that it is not safe. We can't trust it if it is coming back from 
Canada.
  Now, I would argue that if that were true--my district has one of the 
longest areas on Lake Erie up in Ohio. If that was true, I would go 
home to my district and find a lot of dead Canadians floating up on the 
beaches, and that is just not happening.
  The second piece of that is that the deal as reported was that not 
only would they not get any reimportation in the legislation, but they 
would not have to be subject--because the government is now under this 
program, or the proposed program, and become a big customer for drugs, 
that there would be no provision in the bill that the government could 
compete for best price.
  And I can remember when we did Medicare part D--I think both 
gentlemen were here for that--and speech after speech from our friends 
over here, and I happen to agree with them, that it is nuts. Everybody 
can go in and negotiate for best price except us? But the deal was, 
between PhRMA and the White House, was: No. No negotiation for the 
price.
  But a funny thing happened, I think, to PhRMA on the way to the deal. 
They ran into the wily veteran from California and he said, Oh, no, you 
don't. So I have to give this to Waxman, unless anybody has a problem 
with it.
  All right. We are actually past it, now almost into the quarter 
finals. We have got Pelosi versus Stupak, MoveOn.org versus Rahm, and 
the People versus Senator Reid.
  Mr. TIBERI. We have one more to go to the final four here, don't we?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. We have a few more, but we need to pick up this one, 
this one, and that one.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. TIBERI. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
  Looking at the chart--maybe I am looking at it wrong. Before we do 
People/Reid, I think you have to do MoveOn.org/Rahm.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I think the gentleman is right, but I think the cat 
is out of the bag on this. And I would say that perhaps--well, sadly, 
they are both on the eastern time zone. But I think that, for the 
purposes of this discussion, we can say that this bracket is on the 
East Coast and these games will start later.
  Mr. McCOTTER. If the gentleman will yield, you might want to be 
careful. Someone may be taping the game.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. It is like ``The Sting'' with Paul Newman and Robert 
Redford where they pretaped the race. We don't intend to do that.

                              {time}  2015

  Again, Mr. Speaker, we'd encourage people watching at home to not 
wager on the brackets or any sporting event.
  So we're going to give this one to Senator Reid. Mr. Tiberi, do you 
want to talk about MoveOn.org?
  Mr. TIBERI. Can I inquire how much time we might have left?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I think we have about 15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has about 10 minutes 
left.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Go ahead.
  Mr. TIBERI. So I'm going to go with Rahm versus MoveOn.org.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. We're going to have to come back to that in just a 
second. There was a label around here someplace, and I can't find it.
  Mr. TIBERI. Where would you like us to go?
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, I was going to say about this matchup, there's 
really not a big difference between the two. You could declare this 
matchup a tie. But I think that, again, that perhaps it goes to the 
President's Chief of Staff. He's a pretty powerful guy. Are we all 
right with that?
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I think that's right. I thank the gentleman. So while 
I look for my Rahm sticker to put up here, why don't you fellows go 
back to the East Coast. We have two games up. The People versus Senator 
Reid.
  Mr. TIBERI. I think we probably should go People versus Senator Reid.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Why don't we do that?
  Mr. McCOTTER. I believe that was settled in the instance of Senator 
Reid.
  Mr. TIBERI. I think the People lost.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Not yet.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Not yet.
  Mr. TIBERI. But to Senator Reid in the Senate, they lost. Actually, 
on Christmas Eve.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Merry Christmas.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. That really is one of my favorite things. We've had a 
lot of artificial deadlines. We had to have the stimulus bill by 
President's Day. I don't know whether George Washington or Abraham 
Lincoln were calling for it. We had to have cap-and-trade by the Fourth 
of July. I couldn't tell you why. And we were told we had to have the 
Senate bill by Christmas. So you had sort of this strange sight of 
these octogenarians sleeping on cots over on the other side of the 
Capitol. More show than play. But we're going to give this to Senator 
Reid.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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--
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. And a height advantage.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Let me rephrase, if I may. While Bart may have a height 
advantage, the Speaker has the reach advantage on this one.
  Mr. TIBERI. I think that's more appropriate.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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

[[Page H1728]]

going to have to give this to the Speaker.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I think I agree with that. There are a couple of 
rumors out of the trainers' room that Mr. Stupak will in fact need 
medical attention for some twisted arms and legs as a result of this. 
But while we were talking, I found the Rahm Emanuel sticker, so we're 
going to slap that up there.
  Mr. Tiberi, any disagreement here about the Speaker versus Mr. 
Stupak?
  Mr. TIBERI. Hard to top the gentleman from Michigan's description.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. We're down to two games to come to the semifinals. 
Let's go over to Senator Reid and Chairman Waxman. What do you think?
  Mr. TIBERI: Well, while the cagey veteran from California put up a 
pretty good game, I think it's hard to top the Christmas Eve dealings 
of Senator Reid and the Senate bill, which ultimately, if it's deemed 
in the House, will be the one that actually becomes law over everything 
else. So I think you've got to give it to Senator Reid over Waxman.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Sure.
  McCotter.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. That's a good point. I think that that's a clear 
victory for the Senator from Nevada. So that brings us over to this 
side. I'm still trying to peel the back off of the Pelosi sticker. But 
we do have the last quarter-final games between the President's Chief 
of Staff, Mr. Emanuel, and, again, the cagey veteran from California, 
the Speaker of the House, Mrs. Pelosi.
  Guys?
  Mr. TIBERI. I think it's hard to argue with the Speaker in a close 
one, but I'd have to give it to the Speaker.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. McCotter.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I have heard he does in fact have a salty tongue. I 
think that's right. We'll give that to the Speaker. So we're down to 
the last quarter-final. It's Waxman versus Reid. Did we solve that?
  Mr. TIBERI. We solved that already. You're a sticker behind.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. So here we are as we come down to championship day. 
And the championship will be determined on Sunday here in the House of 
Representatives. It appears that the contest is going to be not with 
any Republican leader, not with the People, not with the conservative 
Democrats, not with Mr. Stupak and the people that believe in the pro-
life movement. It's going to be between the two Democratic leaders in 
the House and the Senate, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time have we got?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has about 4 minutes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. All right. Here we go. Then in this last 4 minutes I 
want to yield to each of my friends. And we can't yield specific blocks 
of time, but if you could each take about 2 minutes to give us your 
final thoughts and perhaps give us a prediction on the championship.
  McCotter, you're first.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TIBERI. What we know is if the House takes up this rule on 
reconciliation on Sunday or Monday, the Senate bill will be deemed 
passed and on to the President's desk. That means Senator Reid will 
have won. The question is: Will they get the votes for the 
reconciliation the bill in the House and then in the Senate without 
changing it? If they do change it, does it come back to the House, and 
can they get the votes to uphold the changes, and what will happen 
then?
  So this is going to play out. What's clear is, as you've pointed out, 
the American people end up losing. Health care reform is something that 
the three of us and the majority of Republicans support, but this isn't 
going to reform people's health care. This adds people to Medicaid. 
This adds people to insurance. This adds a slew of taxes, Medicare 
cuts, cuts to Medicare Advantage, and doesn't allow people to 
necessarily keep what they have. This is not reform that Americans 
bought into.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman. I think I agree with it. This 
is going to be a barn-burner. This is one where you want to be on the 
edge of your seats because this thing, I expect, is going to go back 
and forth; first half, second half.
  Mr. McCOTTER. 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.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank both gentlemen for joining me this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, where are we?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Two sentences. Tune in Sunday. Thanks.

                          ____________________