[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2072-2079]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CLOTURE AND RECONCILIATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized to 
address you here on the floor of the House. And in the aftermath of the 
summit yesterday, the February 25th health care summit that took place, 
and over the 7-plus hours from gavel in to gavel out, the 6\1/2\ or so 
hours of actual dialogue that took place, I think a lot of the American 
people were watching. And I'd like to think also that a lot of the 
American people were busy at work and didn't have the opportunity to 
sit and watch it all in a transfixed, focused fashion, like a lot of us 
tried to do, and some of us actually succeeded, although I was not 
among them. I watched as much as I could and I had the closed caption 
crawler going underneath the screen while I was conducting meetings. So 
I tried to pay attention to the flow and look back on what happened.
  I listened to the dialog in here a little bit earlier with the 
majority leader on the Democrat side and the Whip on the Republican 
side going through their end-of-the-week colloquy that gives us a sense 
of where we're going next week and a little bit of a feel for how we 
work together with each other. In fact, some of those negotiations are 
taking place here in front of the American people in an open fashion, 
as we would like to think that most of our negotiations and 
deliberations are.
  I would go back through some of that discussion to put a bit of a 
different perspective on the situation of reconciliation, which is the 
nuclear option. And even though the gentleman from Maryland continually 
made the point that Republicans had used the reconciliation option, 
Democrats called it the nuclear option back then. The means of putting 
an end to the filibuster--you have two choices in the United States 
Senate: One of them is you come up with 60 votes to break the 
filibuster. That's called a cloture vote. And if you can't come up with 
the 60 votes, the other thing is, in tax or spending issues, so the 
government doesn't come to a grinding halt due to lack of revenue to 
keep the machinery of government working, they have devised a method 
called reconciliation. And that reconciliation will require only 51 
votes, not 60 votes in the Senate to move a bill.
  But the point that is missed here today is that the reconciliation--
nuclear option--and it depends, on the Democrats' part, on whether 
they're talking about Republicans implementing reconciliation or 
Democrats implementing reconciliation. To a Democrat, when Republicans 
discussed implementing reconciliation in the United States Senate, they 
called it the nuclear operation. But when it's Harry Reid and the 
Democrats seeking to implement reconciliation, they say it is 
reconciliation. Don't you know that's getting together to get things 
resolved, rather than blowing the place up. Isn't that something? That 
you can have two different terminologies for the same action, and they 
can be so far apart, 180 degrees apart from each other. Democrats 
committing reconciliation is reconciliation, warm, fuzzy, group hug, 51 
votes. What would you have against a simple majority passing something 
here in the United States Congress? That's their argument. We heard it 
here a little bit earlier. Who would be against a simple majority?
  And the second part of it is the nuclear option. The last time 
Republicans discussed the reconciliation tactic in the Senate that 
Democrats continually pounded upon and called it the nuclear option was 
when we were seeking to confirm judges to the Federal court. And to get 
a vote in the Federal court, there was a filibuster in the Senate.

[[Page 2073]]

  Now, you can look through the history of this and study who said what 
when and all the protocol that's part of that. That's for Senate 
historians to know most of that.
  But for me, Mr. Speaker, I'll take it down to this: When I read the 
Constitution, it requires for confirmation of these Federal judges the 
advice and consent of the Senate. It doesn't say the consent of 60 
votes in the Senate. It says, the advice and consent. Consent implies 
the majority of the Senate. And many of those Senators that were 
opposed to reconciliation because they were Democrats in the minority 
at the time also argued that the President of the United States, 
President Bush, didn't accept enough of their advice.
  Well, you can work about this term, but any time that the 
Constitution contemplates the consent, it never requires a super 
majority for the concept. It always requires a simple majority in the 
United States Senate for consent of the Senate, advice and consent. And 
so, when a confirmation, or the ratification of a treaty, or something 
that is in our Constitution required by the Constitution, comes up for 
confirmation in the Senate and it requires advice or consent in the 
Constitution, I believe that it is a constitutional violation for the 
Senate to use a filibuster, because they're denying the consent of the 
Senate, or they're setting an arbitrary majority after the 
Constitution, the fact of the Constitution, to take it up to 60 votes.
  So the argument that this Republican made in 2005 against a whole 
series of active Democrats that were for the nuclear option was, you 
have a constitutional obligation to provide a vote to confirm or not 
confirm these appointments by the President of the United States. You 
cannot hold them out to a cloture vote and a filibuster simply by one 
Senator putting a hold on an appointment to the Supreme Court, for 
example.
  So it's a constitutional restraint. I've had this debate with many of 
the Senators on the other side, including my junior Senator from Iowa, 
Tom Harkin, who disagreed with me.

                              {time}  1245

  But in any case, that's the Republican position. We default to the 
Constitution.
  The Democrat position is Republicans use reconciliation. Well, not 
when it came to confirming judges, for example. That's a simple 
majority because that is the definition of consent in the Senate.
  So here we are with this large initiative called--well, I think the 
President used it yesterday--the term ObamaCare.
  Now, Thomas Jefferson once said large initiatives should not be used 
on slender majorities. And a slender majority could only be how this 
large initiative of ObamaCare--to use his term for it--has been 
advanced through the House by only a three-vote margin and only one 
Republican--and I think he would reconsider if he could do it today--
voted for that bill.
  Many Democrats voted against the bill. The margin was so utterly 
slender and narrow in its majority that it can't be defined as anything 
else except as exactly one of those things that Thomas Jefferson warned 
against doing. And when you go to the United States Senate, they 
wheeled and dealed in back rooms--happened here on the House side, 
too--until they got right down until the night before the announcement 
of the cloture vote, and they made their last deal with Ben Nelson to 
exempt Nebraska from the increases in Medicaid costs. This is a word, 
Mr. Speaker, that everyone should be alarmed at that when they see it 
show up in any legal document: in perpetuity. Exempt Nebraska from the 
increase in Medicaid costs in perpetuity.
  And that deal, along with lowering the language of the Stupak 
language in the House, the House language--which did a fairly effective 
job in preventing Federal dollars from being used for abortions should 
the ObamaCare pass--the Senate version of it and the language that was 
negotiated by Ben Nelson certainly rolled this thing back to where 
there would be more Federal dollars used for abortion because of the 
language change, even though they made the argument that there would be 
an accounting of those dollars.
  I would say that the Nelson language still set the Federal Government 
up to be the broker of insurance premium dollars that would be directed 
to insurance companies that were paying for abortions out of those 
premiums and to compel the American people to fund something that is, 
to them, fundamentally immoral is an unjust thing for this Congress to 
do.
  We did it inadvertently in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade in 1973. By 
1976, we had implemented language that prevented Federal dollars from 
funding abortions under either the Hyde amendment or the Mexico City 
Policy.
  But this language--and the House actually allows some--the language 
from the Senate allows a lot more to go to abortions.
  And to reflect back on my position, Mr. Speaker, this would have been 
I believe in the 1980s or perhaps in the very early 1990s when my 
Congressman came to my district and we had a meeting. Just a town hall 
meeting in the basement of the Lutheran church, and I remember the 
count of the chairs that were there, and they were mostly full. In fact 
all, I believe, were likely full. There were 80 people in the basement 
of the church in a town hall meeting. Pretty good-sized meeting for a 
little town. Not by last August standards, Mr. Speaker, but by normal 
standards.
  And as my Congressman presented his pitch on his proposal for a 
national health care act that was essentially dovetailed into 
HillaryCare later on, he asked, How many of you in the room are 
employers? And that's why I remember the room. Eighty people in the 
room, 12 of us raised our hands that are employers. He said, Now I want 
to ask you how many of you provide health insurance for your employers. 
And 11 hands went down, and mine was the only hand that was up. So I 
was the only employer in that room of 80 with 12 employers, I was the 
only one that provided health insurance for my employees.
  And so my Congressman walked over to me where I was sitting in the 
front row--and I remember him--and he looked at me and he leaned down, 
folded his hands behind his back and he leaned down and said, How much 
would it change the way you do business if my health care bill, the way 
I propose it, becomes law? And I looked at him and I answered the way I 
usually answer, which is what's on top of my mind and tip of my tongue. 
And my answer to his question, How much would it change the way you do 
business? And I said, Probably not very much unless you're going to 
compel me to fund abortion. In that case, I quite likely will no longer 
be an employer. And those were the exact words that I used.
  And so it was essentially said that I don't think I can go forward 
and make a living and take money out of people's paychecks and 
contribute out of our own asset base of the company and fund a Federal 
machine that is funding abortions that I am compelled to pay for if I 
have employees. I could have laid all of my employees off. I could have 
gone off to operate my business alone, cut down our revenue stream 
substantially--and my stress load, I might add. But still under that 
bill, it probably would have compelled me to carry my own insurance 
that I would have had to fund abortion with.
  In any case, when I made that statement that I quite likely would no 
longer be an employer if they compelled me to fund abortions through 
the premiums that I would be compelled to pay, that brought the house 
down. I had no idea that the people in that church felt as strongly 
about that issue as I believe on that issue and believe today. But that 
emotion in that church was a solidly held fundamental, moral, and 
religious principle that remains today stronger than it was then.
  And this Nation operating within the House of Representatives and 
within the United States Senate could contemplate the idea that they 
could produce or approve a product called health insurance, confer 
everyone a new policy that they own, and among those policies set up a 
health insurance exchange that is going to bring dollars in and flow 
dollars out that would go

[[Page 2074]]

to fund abortion clinics? With the majority of people in America 
opposed to abortion and a smaller percentage yet that are in favor of 
abortion, elective abortion, abortion on demand? That is a fundamental 
moral principle that would be violated.
  And when the Speaker of the House at the end of the meeting yesterday 
chastised the Republican leader and said there is no abortion coverage 
in this bill, it was an incorrect statement. One might make the 
argument that the Stupak amendment in this House reduced--and they 
might argue--and I think it's an uninformed argument--that the Stupak 
amendment in this House eliminated Federal funding for abortion. It 
eliminated a lot of it, and it was a significant step forward; but it 
didn't eliminate it all. So the Speaker's statement at the President's 
meeting yesterday at the Blair House was incorrect.
  And it was further incorrect because it seems as though as we 
listened to all of the dialogue that unfolded yesterday, that the 
President was negotiating off of the Senate version of the bill more so 
than he was of the House version of the bill, in which case there is no 
question that Federal funding would flow in and pay for abortions. And 
at a very minimum, no matter how you argue it, at a very minimum there 
would be Federal funds that would be paying for the administration of 
abortions and the administration of an exchange that would be brokering 
policies that funded abortion. That is how the language works. I have 
read the language carefully, and I know that some of that has been 
amended but not to the satisfaction of the pro-life groups in America. 
Not to my satisfaction either, Mr. Speaker.
  So we've watched as this unfolded, and we asked what about this 
reconciliation package that the majority leader seems to speak in 
support of, although he didn't answer the question directly. He accused 
Republicans of using reconciliation. He didn't actually call it the 
``nuclear option'' this time. Of course he wouldn't because they are 
loading the gun getting ready to cock the hammer and pull the trigger 
on the nuclear option. And they can't have us calling it the nuclear 
option because the American people then understand it blows up the 
system in the United States Senate.
  But, truthfully, we don't have much to say about it from a formal 
perspective here in the House of Representatives because we do have a 
simple majority that controls. We have a Speaker of the House that 
controls the entire protocol from top to bottom right down to whether 
there will be amendments offered, what those amendments will be, and 
who will be able to offer them. And it's happened over and over and 
over again, and Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know this.
  There is a Rules Committee that meets up here on the third floor of 
the House. Tiny little room. It is, I believe, the smallest committee 
room in the House of Representatives. It's the least frequented by the 
press. It doesn't have cameras in it like C-SPAN cameras cover every 
other committee on this Hill. This is a hole in the wall on the third 
floor at the end of the elevator where nobody goes. It's the hole in 
the wall. And it's the hole in the wall gang and they're directed by 
the Speaker of the House. And they shut down the amendments that are 
offered especially by Republicans unless they deem that amendment would 
embarrass or divide Republicans, in which case they'll allow that to be 
debated so Republicans can be embarrassed, divided and have a vote here 
on the floor.
  So when I go up there, I offer amendments that I believe are 
constructive, that are designed to perfect legislation, designed with 
things in mind that the Founding Fathers had when they designed the 
Constitution itself. In other words, it was imagined that there would 
be people of open minds and differing levels of experience that would 
come together to have a dialogue and discussion about what's good and 
right for America.
  And then we get to the formal process of our discussion. First, we do 
hearings and we listen to the American people come in and tell us what 
we they have to say about the policy, and presumably the members 
sitting on the panel don't know as much about the subject as the 
witnesses.
  So we learn; then we ask questions. Then we go back and do research. 
Then we come back together and decide whether we want to start to move 
a piece of legislation, in which case in the subcommittee there is a 
markup process. And that is that any Member can offer an amendment; 
they can offer an unlimited amount of amendments. They can debate each 
of those amendments, 5 minutes for each member of the committee if they 
so choose. And they can ask for a recorded vote and vote that amendment 
up or down.
  That process does take place in the committee, and a lot of it is 
outside the scope of what the American people are paying attention to. 
And then the subcommittee product is designed to go to the full 
committee. And I will speak about the Judiciary Committee because we've 
seen the example this week where for their time in this past year, out 
of the Judiciary Committee, even though there is a relatively 
legitimate amendment process and debate process that takes place 
there--not on the floor; I wouldn't argue that takes place on the floor 
in that fashion with any regularity, but in the committee it seems to.
  And three times out of the Judiciary Committee there has been a 
Republican that has offered an amendment to an important bill, that 
amendment has passed with bipartisan support, and the product of the 
committee's work, the product that after the bills are amended and 
receive a final passage out of the committee, then they come over to be 
put on the calendar to be debated on the floor of the House.
  And the majority leader controls that agenda, and the Speaker's power 
influences it considerably. And the bill does go through the hole-in-
the-wall Rules Committee to be reviewed and consider any other 
amendments other Members might want to offer. And in a perfect world, 
every bill would come to the floor under an open rule for any Member 
that had a good idea would have the opportunity to convince the other 
Members of the merits of their good idea in the form of an amendment or 
perhaps submit themselves to the rejection of the House if the House 
did not approve such an amendment.
  But what has happened three times just out of the Judiciary Committee 
and just in the last year has been a bill that was amended by a 
Republican in the Judiciary Committee that changed by the time it got 
to the hole-in-the-wall Rules Committee and was written up differently 
by committee staff and presented to the Rules Committee with a 
different bill number in it, but the substance of it changed because 
they amended and struck the very legitimate amendments that were voted 
on by Republicans and Democrats. And I will be specific about this.
  In the Bankruptcy Clawback Bill, I introduced an amendment in the 
Judiciary Committee that would have banned anyone from receiving relief 
under the bill for bankruptcy if they had defrauded their lender. Now, 
that vote on that amendment passed by a vote by 23-3 in the Judiciary 
Committee. And curiously when the Bankruptcy Clawback Bill came to the 
floor, it had been passed through the Rules Committee, given a new 
number and almost, but not exclusively, but I will say from my view the 
only substantive change was they took my language out of the bill that 
had been approved by Democrats and Republicans by a vote of 23-3 and 
inserted language that said only if you have been convicted of 
defrauding can you be denied the benefits under the bill. That is what 
took place after the fact which renders the very formerly legitimate 
work of the committee moot.
  What is the point of meeting and having this discussion and this 
dialogue? What's the point in hearings for information? What's the 
point of the subcommittee and the committee markup and all of the staff 
work and all of the debate work that we do and introducing the 
amendments and voting them up and down and building the legitimacy of a 
proposal to go to the Rules Committee and have the product of the 
Judiciary Committee pulled

[[Page 2075]]

down, put through the shredder, so to speak, and a whole new bill 
manufactured with a similar, maybe even identical, bill title on it?

                              {time}  1300

  That's what's going on in this Congress, and then the bill comes to 
the floor under a closed rule so that no Member can offer to put the 
language back in. And we call this America, the greatest deliberative 
body in the history of the world, and this is the draconian approach. 
The American public doesn't find out unless I come down here and say, 
Mr. Speaker, because the hole-in-the-wall gang is controlling this at 
the direction of the Speaker.
  If anyone wonders whether I am embellishing this or not, they could 
actually look at the records of the Rules Committee on the eve of 
November 7 when the health care bill finally passed here in the House 
of Representatives. On that morning, near 1:30 in the morning, I 
offered 13 separate amendments to seek to perfect--well, I couldn't 
have perfected that bill--improve the health care bill. Thirteen 
separate amendments I offered them. I argued them before the Rules 
Committee, and I was chastised by at least one member of the Rules 
Committee because I had wasted the paper and the staff time, and I 
should have known that the Speaker had ordered that my amendments would 
not be approved by the Rules Committee, so I was wasting all of their 
time by making my argument on how to improve the health care bill.
  Now, I will suggest, and I will hold firmly to this, Mr. Speaker, the 
franchise that I am entrusted with by the voters of the Fifth District 
of the State of Iowa is every bit as legitimate as the franchise of the 
Speaker of the House, the House majority leader, the House majority 
whip, any committee Chair, subcommittee Chair, let alone the Republican 
leaders and the ranking members.
  Every one of us has a franchise. We are \1/435\ of the American 
people, and the people in my district deserve every bit as much 
representation in this Congress as the people do in any district. But 
the structure, this iron-fisted structure in this House of 
Representatives, that's what breaks down deliberative democracy and it 
undermines our constitutional Republic and it denies the very 
legitimate, knowledgeable input from all across this country.
  Think about how this works. Each one of us, 435 of us, we go home to 
our respective districts. We build a network of advisers that are 
continually providing input for us, teams of people that are experts in 
their field, and it filters that information and it comes to us in a 
whole series of ways, town hall meetings, individual meetings, 
individual lobbyists, yes. Lobbyists do a very effective and useful job 
on this Hill, and if anyone gave me information that wasn't accurate or 
honest, if they found out about it, they would bring it back and 
correct it to me first.
  If I thought they were doing so intentionally, they would not come 
back to talk to me, ever. There's a credibility there in that arena 
that I think somebody needs to stand up for the lobby, and it is a 
matter of providing a lot of valuable information. We find that 
directly from our individual constituents in our town hall meetings and 
our professionals and all of the outside organizations that work 
outside and on this Hill trying to effect the change.
  All of that information that I have talked about, the input from 300 
million people pours through to us in all of these avenues that I have 
described and many more--and through the media, I might add. And all of 
that, save what might be in the mind of the Speaker and the Speaker's 
staff, maybe the leader and the leader's staff, but I am not sure of 
that. All of that, all the rest of that is denied by the draconian 
approach here in the House of Representatives that shuts down the 
debate process, prohibits amendments, and limits an important bill to 
just selected amendments that help some people look good or position 
themselves so they will vote for the broader bill. That's what it has 
come down to. It has not come down to the evaluation of what's the best 
policy or even taking the risk of allowing someone to have their say 
and forcing a vote on an important issue.
  It was amazing to some degree that the Stupak amendment, which is the 
pro-life amendment in the health care bill, was even allowed to be 
debated here on the floor. Many people didn't think that would happen. 
I will suggest that it wasn't the wishes of the Speaker of the House, 
clearly. She seems to want to tell the Pope where the church stands on 
the life issue. I suggested it was the political dynamics that enough 
Democrats would vote against the bill if they didn't get to have their 
debate in the vote on the pro-life Stupak amendment, and that was the 
dynamic.
  So often the American people don't get to see what goes on behind the 
scenes or what's going on in the calculus. When you read your history 
book, it comes down to, well, the Congress evaluated this policy and 
that policy and some thought this, some thought that. The decision came 
down to a policy decision, and we had a vote and moved forward. Way too 
often the American people need to know it's not a policy decision; it's 
a political decision.
  When you see someone make a tough political decision, way too often 
they are making a decision that has more to do with their political 
survivability than it has to do with the policy. And statesmanship is 
hard to find, but thank God we still have some in this House. I am 
hoping we will get a lot more statesmanship coming in November when the 
energy of the American people will be manifested at the polls.
  I am very grateful that I have seen 9, 12 Tea Party, patriot, 
constitutional conservatives all over this country filling up the town 
hall meetings, doing their own rallies, packing the west side of this 
Capitol out here to the tune of tens of thousands of people with only a 
2- or 3-day actual notice. Another 2- or 3,000 came in for a press 
conference the following Saturday--it was on the 5th--and the 9th of 
November the American people came here to have their voice heard.
  After this bill passed the House at 11 o'clock on a Saturday night, 
then the fight went over to the Senate. There in the Senate, in the 
Senate, there was a rally that took place with thousands of people 
there, in a press conference, I should probably call that, to be 
technically correct. As that battle went on in the Senate and they were 
counting votes one after another and special deals were being made--not 
just for the Cornhusker Kickback, but to exempt Florida from the cuts 
to Medicare Advantage.
  A lot of people look at Florida and conclude that that's the most 
senior State in the Union because a lot of retirees went to Florida. 
Well, you should look, really actually look at Iowa, and the Fifth 
District in Iowa is the most senior congressional district in America. 
Iowa has the highest percentage of its population over 85, and of the 
99 counties in Iowa, I represent 10 of the 12 most senior counties in 
the most senior State in the Union. So I will say the Fifth District of 
the State of Iowa is the most senior congressional district in America.
  We didn't get an exemption from the cuts in Medicare Advantage. Just 
Florida. Why? Because Tom Harkin was already going to vote for the bill 
and because Chuck Grassley was going to vote ``no'' on the bill, so 
Iowa didn't get that particular exemption, and I am thankful we didn't. 
If we had, I would have liked to think that Iowans would have stood up 
like Nebraskans did and say, We don't want any special favors. We want 
to be considered in the same category as all the other Americans. In 
fact, it's unconstitutional to treat members--citizens of the United 
States and one State differently than we treat citizens or residents in 
another State. That is unconstitutional, and I believe the Cornhusker 
Kickback was unconstitutional. I believe the Florida exemption for 
Medicare Advantage was unconstitutional, and I believe the special 
clinics up in Vermont that went to Bernie Sanders to get him on board 
also--I don't know that I would actually say they are unconstitutional, 
but they are unsavory.
  If one looks at the bill and the language that came out from the 
President on last Monday at 10 a.m. exactly

[[Page 2076]]

and, not coincidentally, 72 hours before the Blair House meeting 
started yesterday, that proposal, which is not a bill but only bullet 
points and platitudes, does include at least 11 other special 
treatments that look a lot like the Cornhusker Kickback or the 
Louisiana Purchase or the Florida Medicare Advantage exemption or all 
of the expensive billions of dollars for community health clinics in 
the State of Vermont. The list goes on and on and on, the unsavory 
list.
  A significant number of United States Senators have spoken against 
reconciliation. They called it the ``nuclear option.'' The quotes are 
there from President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, name your 
Senator on the Democrat side. Chris Dodd is another one.
  There are others that have spoken, have spoken against the nuclear 
option because they wanted to block confirmations to the Federal court. 
Now they say, warm and fuzzy, we will all join hands. What do you have 
against a simple majority vote?
  Well, I have a good number of things against the way things are being 
done here. To think that the President of the United States is 
negotiating with the Senate and the House, trying to put together 
enough votes to pass an amendment to the Senate version of the bill--
now, remember, the Senate version of the bill passed Christmas Eve, and 
presumably that's the will of the United States Senate.
  Now they are talking about passing amendments to the Senate bill out 
of the Senate so that they can amend it and pass two pieces here in the 
House, send it to the President and the President would sign a bill, 
and then he would sign a reconciliation bill right behind that that 
would amend the first bill. All of that to avoid, what? A conference 
committee, a conference committee that was envisioned by the Founding 
Fathers that would have Democrats and Republicans sitting at the table.
  This is the first time in history, as far as I know, that the 
President of the United States has convened a conference committee from 
the executive branch of government. This is a legislative function, Mr. 
President. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. I 
have a lot of constitutional disagreements with the President of the 
United States. And I will say that my chief of staff studied at the 
University of Chicago Law School during that period of time but was 
adept enough to study her constitutional law in a different classroom. 
I am thankful for that. That has been useful to me to have that kind of 
input and advice.
  I see my friend from Georgia, one of our outstanding Dr. Phils in the 
conference and one of the most knowledgeable about health care and many 
other things, here to join us. I would point out that the OB/GYN, Dr. 
Phil Gingrey, has, by my recollection, delivered about 5,200 babies in 
his time. That's a great gift of life that I appreciate.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Obviously the gentleman has, during this hour, spoken of, already, 
some of the arcane machinations that are going on in regard to how the 
Democratic majority and President Obama plan to get this bill, this 
massive health care reform bill, through the Congress and to describe, 
of course, that process called reconciliation.
  I know it's difficult for a lot of folks, Mr. Speaker, even Members 
of Congress sometimes, to understand all of these parliamentary tricks 
which can be used, but clearly, the American people, the American 
people can't be tricked. I absolutely have faith in them. We have heard 
from them during the town hall meetings all across this country; last 
August, the Million Med March on Washington; the Doctors for Patient 
Care march on Washington; the Tea Party Patriots; the Freedom First 
Foundation, led by a former majority leader, Dick Armey.
  Mr. Speaker, these folks cannot be tricked, and I was really 
disappointed in yesterday's proceedings. I think it was a good thing 
that the Republican minority was willing to go over to Blair House, 
realizing that the deck was stacked against them, but to have an 
opportunity, in a very respectful way. And I commend my colleagues in 
the House and the Senate and my Republican colleagues. I think they did 
a great job of that.
  But it was clear, it really was clear on Monday of this week, Mr. 
Speaker, when the President put his 11-page edition online to add to 
the Senate bill, it was pretty clear that there was going to be no 
opportunity--and my colleague from Iowa has stated this so well--no 
opportunity, as the President, Mr. Speaker, gave, indeed, to Iran and 
their leader, Ahmadinejad, to say, We are going to unclench the fist. I 
guess, Mr. Speaker, the President was referring maybe to the fist of 
the previous administration, his predecessor in the oval office. I am 
not sure. But to say to Ahmadinejad, of all people, We are going to 
unclench this fist and we are going to reach out with the hand of 
friendship as we negotiate with you in regard to trying to appease you 
and beg you and triple-dog dare you to stop in your progress toward 
developing a nuclear weapon.
  I didn't see that kind of outreach yesterday at the Blair House as I 
watched the deliberations on television, Mr. Speaker, and that really 
is what we needed. That really and truly is what we needed. We needed 
to have an agreement from the President and from the Democratic 
majority to start over, to reject this bill that the American people, 
what, 70 percent, Mr. Speaker, had rejected. They want us to start 
over, and they know now that we have great Republican ideas. They were 
articulated.
  I can't go through a litany of all the Members. I think there were 18 
or 20, including House and Senate Republicans. Dr. Tom Coburn talked 
about medical liability reform. Senator Alexander spoke eloquently. Our 
own Dr. Boustany from this body I thought did a great job representing 
our doctors.

                              {time}  1315

  We know now what's in store for us. I want to just say to my 
colleagues and to my friends back home, let's don't give up the fight. 
If this is what they want to do, if this is what the Democratic 
majority wants to do, if this is what the President insists on, they're 
going to pay the consequences politically. Unfortunately, that's not 
the greatest concern; the greatest concern is, of course, the health, 
both the physical health and the economic health of this country, and I 
think it's at great peril.
  I know we have other Members, Mr. Speaker, that have joined 
Representative King and want to weigh in on this, and so I will yield 
back. But I thank you for the opportunity to be with you this 
afternoon.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the doctor, the 
Congressman, the gentleman from Georgia for joining us. We have about 
23 minutes or so to continue the dialogue.
  I appreciate the intellect that has been brought to this debate. I 
think that there were some outspoken conservatives that would have 
contributed substantially to the discussion yesterday had that been the 
format. And perhaps this is our format to weigh in on that. So I am 
happy to see that also my friend from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, has 
arrived on the floor, and I would be happy to yield so much time as she 
may consume.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. King, and 
also Mr. Gingrey. I will only be just a few minutes. I really wanted to 
be just a part of this discussion. I saw that you all were down here 
speaking on a very important topic that has captured a lot of people's 
attention this week, in particular with this event that happened 
yesterday.
  I think one thing that we have demonstrated very clearly is that 
those of us on the Republican side of the aisle from the beginning of 
this debate have always had positive solutions that we have wanted to 
address. I know Dr. Gingrey has even laminated on a little card that he 
carries in his breast pocket, ``Rules of the Road Going Forward on 
Health Care.'' And of course, he's a

[[Page 2077]]

physician; he understands better than anyone how patients are impacted 
by what we do here in Washington, D.C., and I appreciate the work that 
he has done.
  We also have the Declaration of Health Care Independence that my 
colleague, Mr. King, has put up. Mr. Gingrey has contributed mightily 
to this document as well. It states, ``A Road Map Going Forward, The 
Rules of the Road on What We Need to Do Going Forward on Health Care.'' 
There are 10 items. Some of them include: Don't add to the crushing 
Federal debt that our Nation is currently experiencing; don't force 
people to violate their moral conscience and pay for other people's 
abortions; don't force taxpayers to pay for the health care of people 
who are residing illegally in the United States.
  It goes through a series of 10 items that we should at least be able 
to agree on. As a matter of fact, if I recall, I think the President 
himself has agreed on almost all 10 of these items about health care. 
So let's go ahead and sign. And I think about 100 Members of Congress 
so far, or thereabouts, have signed this document. We hope the 
President will, we hope the Members of the Senate will. We think this 
is a good roadmap going forward. But we also think, as an olive branch, 
we truly can have bipartisan health care reform. That's what we want to 
have because it's not about us, and it's not about Washington, D.C.; 
it's about people back home and what the costs are going to be in 
health care.
  Eighty-five percent of Americans really like their doctor, they like 
their health care--they just want it to be cheaper. We agree. Very 
simple plan that we can do. We can let any American buy any health care 
policy they want anywhere in the United States, number one. Do it with 
your own tax-free money. And beyond that, fully deduct on your income 
tax return any other expenses. That alone is a 32-page bill. Anyone can 
understand that. We can at least start there and bring the cost down on 
health care for all Americans. Why can't we at least start there? Do 
something to help the American people, but not create a big 
bureaucracy, not have the government take over one-sixth of the 
economy, all the things that the American people don't want us to do. 
But this is a great roadmap going forward.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman from Iowa will yield just 
for a second on the gentlelady's point.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, 
is absolutely right. And it was interesting, in that discussion 
yesterday that was a little tete-a-tete between the President and 
Senator Alexander about whether or not the health insurance premiums 
for people within the exchange, as they were forced, according to 
provisions in the law, if it becomes law, the requirement that 
everybody has health insurance--it was pointed out by the President 
that many in the exchange would be paying less for their premiums. But 
as we deciphered through that--and I think maybe the President finally 
came to the realization that what Senator Lamar Alexander from 
Tennessee, a part of the Republican team, the point he made was 
absolutely right, the premiums were coming down, Mr. Speaker, only 
because some of those that were purchasing as individuals through the 
exchange mechanism were getting government subsidies. So if you 
subtract the subsidy from the cost of their health insurance policy--
that by law they would be forced to purchase, even if they didn't want 
to--then, yeah, the price would come down. But it ain't free, Mr. 
Speaker. That subsidy is paid for by, guess who? John Q. Taxpayer, 
that's who. And that's where the big cost driver in this bill is. 
That's why the bill costs $1 trillion over 10 years, all these 
subsidies.
  So to suggest that these individuals, albeit forced to purchase 
health insurance, are going to get a reduction in their premium, 
absolutely not true when you add what they pay and what their taxpayer 
friends, men and women of this country that are busting their you-know-
whats to try to support themselves and the people in the exchange, pay, 
the price goes up.
  I yield back to my colleague.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  I take us to the Declaration of Health Care Independence, as has been 
spoken about by us, the ``New Rules of the Road.'' I wanted to point 
out that of these 10 provisions, first, there are six items here on 
what went wrong. And then I think it would be instructive to simply 
read, if I can, the conclusions that are drawn.
  First it says, of all of these things that have happened--the 
cavalier attitude of ignoring the Constitution, denying the interests 
of the people, it irreparably cripples the American economy, it creates 
an inescapable new tax by imposing individual and employer mandates on 
it--now, we go through all of these laments on what went wrong, it 
sounds a lot like the Declaration of Independence, where you have those 
laments on what went wrong. Then it says, and I'll read from it, ``We 
have appealed to the decency of the elected majority to respect the 
rights of all Americans, but their leaders have been deaf to the voice 
of the people. We are appalled by their cavalier disregard of the 
Constitution and the demands of the people. We are repulsed by their 
blatant political bribes and kickbacks. We, therefore, the people and 
Representatives of the United States of America, do solemnly publish 
and declare that health care reform, as a matter of principle, must''--
and we hit these 10 principles, which I will read.
  But I want to point out that Dr. Gingrey brought the tablets down 
from on high. We looked them over a little bit and said, we like these 
principles, we like a few other principles in addition to. And then we 
think that your eloquence is lacking, but your principles are very 
sound. And so the Gingrey tablets are into the middle of this document, 
and the language is something that is more to the credit of the 
Founding Fathers than it is the father who has delivered 5,200 babies. 
But the substance there is substantial, and the 10 points that remain 
are that we are committed to these 10 principles to go forward.
  ``We will preserve and protect as inviolate the doctor-patient 
relationship''--and I will summarize the balance rather than read them. 
We refuse to add to the national debt. We will enhance rather than 
diminish the quality of care. Our negotiations will be transparent, and 
there will be no favoritism. We will treat people the same. Whether 
they are Members of Congress, the Speaker of the House, or whether they 
are the poorest person in America, we are all going to have an equal 
opportunity here in this country--no special deals for Members of 
Congress.
  There will be no funding for abortion. There will be no new mandates 
for people, for employers, or for States. We will not fund illegals. We 
will provide equal protection under the law and the Constitution for 
everyone. No special treatment. And we will use the marketplace of 
choice as the ideas.
  That is the ``New Rules of the Road Going Forward'' that have these 
100 or so signatures of Members of Congress on it. This is the 
foundational piece of work that was collaborated by many, sparked by 
Michele Bachmann, the tablets, many of them from Dr. Gingrey, whom I 
would yield to.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This Declaration of Health Care Independence that Representative King 
just so eloquently described--and I love the format--Mr. Speaker, when 
you look at those principles, those 10 principles that Representative 
King just described, these were--and are--promises that this majority, 
this Democratic majority--Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid and, indeed, 
President Obama--have said on so many occasions over the last--well, 
really 2 years now, because he was saying these things as he was asking 
the American people to give him an opportunity to bring ``change you 
can believe in'' as the next President. Indeed, he was successful in 
doing that. But many of these principles, if not all of them, were 
promised by the President.
  I don't know what the total number, Mr. Speaker, of signatures on the 
Declaration of Health Care Independence

[[Page 2078]]

Representative King has. I think it approaches 100. I'm not going to 
ask him specifically how many of those are Republican versus how many 
are Members of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. 
But golly, I would think that Speaker Pelosi would love to sign this 
Declaration of Health Care Independence. Indeed, yesterday at the Blair 
House, in her summary remarks, she said that absolutely not one dime of 
taxpayer money was going to fund abortions. I don't know if she really 
believes that, Mr. Speaker. I guess the proof of the pudding will be 
whether or not she can get that contingent of people that agreed with 
Representative Bart Stupak and insisted that the House version of 
health care reform be amended such that there was absolutely a 
provision that would make sure the Hyde amendment was not violated, 
that being that no public dollars would go toward the funding of 
abortion.
  So I just bring that point up. And I would say to Representative 
King, I'm sure he's going to continue to try to get signatures, but 
this ought to be bipartisan. And maybe he has already done that; maybe, 
Mr. Speaker, he can explain that to us. But from my vantage point, I 
don't see Speaker Pelosi's name on the bottom of the declaration, but 
hope springs eternal.
  I yield back to my colleague.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for his contribution to this document and the thought process 
that this defines.
  If there are those in this House of Representatives who have 
objections to the positions that are taken here on this road map, the 
``New Rules of the Road Going Forward,'' I would like to hear them step 
forward and tell me what it is that they object to. Do they object to 
protecting the doctor-patient relationship as inviolate? Do they want 
the government to make those decisions out of their computer base and 
their committee?
  A lot of us have seen the flowchart, the Health Choices 
Administration czar. It's really interesting, when you see a piece of 
legislation--H.R. 3200 in this House--that says in there that there 
will be all of these decisions made and power invested in the Health 
Choices Administration Commissioner--I call him ``the 
commissarissioner''--and this is a person to be named later and a 
committee to be named later by legislation to be passed whenever they 
can put the votes together and get the President to sign it. And you 
give the power of that discretion to an individual and a commission to 
be appointed by the President--and yes, some of them confirmed by the 
Senate; I don't think all of them are confirmed by the Senate--and they 
take a look at all 1,300 health insurance companies in America, they 
take a look at all 100,000 policy varieties in America, and then they 
decide, what are all these companies going to have to do to amend their 
policies so they can be approved by the Health Choices Administration 
commissarissioner's judgment? And that is competition? That is top 
down, ends up, crams it into single payer.
  For the people who objected and said I wasted paper when I took 13 
amendments up there to the ``hole in the wall gang'' to try to get an 
opportunity to have a debate here on the floor, they said I wasted 
paper and I wasted staff time. I would say, take that 3,200-page bill 
in the House and however many thousand pages you cooked up together in 
the Senate and all the pages that are back there in the secret staff 
meetings that nobody sees in those formerly smoke-filled rooms that by 
order of the Speaker now aren't smoke filled anymore, but they do have 
guards on the outside and regular people don't get in, Republicans 
don't get in, low-ranking Democrats don't get in. The guards are there 
to guard the high-ranking officials. It isn't necessarily that they're 
better defended than they normally are. But I want to paint the image 
right: Doors with lots of wood down the hallway and on the inside, and 
leather in the middle of that, formerly smoke-filled, big conference 
tables, key staff in there, key leaders of only the Democrats in 
there--meaning Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and whoever they approve--
doors closed, thousands of pages, decisions being made by staff because 
Members can't keep all this in their head either. Take all of that 
paper, Madam Speaker, and put that back in the tree.

                              {time}  1330

  I think I can invent an extruder to turn that into a tree, and we 
could put a little bark on that and stand it up somewhere in one of 
those--what do we have? We've got some of those rainforests that exist 
in our zoos. If you put your fingernails into the bark of those trees 
in the rainforests, it's made out of rubber. So, on the inside, let's 
put that bill right back in the tree, Mr. Speaker.
  I've had enough of this. The American people want to wipe this bill 
off the board. If they do anything, they want to start over. A lot of 
them don't even want to do anything because they don't trust this 
Congress.
  The gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding back to me. I realize time is getting short, but thank you for 
a few more moments.
  Of course, I think it's important that our colleagues understand that 
those 13 members of the whole-in-the-wall gang--I think our colleague 
from Iowa was referring to the esteemed Rules Committee. It's just one 
more opportunity that we don't have to get our amendments made in order 
so that we can bring them down on the floor, whether we are Republicans 
in the minority or Democrats in the majority who are very concerned 
about many provisions in this bill. Yet, you know, they don't get to 
have an up-or-down vote, which is totally wrong.
  I just want to say, just within the past week, I got a call from a 
former physician Member from Georgia, from Middle Georgia, Dr. Roy 
Rowland, who served with distinction here for about 12 years. He was 
here during the HillaryCare debate.
  In a very bipartisan way, Dr. Rowland, along with Dr. Ganske from 
Iowa and other Members, had some great ideas in regard to not only 
bringing down the cost, Mr. Speaker, but also in regard to making sure 
that more people had not only an insurance card--you know, that doesn't 
guarantee you access to care--but that they had an opportunity, through 
expanded community health centers, which were not necessarily 
government subsidies, to pay on a sliding scale depending on what their 
incomes were. Obviously, Medicaid patients, many of them, were seen in 
community health centers.
  Also, Dr. Rowland had the idea of having medical liability reform--
Dr. Rowland, a family practitioner from Dublin, Georgia. I just mention 
him because I would say to the President and to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle: we can do this. Yes, let's unclench the fists. 
Let's get away from what we were trying to cram down the throats of the 
American people that they clearly don't want. Let's start over with 
good ideas like Dr. Rowland had 16 years ago and like, I think, many of 
my colleagues have today on both sides of the aisle.
  I yield back for concluding remarks from my colleague from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. In reclaiming my time, I thank the doctor from 
Georgia.
  I was just thinking what it would be like if you'd sit around your 
card club at night and you'd deal out a deck of cards, 52, and for 
every one of those cards, this man has delivered 100 babies. That's 
pretty impressive, and I can't get over that number and what that 
means.
  Some people think that Republicans don't have compassion. How could 
you have more compassion than Dr. Gingrey has?
  So, when I look at this debate that's going on, it is past the point 
of the nuances of what's right and what's wrong here. It's pretty 
simple stuff. The White House, the Speaker Pelosi majority and the 
Harry Reid majority, right down those doorways, have started from this 
beginning. The beginning that they started with was single-payer 
national health care, HillaryCare as referred to by Dr. Gingrey. That 
goes back 15 years ago.

[[Page 2079]]

  When they first put that together, I had the flowchart. In fact, I've 
got the replication of that flowchart in my office, the HillaryCare 
flowchart. That is a scary thing. It was only in black and white back 
in the early 1990s. The one we see today is in full color. With the 
next generation, when they try this again, it will be in 3-D, and 
you'll have automatic built-in 3-D, and you'll be able to see all of 
the components they put together. The more you can see, the more it 
scares you.
  That's what they started with--the single-payer National Health Care 
Act. It is socialized medicine. I don't know what you'd produce if it 
weren't. I don't know how you would devise socialized medicine to look 
much differently than the way they've started.
  Now, they did morph it along the way and move away from the more pure 
definition, but when you start with something--let's just say that the 
goal is to cook up a pot of stew. You start with a big old soup bone, a 
meat bone, and get as much meat as you have on that bone that hasn't 
been trimmed off. You toss that in a pot, and then you put a lot of 
water in there, and you start to simmer that. Then you look at it and 
you think, Well, what does this thing need?
  Well, it looks a little sick and gray, so you start cutting some 
vegetables in there, and you throw in some carrots and some celery and 
some potatoes, and whatever else you can find to pitch into that stew. 
You know, after a while, it might look pretty good. They were making it 
look better and better, the Democrats on the other side. By the way, it 
was buying votes. Yeah, I might vote for that if you put some carrots 
in the stew. Give me a little celery. I like the flavor of that. I like 
a little corn in there myself. I'm from Iowa, you know. After a little 
while, here is this simmering pot of stew.
  Then they tasted it. The American people let them know. They spit it 
out. They didn't want a potful. This is a toxic stew. They started with 
a tainted soup bone with HillaryCare in the beginning. If you start 
with a tainted soup bone and if you cook up a stew, no matter what you 
add to it, it's still going to be toxic. The American people concluded 
they don't want a potful of toxic socialized medicine stew. They don't 
want a bowlful. They don't want a cupful. They don't want a spoonful. 
They don't want any measure. They have spit out ObamaCare. It is a 
toxic stew that has been cooked up by the liberals in this Congress. 
Less than a fourth of the people in this country think something like 
that ought to be done, and they haven't tasted it yet. A lot of us have 
looked ahead and have a sense of what it tastes like.
  So I will suggest this, that we should clean the slate off, as the 
gentleman from Georgia has intimated and has maybe not specifically 
said when he said, Mr. President, you need to unclench your fist.
  I'd suggest the President ought to treat Republicans as good as he 
did Ahmadinejad when he said to our enemies in Iran who have pledged to 
annihilate us--the Great Satan--in a nuclear win, if they can. He said 
to them--dialogue, in his mind, solves it all, you might notice. He 
said, If you'll just unclench your fist, speaking to Ahmadinejad, we 
will extend our hand. We will negotiate with the Iranians without 
preconditions. We will just talk. We will talk it through.
  Did you notice, when the President met with Republicans and Democrats 
yesterday, President Obama insisted upon preconditions? He insisted 
that his bill, which was the Senate and House bill, plus the 11-page 
bullet point talking points with no legislative language added by the 
White House, would be the basis for the discussion. He refused to take 
the nuclear option off the table. Can you imagine negotiating with the 
Iranians that way? Because that's what he has initiated. They have the 
nuclear option on the table. They refuse to take everything off the 
table. The President insisted upon preconditions of starting with his 
bill, ObamaCare, by his own definition.
  I'm saying, Couldn't you at least have treated the Republicans as 
good as you treated the Iranians? Give us a clean slate. Start without 
preconditions. I'd be willing to take Republicans' comprehensive plans 
off the table. Let's just go ahead and take them up one at a time--
single, stand-alone pieces of legislation that we all know are good 
policy and that don't have to have a backroom deal.
  Let's end lawsuit abuse, number one; full deductibility; sell 
insurance across State lines; and respect the time of the Speaker's 
gavel. Also, we have made that part very clear, I think, in this 
presentation.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I appreciate the 
participants in this Special Order hour here that closes out the week.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________