[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25615-25618]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOVING GUANTANAMO DETAINEES TO U.S. SOIL AND CONGRESSIONAL TRANSPARENCY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Speaker for the recognition.
  Yesterday was a very interesting day in an open hearing in the 
Intelligence Committee. It's something that doesn't happen very often. 
We had the opportunity to hear from a small business person from 
Standish, Michigan--Dave Munson. The hearing was about congressional 
notification.
  When is it the requirement of the executive branch, of the President 
and of the executive agencies, to fully brief Congress in a timely 
manner on the actions that they are taking?
  The law is fairly clear. Congress needs to be fully and currently 
informed of intelligence matters.
  So why would David Munson, a small business man from a small town in 
northern Michigan, be testifying in front of the Intelligence 
Committee?
  David Munson is asking that this Congress, that the Michigan 
legislature, that the city council in Standish, and that the citizens 
of Standish, Michigan be fully and completely informed and be on a 
timely basis informed on what this administration's policies are for 
moving Guantanamo prisoners to the United States.
  On January 22, the President made a statement that he now is finding 
is very, very difficult to finish. He promised that, within 12 months, 
the prison in Guantanamo would be closed and that the Gitmo detainees 
would be moved somewhere else, either overseas or perhaps to the United 
States. Many of us who have been working on this issue for years 
recognized how ill-advised the President's statement could be.
  President Bush had said that he wanted Guantanamo closed, and as he 
started taking a look at how he would make it happen, he found out it 
was very, very difficult to do. He diminished the number of detainees 
in Gitmo, but he wasn't able to close it completely. President Obama, 
really with no analysis, said he would close it in 12 months. He has 
now found out how difficult that is.
  Other countries don't want to take these detainees. They don't want 
to take them into their countries. We don't want them in the United 
States. As soon as they move from Cuba to the United States, they get a 
whole new set of legal rights and legal authorities. So why would we 
want to do that for some of the most dangerous people in the world? Yet 
the President seems committed to moving these people to the United 
States.
  One of the sites that he is supposedly investigating, or that the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice are considering, is 
a closed corrections facility in Standish, Michigan. The Department of 
Defense has been there. Mr. Munson believes that some of the elected 
officials in the community are having ongoing discussions with the 
Department of Defense about moving these detainees, these prisoners, to 
the State of Michigan even though the community is opposed.
  Just like most of Michigan, this is a community that is hurting. 
We've got a 15.3 percent unemployment rate--the highest unemployment 
rate in the country, so we need an economic stimulus; but what the 
people of that community have said is we don't need an al Qaeda 
stimulus in our community. If the President is considering moving these 
prisoners to Michigan, what they do want is transparency. They would 
like to know exactly what the status of the negotiations is.
  Are there negotiations actually taking place? If there are, then 
they'd like to know: What's the impact on our

[[Page 25616]]

community going to be? They'd like to have a better understanding.
  As Mr. Munson said yesterday, exactly who are these individuals we're 
considering moving into our community? What are their backgrounds? Why 
are they being held in Gitmo? Why have we detained them for years? He 
would also like to know, as would other people in the community, if 
we've held these people in Gitmo for a number of years, what have we 
learned while we have held these people in detention? What kinds of 
risks and challenges might they pose to the people who are guarding 
them and to the community where they are housed? What has been our 
experience in holding al Qaeda and radical jihadists in prisons around 
the world? Have there been attempted prison breaks? Have there been 
attempted prison entries where people outside have targeted the 
communities where these facilities are held?
  These are the kinds of questions that the people in Standish, 
Michigan and the people of Michigan want answers to. The people in 
Standish have asked for that information. The Michigan legislature has 
asked for transparency. I have asked for transparency as the ranking 
member of the Intelligence Committee, but consistently, Secretary Gates 
and the Obama administration have replied with stone silence. They are 
totally unwilling to share any information with elected officials or 
with the citizens of Standish about what their plans and intentions may 
or may not be.
  For an administration that said we are going to be transparent, to 
have a hearing in the Intelligence Committee where we're saying we want 
to talk about transparency and about what some would say is a lack of 
transparency by the previous administration and now by this 
administration and about keeping Congress fully and completely informed 
on a timely basis, it was the perfect hearing in which to have that 
discussion.
  What David Munson clearly articulated is that people in Michigan and 
people in Standish are concerned, and they want answers. This 
administration has been unwilling to keep the citizens of Standish 
informed on this issue. It is disappointing. This is a community that 
is concerned about their economic future. They are concerned about the 
character of their community. They are concerned about the future. With 
the closing of the corrections facility in Standish recently, the city 
faces some very, very tough economic times. The community faces tough 
economic times. A lot of people have lost their jobs because of the 
decisions that have been made by the State of Michigan.
  So they're trying to wrestle, and they're trying to deal with those 
issues, but the thing that they realize is that, as they move forward 
and as they look toward the future as to how they're going to fill it, 
they would just like some information. They would like some information 
and some transparency from this administration, and they're 
disappointed that they're not getting it.
  Today, again, we reiterate the request to the Department of Defense, 
to the Department of Justice and to the Obama administration: Please, 
please be more transparent in what your plans and intentions are for 
the Gitmo detainees because there are two debates. There are many of us 
who believe that even considering moving the Gitmo detainees to U.S. 
soil is a genuinely bad idea.

                              {time}  1230

  Let's have that debate. Let's have that debate first, and then if 
somehow at the conclusion of that debate there are still people who 
believe that moving these individuals to the United States is a good 
idea, then let's be fully transparent as to the ramifications, the 
risks, and the implications to local communities.
  What we have seen so far is that the Obama administration is totally 
unwilling to engage in the first debate as to why and what the benefits 
are to closing Gitmo and moving those prisoners to the United States. 
Now they have moved directly to the second, without any consideration 
or any dialogue on the first, and now they are doing the second one in 
total secrecy.
  It is time to change that process. I think it is time to go back to 
the beginning of this process and reconsider that first decision that 
says we are going to close Gitmo. Then I think what we will find out is 
this second discussion may not even be needed.


              Providing Health Insurance to Every American

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I want to just change the topic now to how to insure 
every American on health care.
  A colleague of mine wrote an op-ed that was published in the Wall 
Street Journal recently that said there are different ways to ensure 
that every American has access to health insurance. People say, do 
Republicans have a plan? Of course we have plans. We have had plans for 
a number of years on ways to address the health crisis or the problems 
that we face in health care and with health insurance in America today. 
We were very, very clear that there is a plan that can do that. We also 
identified what some of the problems may be.
  If you take a look at why we have some of the issues, go to your 
local hospitals. Go to your local doctors. Ask them, when someone comes 
in with government health care, Medicare or Medicaid, how are you 
reimbursed for the expenses that you incur? And what they will 
typically tell you is, well, if someone comes in with a Medicaid card, 
for every dollar of expenses that we incur, we receive about 40 cents 
of reimbursement. If they come in as a Medicare patient, they will say, 
well, that is a little bit better. We get paid at about 60 cents for 
every dollar of expenses we incur.
  You ask, why is the private sector being squeezed and why do you see 
the insurance rates in the private sector going up? It is because the 
government programs are terrible payers and the cost has to be borne by 
the private sector.
  There are really five types of patients that will walk into a health 
care facility: those that are on Medicaid; those that are on Medicare; 
those that have private insurance; the fourth would be those that have 
no insurance, they are going to pay out of their pocket; and then the 
last would be uncompensated care, people that go into an emergency room 
or go into a doctor's office, they are sick, they are going to get the 
care, but they have no way to pay for the care that they are going to 
receive.
  All of those, everything except the private insurance plans, they are 
all squeezing private insurance, and that is what is forcing private 
insurance plans to escalate their costs and their premiums very 
quickly. Think about what would happen if the government programs 
actually paid $1 of reimbursement for $1 of care given.
  The other thing that we find is that our Tax Code incentivizes 
employer-provided health care, rewards health insurance companies by 
insulating them from accountability, and punishes those that lack 
employer-provided care. If individuals want to go out and buy health 
insurance for themselves, the Tax Code penalizes them, versus their 
neighbor who may be getting it from their employer. We need to fix 
this.
  But the bottom line that we come to in terms of insurance and making 
sure that every American has access to insurance is to empower patients 
and to give them more choice. We are going to talk a little bit about 
the alternative plans that are out there in just a minute. But our 
focus is driving towards patient choice, patient affordability, 
providing the mechanisms in the Tax Code and through tax credits or 
subsidies to enable individuals to go out and access health care, 
rather than having the government-run health care.
  It is a very, very different model between the two parties, one of 
which says we are going to empower individuals and give them access and 
they are going to keep the authority and the responsibility and the 
accountability and the opportunity to go out and buy their own health 
care, ensuring that they keep that power and that control.
  We are not empowering anybody. That is a word that we use all too 
often

[[Page 25617]]

here, that we are ``empowering.'' No. Individuals already have that 
authority. The Constitution protects those kinds of individual rights 
and individual freedoms. They are not getting that from this Congress. 
They are getting that because that is what the Founding Fathers gave to 
them. Now what we want to do is create a framework so they are better 
able to use that power and have access to health care.
  On this side of the aisle--and you saw it more recently with the 
passage of the Baucus bill out of committee over on the Senate side as 
well as in the bills that have come out in the House side--what do we 
see? What we see is, rather than individuals having the power, it is 
this body and Congress taking the power from individuals and taking it 
into this body and then giving it to Federal bureaucracies. And we know 
what happens when those decisions move from individuals to Washington.
  As a matter of fact, there was an op-ed written in the Investor 
Business Daily, again written by Congressman Shadegg and myself, and 
the title of that op-ed, as they put it on, we did not, but it says 
``Lies, Earmarks and Corruption All in One Bill.'' You kind of take a 
look at it and say, that is a pretty harsh indictment of a piece of 
legislation moving its way through Congress. Let me tell you where John 
and I see some of the evidence of this.
  People talk about this legislation and they say, well, it reduces the 
deficit by $70 billion or $80 billion over the first 10 years. And you 
look at it and say, yes, as my colleague before said, it is time for us 
to address the deficit. You say, yes, we are excited about that.
  But then you peel back the layers and you say, but how does it do 
that? We have got this massive expansion of health care to more 
Americans and these types of things. How do we do that and save money? 
As you peel back the layers, it says, yes, the taxes start day one when 
this bill goes into effect, but the benefits or the expansion of health 
care really doesn't start until year 3 or 4. So we have got 10 years of 
taxes and only 7 years or 6 years of health care.
  Well, what happens when we have 10 years of health care and 10 years 
of taxes? Same old thing. We are back to massive new deficits. Is that 
a lie? I don't know. But it sure looks like Enron-style accounting. 
People in the private sector have gone to jail for similar types of 
accounting.
  They also indicate that they are going to pay for this with $404 
billion of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. If there are those types of 
savings available in Medicare and Medicaid, let's do those right now. 
The reality is those types of savings aren't identified in Medicare and 
Medicaid. They never have been. As a matter of fact, the other body now 
is considering a doctor fix. They are not going to put it into this 
health care bill. Why? Because it is an increase of $250 billion of 
reimbursements to doctors. It is called the doc fix.
  So rather than finding savings in Medicare and Medicaid, what they 
are identifying is massive new expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid; 
$133 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage.
  Earmarks. There are State earmarks. Think about it. There are people 
from different States in this auditorium and on the floor of the House. 
There are new massive mandates in here for Medicaid, expansion of 
Medicaid.
  You say, well, let's apply those equally across all 50 States. The 
mandates go across all 50 States. In 46 of those States, the States 
have to pick up their share of the costs of these new mandates. In 
Michigan, it would normally mean we would pick up 40 percent of the 
cost of these new mandates. But, for some reason, four States are 
exempted. The Federal Government will pick up 100 percent of the 
expanded Medicaid costs. Michigan is one of those States. I say to the 
other 46 States, thank you, in this case, for subsidizing Michigan 
health care.
  There is another feature in here, another earmark, where there are 
going to be new taxes for individuals who have golden health insurance 
plans. What is the earmark? You would think this new tax would apply 
equally to all 50 States. Wrong. Seventeen States are exempted and only 
phase into this program over a period of time. You say thank you to the 
other 33 States, because you are now subsidizing, in this case, 17 
States who will not have new taxes imposed on them.
  Those Senators, those Members of the House, maybe were more effective 
in negotiating and saying, I will only vote for this health care if you 
exempt us from the Medicaid, the new Medicaid fees, or if you exempt 
our State from the new taxes.
  It hardly seems fair. It hardly seems to have much to do with the 
delivery of quality and quantity of health care. It seems to reflect 
more on who has power and who does not have power in the process of 
designing this new legislation.
  There is a better way. As I have gone through and as some of my 
colleagues have gone through and said, you know, let's take a look at 
health care. At one of my first town meetings, someone said, Pete, I 
know you came out of the business world. Now, you came out of Herman 
Miller and you came out of a marketing background, but you were working 
for a Fortune 500 company, and because you worked in product 
development, you spent a lot of time working with engineers. Take a 
look at our health care system from an engineer's standpoint.
  What an engineer would do is they would look at this thing 
systemically. They would identify where the problems were in the 
system, what parts of the system were broken and what parts of the 
system actually worked. Then they would focus in like a laser on fixing 
the parts of the system that were broken and leave the rest of the 
system working. That is kind of where we are with health care.
  Eighty-five percent of Americans have health care. Surveys indicate 
that most of these folks are satisfied with the health care that they 
are getting, but they are also compassionate and saying we ought to 
take a look at fixing the parts of the system that right now are 
barriers to other Americans getting health care.
  So the question is, why not focus on those? I have introduced and 
sponsored a series of bills that say, let's take a look at these seven 
targeted fixes for health care reform. They address the issues of cost, 
so that we have more competition. We have the tax credits and the cost 
subsidies, so every American will have the resources to go out and buy 
insurance. And they will also have an opportunity to have more choice, 
and there will be more competition, so that prices should come down.
  In terms of access, we are also going there, because we are saying we 
do need to do something. It is inherently unfair that individuals who 
have a preexisting condition find it difficult, if not impossible, to 
access health care in America. Let's make sure that we put in place a 
process in our insurance system that allows people that have 
preexisting conditions to make sure that they are covered and that they 
also have the opportunity to have the confidence that if they get a 
different illness or they get a different health care problem, that 
they are covered and they can be covered for their preexisting 
condition and other things that may happen to them.
  Then we put in a bill that deals with tort reform. All of these bills 
could be implemented immediately, and in 3 years we would find out how 
much impact we have had. As a matter of fact, these things could be 
implemented right now. We would have 3 years of experience in improving 
our current health care system, and in 3 years we could say, how much 
have these programs and these bills improved health insurance and 
health quality and quantity in America? If they are working, we could 
say, okay, maybe we have to tweak them, we have to modify them a little 
bit.
  But why the 3-year window? Remember that under the President's plan, 
the health care programs don't kick in for 3 years.

                              {time}  1245

  And at the rate that we're going, you wonder why 3 years. It also 
happens to

[[Page 25618]]

be, means they'll kick in after the next election, so Americans who 
will lose their health insurance or will have to change their health 
insurance, they won't be hit with that reality until after the next 
Presidential election. Interesting timing.
  But when we get to health care, there's a way to improve health care 
that says we're going to enable individuals, individual American 
citizens, to keep the power that they have to direct their health care, 
the choices that they have versus a plan that says we're going to have 
that choice and that opportunity and that freedom taken away from 
individuals and moved to the government and government bureaucracy 
where we see all the kinds of shenanigans that are going on in the 
current Senate bill and going on in the current House bills.
  There is an alternative: Freedom versus massive government programs. 
And there are alternatives that go out and say, in a very targeted way, 
here's how we can address the issues and improve the access, the 
quality and the price of health care for every American and do it 
today, rather than waiting 3 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that this gets to be a much more open process 
than what we have today, a much more open process than what we have had 
up until this point. It appears that some are driven and they've bought 
into the idea that government needs to run health care. That is 
fundamentally wrong because if we move in that direction, it means we 
will grow government and we will take freedom away from Americans. That 
is the wrong way to address this problem.
  Let's bring Republicans and Democrats together, and let's focus on 
providing individuals the tools that they need to be able to go out and 
get the quality and the quantity of health care that they need and that 
they want.

                          ____________________