[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 183 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8069-H8073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            REPEAL OBAMACARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gowdy). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to be recognized to 
address you here on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives. And I want to say that I appreciate the presentation 
that came from just some of the great team of doctors that we have 
here, especially on the Republican side of the United States Congress. 
I occasionally sit with these learned individuals, and I learn a lot 
from them, and I'm grateful that the American people have been able to 
review their presentation here tonight, looking at the numbers and the 
dollars that have come out of the health care because of this great 
burden of ObamaCare.
  You know, I was thinking of the necessity for us to continue to 
remind Americans, ObamaCare is right now the law of the land. It is the 
law of the land. And until such time as this Congress repeals it or the 
Supreme Court should find it to be completely unconstitutional, it will 
remain the law of the land.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people need to be reminded that even though 
it's creeping in on us, and people are realizing what ObamaCare is 
doing, a few people at a time, it is an insidious creep of a malignant 
tumor that is metastasizing and consuming American liberty, and it has 
to go.
  If we look back at the special elections in Ohio 2 or 3 weeks ago, on 
it were several ballot initiatives. The second ballot initiative was 
one that rejected the collective bargaining initiative that had been 
initiated by Governor Kasich. It was a tough loss for Governor Kasich. 
I think he was right, but he lost in the ballot place because there was 
a liberal-heavy, union-heavy turnout in the State of Ohio for that 
special election night 2 or 3 weeks ago. And by 61 percent, the Kasich-
initiated ballot initiative that limited collective bargaining was shot 
down by a union-heavy, liberal-heavy turnout. And they spent a lot of 
money in Ohio to turn out that type of a base.
  But in the same ballot, the next item down, ballot initiative No. 2 
was collective bargaining. No. 3 was a constitutional amendment to 
amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio to protect Ohioans from 
ObamaCare, to be able to reject the individual mandate and a whole 
series, about three different points there, to amend the constitution 
to protect Ohioans from the ObamaCare mandate.

                              {time}  2010

  And, with a union-heavy, liberal-heavy turnout in Ohio in which 61 
percent said ``no'' to Governor Kasich on collective bargaining, sixty-
six percent of that voting universe voted to protect Ohioans from 
ObamaCare and to reject ObamaCare by amending their State constitution. 
That's a serious step, to step forward and amend the State 
constitution. But they did so in an effort to reject ObamaCare in the 
State of Ohio.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a resounding rejection, that two out of 
every three people that went to the polls rejected ObamaCare. I will 
tell you that the American people are poised to do so if they're 
reminded that it exists out there. And there are two things that 
protect the American people, two stops along the way that can keep 
ObamaCare from becoming the perpetually institutionalized permanent law 
of the land, and that would be when the Supreme Court hears the case 
and yields a decision. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there is 
no severability clause in all 2,600 pages of ObamaCare. No severability 
clause.
  What that means to the lay person is this: If a component of 
ObamaCare is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then all of 
ObamaCare is thrown out by the Supreme Court. There's no provision that 
stipulates that if a component is unconstitutional, then the other 
components will stand on their own.
  That is not just an ignorant omission on the part of the people that 
drafted and promoted and voted for ObamaCare. They knew it didn't have 
a severability clause in it. I knew it didn't have a severability 
clause in it. That means every Member of Congress had the opportunity 
to know that it didn't have a severability clause. So Congress 
willfully and intentionally passed an ObamaCare piece of legislation 
that didn't provide that if a part of it is found to be 
unconstitutional, the balance of it would be found to be 
constitutional. And the important component of that then, Mr. Speaker 
is this. If a part is found unconstitutional, it's all 
unconstitutional, and all 2,600 pages of ObamaCare then, by a Supreme 
Court decision, will be rendered null and void.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are exceptions to those types of decisions by 
the Supreme Court. But generally speaking, the court honors and 
respects a willful decision of the legislative branch. If that willful 
decision is that there be no severability clause, the Supreme Court 
should understand that that wasn't an accident. It was an unintentional 
omission. It was a willful omission because the drafters and the 
proponents of ObamaCare, of which I am not one, understood that if a 
part of it is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of it collapses 
anyway of its own weight.
  The components of this that prop up ObamaCare are cutting that $575 
billion out of Medicare to fund other parts of ObamaCare and then 
ending Medicare Advantage. The individual mandate that's in there, all 
of this is delicately drafted to try to find a way to argue that it 
could be paid for. And of course, they discovered that the CLASS Act in 
ObamaCare couldn't sustain itself. The numbers that they had advanced 
to try to pass it aren't sustainable. And so the administration

[[Page H8070]]

has decided they're not going to move forward with the CLASS Act, this 
piece that is, let's say, retirement home insurance funded out of 
ObamaCare. They thought that was going to save money; they found out 
that it was going to cost money. So they'll drop that.
  This Congress has passed a couple of repeals of pieces of ObamaCare. 
One of them is, out of this House at least, is the 1099 squeal form 
piece of ObamaCare. So it's been taken apart to some degree. And the 
underpinnings of ObamaCare are starting to cause it to crumble. If the 
Supreme Court finds any part of it unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker, they 
will be well aware that no severability clause does not indicate an 
omission by accident on the part of Congress; that somehow the Supreme 
Court would re-create on a decision by the Supreme Court. They need to 
know it was a willful decision, it was premeditated, it was thought 
out, and the decision was no severability clause because ObamaCare, if 
any part of it is taken out by it being found unconstitutional--and I 
believe there are about four areas where it is unconstitutional--then 
all parts of ObamaCare must go.
  I appreciate the doctors that came to the floor tonight to educate 
the American people on the bad components of ObamaCare. I would like to 
encourage, Mr. Speaker, the American people to know that we are focused 
on repealing 100 percent of ObamaCare; ripping it all out by the roots 
and leaving not one vestige of it left behind, not one particle, not 
one sign of its DNA. Because if we leave any component of ObamaCare, it 
will grow back on us like the roots of a bad weed and/or the virus, or 
the malignant tumor, as I said. I would ask the doctors this. You take 
out a malignant tumor. If you leave part it, it will grow back. I don't 
want to leave one part of this malignant tumor of ObamaCare. I want 
American liberty to thrive. So ObamaCare must go.
  Ohioans have rejected it by roughly a 2-1 margin--66 percent. And 
Ohio is middle America. If you're going to win the Presidency, you must 
win Ohio. President Obama knows that. That's why he visits Ohio as 
often as he does with Air Force One. Or, did we call that Fundraiser 
One. He visits these swing States--about 11 swing States--with the 
President of the United States flying in and out with Air Force One. 
Yes, just propping up public policy--no, not campaigning, according to 
his press secretary. We all know better.
  The criticism that came from the Democrats because George Bush 
dropped into some States that were swing States on Air Force One now 
becomes the responsibility of Republicans to remind the Democrats that 
the next time this happens, you will be hypocrites. You actually should 
retract your statements now to prepare yourself for the incumbent 
President that will be campaigning around on Air Force One, dropping in 
some of these places and advancing policy in 2016. So prepare 
yourselves, gentlemen. Scrub it out of your history now. Recant the 
things you said about George W. Bush. That way you can defend the 
President today, and then you won't be such hypocrites in 2013, as I 
predict you will be. Sure, I would be happy to yield if you had an 
opinion on that, but I know that you know I'm right and accept that.
  So, the job of this Congress, the job of the American people, is 
this: To maintain people here in the House of Representatives who are 
pledged to, committed to, and will pass a repeal of ObamaCare again and 
send it over to the United States Senate, where I'm asking, Mr. 
Speaker, for the American people to put Senators over there that will 
also vote to repeal ObamaCare, pledge to do so, and pledge to drive it 
and push it and use every fiber of their being to rip that malignant 
tumor, ObamaCare, out of the Federal Register, out of the code, and 
give people back their American liberty. It's not enough to trust the 
Supreme Court to make a constitutional decision and sit back on our 
hands and think that somehow the court is going to save us.
  I remember what happened when McCain-Feingold passed and then went to 
the President's desk. That was President Bush. And the word that came 
back--and this is rumor and conjecture, Mr. Speaker--was that the 
President had decided that he would sign the bill because it had such 
momentum when it got there and political support when it got there 
because he expected the Supreme Court would find McCain-Feingold to be 
unconstitutional.
  Well, over time, and thanks to Citizens United and their lawsuit, 
parts were found to be constitutional--not all of it--and the limits 
that were put on free speech within that were freed up to the degree 
that they were litigated by Citizens United. I congratulate the people 
that had the vision to take it to the Supreme Court and win the case 
there. But no executive officer and no Member of this legislature, the 
House or the Senate--and, Mr. Speaker, I would send a message also to 
all legislators in the land, everyone in the statehouse in all 50 
States, be you in the State house or the State senate, or in Nebraska 
in the unicameral, never vote for a bill because you believe that the 
court will find it to be unconstitutional and protect the citizens from 
a bad policy or an unconstitutional policy.
  Mr. Speaker, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United 
States. That oath that we take is to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution of the United States to the words and the language that 
are in the Constitution, not as it would be reinterpreted by someone 
else--a court-to-be, let's say, appointed later by an executive-to-be 
elected later to amend by court decision the clear meaning of this 
Constitution.
  I'd give an example of this. In fact, the discussion came up today in 
the Judiciary Committee with Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin's 
bill that goes back to protect the property rights within the States 
and prohibits Federal funds going into certain programs of States that 
violate the intent and the literal language of the Fifth Amendment of 
the United States Constitution.
  The famous Kelo decision, Mr. Speaker, I recall that unfolding here 
in about 2004 or 2005, when I believe it was the city council of New 
London, Connecticut, had decided that they would condemn property that 
was owned privately through eminent domain and then hand that property 
over to another private interest to be developed for a shopping mall or 
a strip mall because they believed that they would get a better tax 
base and get a better return than they were from the individual that 
owned the land.

                              {time}  2020

  Now, it directly and clearly violated, in my opinion--and I'll put my 
opinion up against any Supreme Court Justice that disagrees with me on 
this issue in particular--the clear language in the Fifth Amendment of 
the Constitution that protects our property rights and is an essential 
pillar of American exceptionalism, the right to property.
  It says: ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without 
just compensation.'' ``Nor shall private property be taken for public 
use without just compensation.'' And the effect of the Kelo decision by 
the Supreme Court, which I believe was unjustly found, is to strike 
three words out of the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution of the 
United States, the words: ``for public use.'' So, now the effect, after 
this wrongly held Kelo decision, is for the Fifth Amendment to read 
this way: ``Nor shall private property be taken without just 
compensation.'' The ``for public use'' taken out of the Fifth 
Amendment.
  This Constitution has to mean what it was understood to mean at the 
time of ratification. It has to mean what the clear words mean in this 
Constitution. It can't be anything else. We can't take an oath to 
anything else, and we can't be bound by a later interpretation to the 
Constitution that someone else makes unless there is a clarity that's 
added to the understanding of the plain meaning and the plain words and 
the original text of the Constitution and the amendments as they were 
ratified.
  What did they mean when they were ratified? Mr. Speaker, we had a 
supreme court in the State of Iowa that concluded that they could find 
rights in the State constitution that were ``up to this point 
unimagined.'' Seriously, judges wrapped in black robes--no longer any 
wigs--sitting there saying that they had found rights in the 
constitution that were up to this point unimagined, and that somehow 
this contractual guarantee that gets passed

[[Page H8071]]

down through the generations and the ages, this contract with American 
citizenship--with Iowan citizenship in that case--can be breached 
because they have found rights that were up to this point unimagined? 
Heretofore unimagined rights.
  What kind of guarantee can there be, a court that can discover new 
rights out of their imagination and declare that no one else had the 
imagination to discover those rights, but they had the vision to 
discover rights that were in this Constitution but not discovered 
before? That says there's no guarantee whatsoever. That says this 
Constitution becomes just only one of two things: it becomes an 
artifact of history with no meaning whatsoever, or it's a shield that 
the Justices can use to protect themselves from the criticism of the 
unwashed masses, those laypersons that think that they can't read this 
clear language and understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, I'll say the people I represent can read the 
Constitution. They do understand it. They understand what it means. And 
they can make the argument with the Supreme Court Justices if they were 
not intimidated. If they would just read the language, go to the Fifth 
Amendment, read the language, ``Nor shall private property be taken for 
public use without just compensation.''
  What does ``for public use'' mean if a local government can 
confiscate private property and hand it over to another private entity 
for the purposes of private use? That means they have violated the 
Constitution. And the bill before the Judiciary Committee today, thanks 
to Chairman Smith and former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, fixes that to 
some degree; but it doesn't repair this Constitution that is so sacred 
to all of us that we take an oath to it.
  And so I'll continue my oath and pledge to this Constitution, Mr. 
Speaker, and continue to make this point that we have to have 
constitutional legislation come before this Congress; that when someone 
brings a bill called ObamaCare to this floor--2,600 pages--that 
violates so many of the components of the constitutional guarantee, let 
alone sapping the vitality from this very vigorous American culture 
that we are, the American people rise up.
  They rose up in tens of thousands, came to this Capitol and 
surrounded the place, jammed the place so heavily that people had 
trouble getting in and getting out. It was a glorious thing to see, Mr. 
Speaker, that the American people love their liberty enough that they 
would come from all 50 States to jam this Capitol to say to us, do not 
do this. Do not commit this affront to the Constitution. Do not usurp 
American liberty. These are God-given rights.
  And who takes them away? This Congress that was led by then-Speaker 
Pelosi and Harry Reid in the Senate and Barack Obama. The ruling troika 
imposed ObamaCare on us, and the American people have rejected it 
resoundingly by sending now 89 freshman Republicans to the House of 
Representatives. And every one of them pledged to repeal ObamaCare. And 
all but two of them--because they haven't had a chance to do so yet, 
they're the special election two--every single Republican in the House 
and every single Republican in the Senate voted to repeal ObamaCare. 
And it was bipartisan. Some of the Democrats in the House voted to 
repeal ObamaCare.
  The message has been sent. It's been sent in the State of Ohio; it's 
been sent by the polling. It goes on and on and on: repeal ObamaCare. 
Now, every Presidential candidate on the Republican side is running on 
repealing ObamaCare. Every one of them will sign the repeal if they're 
elected President and sworn into office.
  Now, I'd like to see us put the repeal of ObamaCare, if we can't get 
it passed before such time as we elect a new President, whom I believe 
will be inaugurated January 20, 2013, if we can't get ObamaCare 
completely repealed before then, and whether or not the Supreme Court 
finds it unconstitutional, honors that there is no severability clause, 
and throws all of ObamaCare out, it's still exists within the code and 
it still needs to be repealed.
  And the next Congress, being an honorable Congress, needs to send a 
repeal to the next President to be signed. And even if the Supreme 
Court throws it out, and even if the current President is reelected, 
there needs to be a repeal that goes to second-term President Obama's 
desk--I perish the thought if it unfolds in that fashion. But this 
Congress needs to act and repeal ObamaCare thoroughly.
  And I pray that we're able to put the repeal of ObamaCare on the 
podium, on the west portico of the Capitol, January 20, 2013, having 
passed the House and the Senate, not messaged to the White House, 
messaged to the podium on the west portico of the Capitol, moments--
maybe the instant after the next President takes the oath of office. 
And at the words ``so help me God,'' I'd like to see the next President 
sign the repeal before he or she shakes the hand of Chief Justice 
Roberts, who will be delivering the oath of office to the next 
President of the United States. We have constitutional responsibilities 
that we have to live up to. We give an oath. ObamaCare violates that 
Constitution.
  And we have some other things going on here in this government that 
violate the spirit of the statutes that the American people have pushed 
through here. And one of them is this. It's the advocacy, Mr. Speaker, 
of this: I've got a memo in my hand. It's dated 13 April, 2011 from the 
Chief of the Chaplains of the Navy to Chaplains and Religious Program 
Specialists. It says this: Go ahead, you Navy chaplains. You go ahead 
and conduct same-sex marriage services on our military bases anywhere 
where it's not otherwise illegal.
  That's the summary of it. It says that facility usage is determined 
by local policies. And the Region Legal Service Office, the RLSO, 
should be consulted to ensure compliance with existing laws and 
regulations, absent some existing statute, however. This is a change to 
previous training that stated same-sex marriages are not authorized on 
Federal property. This memo says they are now authorized on Federal 
property in direct contradiction with the Defense of Marriage Act, 
DOMA, that was passed by this Congress, signed into law, clearly is the 
law of the land.
  I mean, we have, apparently, a directive from the Commander in Chief 
of the United States military, Barack Obama. He surely has to be the 
one that has ordered the Navy, you shall send out a memo here to direct 
the chaplains to conduct same-sex marriages on the bases unless there 
is some other law that gets in the way. I think that this kind of 
activity is an affront to the legislative authority that exists by the 
Constitution within the legislature. This is not an executive decision. 
This is a decision of the legislature.

                              {time}  2030

  We passed the Defense of Marriage Act. I testified to defend the 
Defense of Marriage Act over in the United States Senate a month or so 
ago. And if the Senate were able to pass a repeal of the Defense of 
Marriage Act, it still has to come to the House, where I'm confident it 
would not pass. And I don't think it'll pass the Senate either.
  But in any case, we have a defiance of Federal policy set by the 
Congress, signed by the President of the United States, from the Office 
of the Chief of the Navy Chaplains, dated 13 April 2011, that says, 
don't be biased by sexual orientation when you're conducting weddings. 
Go ahead and marry same-sex people on these military bases anywhere 
where it doesn't otherwise violate a law.
  That tells me that that goes worldwide, bases everywhere. I suppose 
it's probably not happening on a base in Kuwait. They might frown on 
such a thing, but I don't know, and it's hard to get the facts on this.
  But it's hard for me also to imagine a Marine--a Navy chaplain 
marrying a couple of marines, let's say a same sex couple of marines, 
whichever sex it might be. And this is going on in the United States of 
America and on bases around the country, Mr. Speaker, and it needs to 
come to an immediate halt.
  This Congress has acted on this. This House has sent the message, and 
of course you have the Senate on the other side, run by Harry Reid, 
one-third of the former ruling troika that now becomes a shield for the 
President of the United States and the person who carries the water for 
the President, protects him when he doesn't want to have the 
confrontation himself. They've gone the other way. Now they've stricken 
the language out of the code. If the Senate language passes the House, 
they've stricken the language that prohibits bestiality in the

[[Page H8072]]

military in their overzealous effort to try to advance same-sex 
marriage among our military and use it as a social experiment.
  The military's job is to protect our freedom and our liberty. They 
take an oath to the Constitution. They put their lives on the line, and 
we give them something that defies the Federal law, the Defense of 
Marriage Act.
  Now, this is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to ask to 
introduce this into the Record. I know that I have the, I guess I'll 
say the privilege to do that. I will go on to another subject matter 
here that's--I don't know if it's more egregious, but it's plenty bad.
  This is a memo dated September 14, 2011, Department of the Navy, 
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center up on Wisconsin Avenue, 
Bethesda, Maryland. I visited up there and visited wounded a number of 
times. And this memo is from the Commander of Walter Reed National 
Military Medical Center. Subject: Wounded, Ill and Injured Partners in 
Care Guidelines. Policy Memo Number 10-015. And there's a bunch of 
other stamped numbers that do reference off of the Web site. And it 
gives some directive about the purpose, applicability, official of 
wounded, ill and injured partners visits, how they should be conducted, 
et cetera.
  And policy, according to Patient and Family Centered Care, Mr. 
Speaker, children in good health under the age of 18 are encouraged to 
participate. It goes on. Here's how the families should conduct 
themselves in visiting the wounded. Here's the intensive care units, 
how we would do that.
  Here are exceptions, visits before or after the established hours, 
how that might work. And then visitation for certain kind of patients, 
et cetera. Those visiting the WII in an official capacity will make 
their request 5 days in advance, getting to the goal line.
  A number of these provisions, as I read through here, the family, the 
leadership, members of the executive--this memo directs towards the 
executive, the legislative, and the judiciary branches of government? 
Members of the executive, legislative, to include professional staff 
members, judiciary, active duty, general, flag and senior executive 
service personnel. It's telling all of us, Members of Congress, the 
President and all of his people, the judiciary, the judges, the 
judiciary branch and all of their staff--well, at least the legislative 
staff--what we can and can't do when we visit the wounded at Walter 
Reed, including active duty general, flag and senior executive 
services, celebrities, sports personnel, et cetera, members of the 
press. All these people that are listed, here's what you can and can't 
do.
  Now, I'll get to my point here on the last page, Mr. Speaker, 
partners in care guidelines. That's all of us bound by this memo, 
supposedly. All family visits must be scheduled 5 days in advance, as I 
said. Group size can't be over five. All partners under the age of 18 
must be accompanied by an adult. Okay. Fine. I'm good enough with that. 
Can't take pictures unless the patient agrees. Fine with that.
  Due to dietary restrictions and infectious disease protocols, the 
distribution of home-produced baked goods to the patients, families, 
and staff members is prohibited. You can't bring cookies to the 
patient. Ooh, that's tough.
  But I wouldn't be standing here if that was the worst thing, Mr. 
Speaker. That's Item E. I went A, B, C, D, E.
  Here's Item F, and I'll read it into the Record. ``No religious 
items, (i.e., Bibles, reading material and/or artifacts) are allowed to 
be given away or used during a visit.''
  Mr. Speaker, these military men and women who are recovering at 
Walter Reed and Bethesda have given their all for America. They've 
given their all for America, and they've defended and taken an oath to 
the Constitution, and here they are. The people that come to visit them 
can't bring a religious artifact? They can't bring a Bible? They can't 
use them in the services? A priest can't walk in with the Eucharist and 
offer communion to a patient who might be on their deathbed because 
it's prohibited in this memo from the Department of the Navy, the 
Commander of Walter Reed and signed, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, by 
C.W. Callahan, Chief of Staff.
  I would also like to introduce this document into the Record.
                                               Office of the Chief


                                            of Navy Chaplains,

                                                   Washington, DC,
     From: Chief of Chaplains (OPNAV N097)
     To: Chaplains and Religious Program Specialists
     Subj: Revision of Chaplain Corps Tier 1 Training

       1. Chaplain Corps Tier 1 DADT repeal training has been 
     revised. The current version, dated 11 April 2011, has been 
     posted on the Navy and Marine Corps DADT repeal websites. 
     This revised version supersedes all previous versions and 
     should be reviewed in its entirety.
       2. During the initial stages of curriculum development, 
     several policy questions were raised related to same-sex 
     marriages. Those questions were forwarded for legal counsel 
     and approval was secured to commence Tier 1 training while 
     awaiting further guidance. Additional legal review concluded 
     that the curriculum did require modification of content 
     related to same-sex marriage issues as found in Vignette 1 
     and FAQ 5.
       a. Regarding the use of base facilities for same-sex 
     marriages, legal counsel has concluded that generally 
     speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral. If 
     the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is 
     legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate 
     the marriage. This is true for purely religious services 
     (e.g., a chaplain blessing a union) or a traditional wedding 
     (e.g., a chaplain both blessing and conducting the ceremony). 
     Facility usage is determined by local policies and the Region 
     Legal Service Office (RLSO) should be consulted to ensure 
     compliance with existing laws and regulations. This is a 
     change to previous training that stated same-sex marriages 
     are not authorized on federal property.
       b. Regarding chaplain participation, consistent with the 
     tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may 
     officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in 
     accordance with the laws of a state which permits same-sex 
     marriages or union; and if the chaplain is, according to 
     applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to 
     officiate that state's marriages. While this is not a change, 
     it is a clearer, more concise and up to date articulation. 
     Again, consult the Region Legal Service Office (RLSO) to 
     ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations.
       3. The revised Chaplain Corps Tier 1 training is posted on 
     the Navy and Marine Corps DADT websites. Those websites are 
     found at: Navy--http://www.dadtrepeal.navy.mil; Marine 
     Corps--https://www.manpower.usmc.mil/portal/page/portal/M_
RA_HOME/DADT. All prior versions of the curriculum should be 
     replaced by the current 11 April 2011 version.
       4. If you have any questions or require additional 
     information please contact Chaplain Doyle Dunn at (703) 614-
     4437/doyle@[email protected] or Chaplain Michael Gore at (703) 
     614-5556/michael.w.gore
     @navy.mil.
                                                        M.L. Tidd,
     Rear Admiral, CHC, U.S. Navy.
                                  ____

         Department of the Navy, Walter Reed National Military 
           Medical Center,
                                 Bethesda, MD, September 14, 2011.
     From: Commander, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
     Subj: Wounded, Ill, and Injured Partners in Care Guidelines
     Ref: (a) NAVMED Policy Memo 10-015

       1. Purpose. To provide guidelines with respect to the 
     presence and participation of families and other partners in 
     care. This document replaces the hospital's previous 
     visitation policies for the Seriously Injured (SI), Very 
     Seriously Injured (VSI), and Wounded, Ill, and Injured (WII) 
     patients. The Walter Reed National Military Medical Center 
     (WRNMMC), Bethesda promotes and supports a patient and family 
     centered approach to care. For the purpose of this 
     instruction, WII patients are those active duty individuals 
     who are wounded, become ill, or who are injured while serving 
     within a combat theater.
       2. Applicability. To provide guidance for partners in care 
     as defined by the family of SI, VSI, and WII patients at 
     WRNMMC.
       3. Official WII Visits. Other partners in care who wish to 
     visit the WII population will arrange their visit through the 
     Warrior Family Coordination Cell (WFCC) Office of 
     Distinguished Visitation utilizing the ``Gold Line'' (855) 
     875-GOLD (4653) and will arrange their visit to fall between 
     the hours of 1000-1500 daily unless other arrangements have 
     been arranged through the WFCC. It is requested, to foster 
     the ``Patient and Family Centered Care'' milieu within the 
     inpatient environments, visitors refrain from scheduling 
     visits during inpatient quiet hours of 1300-1400 daily.
       4. Policy. In keeping with the ``Patient and Family 
     Centered Care'' philosophy of WRNMMC, families are considered 
     partners within the health care team and are encouraged to 
     care for their loved ones while maintaining good personal 
     health without constraint of set visiting hours.
       a. Children. Children in good health under the age of 18 
     are encouraged to participate in the recovery process with 
     their wounded family member under the direct supervision of 
     an adult family member.
       b. Family. WRNMMC uses a broad definition of ``family'' as 
     defined by each patient. This concept is supported by the 
     American Academy of Family Physicians.
       c. Intensive Care Units. Primary next of kin (PNOK) may 
     visit at any time. Other

[[Page H8073]]

     partners in care may visit if accompanied by the PNOK.
       d. Exceptions. Visits before or after the established hours 
     of 1000-1500 and during inpatient quiet hours of 1300-1400 
     for other partners in care will be reviewed on a case by case 
     basis through the WFCC, attending physician, and charge 
     nurse.
       5. SI and VSI Patients. Visitation for the SI and VSI 
     patients who are not WII will be managed at the discretion of 
     the attending physician and respective charge nurse in 
     consultation with the patient. Visitors should be limited to 
     the immediate family or other individuals identified by the 
     patient and/or immediate family. These visits will be 
     coordinated through the appropriate charge nurse prior to 
     being directed to the patient's room.
       6. WII Patients. Those visiting the WII in an official 
     capacity will make their request utilizing the WFCC ``Gold 
     Line'' at (855) 875-GOLD (4653) and will be limited to the 
     hours of 1000-1500 Monday through Friday. To encourage 
     patient and family rest, foster a rehabilitative environment, 
     and accommodate clinical necessities, it is requested 
     visitors refrain from scheduling visits during inpatient 
     quiet hours of 1300-1400 daily. In general, officials 
     visiting the WII population outside the established visiting 
     hours will need prior approval from the WFCC. To ensure an 
     optimal experience, these visits will be scheduled five (5) 
     days prior to the planned date; impromptu or last minute 
     visits to the WII will not be entertained. WII visits include 
     the following partners in care:
       a. Family
       b. Leadership of Title 36 Congressionally Charted 
     Organizations
       c. Members of the:
       (1) Executive
       (2) Legislative--to include Professional Staff Members 
     (PSM)
       (3) Judiciary
       d. Active duty General, Flag, and Senior Executive Service 
     (SES).
       e. Celebrities and sports personnel vetted through the 
     Staff Judge Advocate (SJA).
       f. Members of the press vetted through the Public Affairs 
     Office (PAO).
       g. Other partners in care who represent committees who wish 
     to visit the WII from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American 
     Legion, Fleet Reserve Association, Marine Corps League, Army 
     League, and other similar organizations shall be referred to 
     the WFCC for WII visits.
       h. Leadership of the Military Coalition and National 
     Military Veterans Alliance.
       i. Out of town visitors or visitors who cannot come during 
     normal visiting hours shall be referred to the WFCC for 
     patient visits.
       j. Partners in care representing verifiable 501(c)(3) 
     benevolent organizations wishing to interact with the WII and 
     or provide goods or services will be directed to the WFCC. 
     These organizations will not be allowed unfettered access to 
     the inpatient environment for the purposes of information 
     gathering, solicitation, or donation delivery.
       (1) All donations of goods or services to the WII will be 
     coordinated through the WFCC utilizing approved processes, 
     vetting methods, accountability, and delivery.
       7. Exceptions. SI, VSI, and WII patients may refuse 
     visitors at any time.
       8. Partners in Care Guidelines
       a. All non-family visits must be scheduled five (5) days in 
     advance.
       b. Group size will not exceed five (5).
       c. All partners in care, under the age of 18, must be 
     accompanied by an adult.
       d. Photographs may not be taken before, during, or after 
     the visit without express permission and signed Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act documentation 
     provided by the PAO and signed by the patient or PNOK if the 
     patient is incapacitated. At no time will personal 
     identifiable information (PII) or protected health 
     information (PHI) be recorded, retransmitted, and or utilized 
     in any manner without the express written consent of the 
     patient or their PNOK if incapacitated.
       e. Due to dietary restrictions and infectious disease 
     protocols, the distribution of home produced baked goods to 
     the patients, families, or staff members is prohibited.
       f. No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading material, and/
     or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a 
     visit.
       9. Release of Patient Information. All patient information 
     will be released in accordance with reference (a).
                                                    C.W. Callahan,
                                                   Chief of Staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________