[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4992-4996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  RESTRUCTURING HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).


Honoring the Dedicated Service and Selfless Sacrifice of Sergeant First 
                        Class Robert R. Boniface

  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with both profound sadness and deep gratitude that 
I rise to pay tribute to a fallen decorated American hero. On March 19, 
2017, Sergeant First Class Robert R. Boniface of the 7th Special Forces 
Group, located in my district, tragically lost his life in support of 
Operation Freedom's Sentinel.
  Sergeant First Class Boniface was 34 years old--my age--but he lived 
a lifetime marked by full service. Sergeant First Class Boniface 
entered the Army in March 2006. After infantry basic training and 
advanced individual training at Fort Benning, Georgia, he attended 
airborne school before being assigned to the Special Warfare Center and 
School. Sergeant First Class Boniface completed the Special Forces 
Qualification Course earning his green beret in 2010. He was assigned 
then to the 7th Special Forces Group.
  Sergeant First Class Boniface's awards and decorations include: two 
Bronze Star Medals, the Army Commendation Medal, two Army Good Conduct 
Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign 
Medal with two Campaign Stars, the Global War on Terrorism Service 
Medal, three Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbons, 
the Army Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Special Forces Tab, the 
Combat Infantryman Badge, the Special Forces Combat Diver Badge, and 
the Parachutist Badge.
  Mr. Speaker, there are no words that I, this body of Congress, or the 
Nation can say that might ease the bereavement of the Boniface family. 
All I can say is that on behalf of a humble and grateful nation, we 
thank them for the love, counsel, and support given to Robert during 
his life, which helped make him a hero, both in uniform and as a 
father.
  His life stands as a testament that freedom is not free. His legacy 
will echo in time as an example of the ultimate sacrifice for all free 
people. I pray that God will be with Robert's wife, Rebekah; his 
daughter, Mia; and all of their family and friends during this time of 
great mourning.
  Mr. Speaker, may God continue to bless the United States of America.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my friend from Florida 
for such a compelling tribute to a great American hero.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Davidson).


                            Welfare BRAC Act

  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address this body, and I 
rise today to talk about H.R. 1469, the Welfare BRAC Act.
  Before going into the specifics of the bill, I would like to talk for 
a little bit about how we have arrived at a point of needing such a 
fundamental restructuring of our Nation's antipoverty programs.
  In 2015, the Federal Government spent $843 billion on welfare 
programs, means-tested welfare programs. By some estimates, we have 
spent more than $22 trillion on antipoverty programs over the past 50 
years. Today, we have some 92 antipoverty programs run by the Federal 
Government, all supposedly with the same goal: to alleviate poverty.
  This chart to my left highlights those programs. If you look: 5, cash 
aid; 25, education and training; 2, for energy; 17, for food aid, and 
on goes the list.
  So how did we come here? Well, as Ronald Reagan said: ``Government 
programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau 
is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.''
  Why is that true? Well, it is true because touching some of these 
programs is very polarizing. So when you touch them, they all have a 
constituency. And the reality is, if the 15th food aid program worked 
well, then the 16th wouldn't be launched. So if you want to address a 
new problem, well, then you launch the 17th food aid program.
  What doesn't happen over the time is finding a way to get those 
programs to work together to be a coherent whole. So the solution, 
really in a lot of ways, is bipartisan. The Brookings Institution is 
rarely an ally to conservatives, and the Heritage Foundation is rarely 
an ally to the left. Yet they would both agree that employment, healthy 
marriages, and education alleviate poverty.
  In fact, many of our programs, when we look at these listed, seek to 
address those needs. There are 92 programs. Maslow, in the hierarchy of 
needs, just addressed 5, and we have 92.
  I think about the young social worker who wants to help someone who 
comes into the office and perhaps each of these programs has a 4-inch 
binder--a 4-inch thick binder, 92 of them. That is a pretty big 
bookshelf. What if she only had to know 20 programs? What if there were 
only 20 binders? What if there were only 5? What if there were 10?
  I don't know whether the right number is a dozen or 20, but I don't 
think it is 92. So what is the solution? Well, I have a bipartisan 
solution that looks back to the history.
  So in the Cold War, we had a very large Army, and, as we scaled down, 
it was very politically sensitive to try to deal with the problems of 
scaling down. Each base, each installation, had its own constituency, 
and so we created BRAC, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 
And the goal there was to have a quantitative set of objectives and to 
have a commission that was bipartisan that gave Congress a straight up-
or-down vote. That worked, by and large, and we were able to scale down 
the military in a way that let the military focus on its mission.
  So what I propose with H.R. 1469, the Welfare Benefit Realignment 
Commission, is a four-Republican, four-Democrat commission, totally 
neutral. It also does not seek to take away a dime of spending in it. 
It seeks to reduce the number of programs so that the result is more 
focused.
  When Lyndon Johnson launched his war on poverty, he said that the 
goal was to not just treat the symptoms but to find a cure and, if 
possible, to prevent poverty all together.
  So perhaps if we had a more focused effort, perhaps if we all focused 
on the cause, instead of the programs, we could see results. Some of 
these programs are clearly more effective than others at helping people 
get out of poverty, yet the reality is, Americans have seen roughly the 
same percentage of their fellow Americans in poverty for the entire war 
on poverty.
  So if we look at these programs under the same three goals--
employment, marriage, and education--perhaps we can find things that 
are effective that lift people out, really, at the end of the day, 
giving as many people as possible the dignity of work and a path to 
escape poverty into a better future.
  In fact, this path is very compatible with the Better Way agenda that 
we have laid out for poverty for the years. It is not focused on 
dollars. It is focused on efficiency. Later in the year, we are seeking 
to provide off ramps so that you don't find a trap in the ``Better 
Way.'' You don't find a trap--if you get a raise, you lose your 
housing, or if you take that next job, or you get married, you lose 
your education benefits, things that would provide an on-ramp and an 
off-ramp for this system.
  So that is part of the agenda for the year for the House. I think 
this is very compatible with it. I am seeking cosponsors. I am seeking 
support for this bill, and it truly is with a spirit of embracing the 
common American value of

[[Page 4993]]

providing a safety net for their fellow Americans, but they want it to 
be effective.
  So this is not about the cause. The cause is good, and fewer programs 
lets it be more focused and, hopefully, get a good result.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting few weeks here 
in Washington, and we are not done with healthcare legislation. There 
has been a lot of talk about that, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
say, I have been encouraged as today has worn on. We had a tough family 
meeting this morning together as Republicans, but, to me, what I felt 
was coming out of it in the end--disagreement on some important issues 
but agreement among Republicans that people are hurting under 
ObamaCare.
  People need relief from the high premiums, the high deductibles. So 
many people not only lost their doctor, lost their health insurance 
policy, but they can't afford--they tell us--to go to the doctors. We 
talked to constituents because they would have to get to several 
thousand dollars before the insurance portion would kick in.
  People are hurting across the country, and, of course, we know that, 
without a single Republican vote, ObamaCare was passed, which cut 
Medicare by $716 billion dollars, with a ``B.'' And I know President 
Obama assured seniors: look, seniors, you know, you are not going to 
have to worry about this $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. You won't be 
able to tell the difference. This is only going to affect the doctors, 
the healthcare providers.
  What seniors have noticed who I have talked to around Texas and in 
other places in the country, they have noticed that when Medicare 
doesn't pay their doctor, doesn't pay for tests that are needed, and 
doesn't pay for medication that they specifically need then it does 
affect them personally.

                              {time}  1915

  The bill that we took up, that didn't get passed on Friday, that we 
didn't vote on, there was nothing that was going to help those on 
Medicare. There is apparently some difference of opinion, but it 
appeared to many that some of us trusted that people between the ages 
of 50 to 64 were going to get hammered.
  I am very encouraged to have seen Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader 
McCarthy, Whip Steve Scalise, and our Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry 
incredibly busy today talking to Republican Members around the House 
about how we can get to a bill that will get 218--actually we need 216 
right now--so that we can send it down the hall to the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged, and I hope others are, that we are not 
done. We had indications that the Senate was not going to take up the 
bill--even if we passed it on Friday, they were not going to take it up 
until sometime in May. So we have time to address this issue and come 
together on a bill that would pass.
  Once again, a reference was made, Mr. Speaker--and it is so often 
that this event is referenced by Republicans when they get frustrated 
as to why we ended up with a bill that would require so many Republican 
arms to be twisted, that would endanger Republican seats to have to 
vote for it. People referenced back to this.
  Remember some years back, some summers back--and I believe, actually, 
that was the last week of July of 2014, as I recall--in which Speaker 
Boehner had told us that he had cobbled together a bill that embraced 
10 principles that every Republican in the House had agreed to. Some of 
them seemed a bit esoteric to me, but we agreed to them all. And we 
kept being told this is going to be a bill that embraces all the 
principles that all of us have agreed to.
  So when the bill was finally filed on Tuesday evening, with Speaker 
Boehner having announced we were going to vote on it Thursday morning, 
for the first time, we got a look at the bill we were going to be 
voting on. By the time Thursday morning came rolling around, there had 
been so much information that came out--not opinion, but actually 
verbiage from the bill. It seems like it was around 60 pages, 70 pages, 
somewhere around there--but people were able to see for themselves what 
was there. There was so much commotion made about it that, by Thursday 
morning, much like Friday, Republicans made clear to our leadership--at 
that time Speaker Boehner--that they couldn't vote for it; that it 
didn't embody the 10 principles that we had all embraced.
  I was so proud of my Republican Conference that Thursday because 
particularly a number of young Members, newer Members, got up in our 
emergency conference that they asked for. Speaker Boehner said: Well, I 
guess we just go on home and have the August recess.
  Numerous Members said: No; let's have an emergency conference. Let's 
talk about this. We need to do something. We need to pass a good bill.
  So people got up and they pointed out, like in a good family: Look, 
we have got differences, but we can reach agreement on this.
  And there were probably 20 or so of us in a room for 2\1/2\ hours or 
so, and we compromised, and we got a bill that we could all vote on.
  Unfortunately, at that time, there was a Democratic majority in the 
Senate, and we didn't get our bill passed through the Senate, but we 
showed that it could be done.
  Once again, after Friday's problems, there are Members that are 
saying: Remember when we did that, where we just got people in a room 
and we agreed?
  Mr. Speaker, I do believe, knowing so many of the Tuesday Group so 
well--they are good people--and the number one concern they have is 
their constituents and the things they are hearing from their 
constituents because they ran and they got elected to help people.
  Everybody that I hear from on our side understands people have got to 
have help because ObamaCare is creating so many problems. I am hearing 
from many seniors, and it seems to be as a result of all of the $700-
plus billion that Obama cut from Medicare.
  Whereas, 7 or 8 years ago, even 6 years ago, before ObamaCare really 
started being implemented, if they needed surgery, if they needed 
something, under Medicare, the doctors immediately took care of it. If 
it was medication, if it was a treatment, if it was surgery, whatever, 
they took care of it.
  I am hearing more and more east Texans who are on Medicare tell me: 
Now, doctors are telling me they can't schedule it this week or next 
week like they used to because of ObamaCare; that the only way they can 
make ends meet and still stay in business, they need to schedule it a 
couple of months down the road.
  Many of us on the Republican side were pointing out, when ObamaCare 
passed, that what this leads to is a form of rationed care. Whereas, 
right now, if you have good insurance and you like your doctor and you 
need something done, it gets done immediately. That is what made 
America's medical care so attractive to other countries around the 
world.
  I have visited in Middle Eastern and north African countries where 
the wealthy would say: If I needed surgery done, I'd fly to the United 
States. Unfortunately, I have heard more than once that: Yeah, and the 
great thing was that I flew back and never had to pay for it.
  Well, somebody paid for that, that is for sure.
  It is important that we fix our healthcare system as best we can. I 
have an article from Conservative Review that came out today from 
Daniel Horowitz. I don't agree with everything in the article; but 
Daniel Horowitz, as usual, is quite thought-provoking.
  He says: ``Earlier today, a couple of Republican officials, in a 
refreshing display of honesty, admitted what we have known all along: 
They don't want to repeal ObamaCare. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell, Republican from Kentucky, admitted there won't be another 
attempt.
  ``He's certainly come a long way from his 2014 campaign promise to 
repeal ObamaCare `root and branch' and

[[Page 4994]]

his 2013 CPAC speech in which he said `anybody who thinks we've moved 
beyond it is dead wrong.'
  ``As we explained yesterday, the compromise solution for repealing 
the core of ObamaCare, but not quite all of it, is already on the 
table, and Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin, has already agreed to 
and campaigned on it. Why aren't they doing it? Because they don't want 
to repeal ObamaCare and never intended to.''
  That is the part I do disagree with.
  I know we have all said this, but it was in Speaker Boehner's pledge 
that he and his leadership colleagues cobbled together back in 2010 and 
it was in the Better Way that Speaker Ryan and his leadership 
colleagues cobbled together last fall that we have got to repeal 
ObamaCare. We can't get down to this rationed care system where we are 
currently headed.
  This says: ``As early as 2014, the Chamber of Commerce made it clear 
that their official position was to fix, not repeal ObamaCare. Money 
talks, everything else from there walks.
  ``The sentiment was evident today when Senator John Cornyn, 
Republican from Texas, the Senate majority whip, said that they will no 
longer pursue repeal of ObamaCare through budget reconciliation and 
that `it needs to be done on a bipartisan basis, and so we're happy to 
work on it with Democrats if we can find any who are willing to do so.'
  ``There you have it, folks. They know darn well there are no 
Democrats who will ever have incentive to work with them to repeal 
ObamaCare. They have always known that this had to be done unilaterally 
either through reconciliation or by blowing up the filibuster. But 
Republicans never intended to do so. That's why we heard all these 
phony excuses about process limitations. Now that they are proven 
false, Cornyn is at least being honest by saying they will repeal it 
when Democrats help them. When hell freezes over . . .''
  And the article goes on.
  Mr. Speaker, what Leader McConnell and Senator Cornyn are talking 
about, I think they must have been discouraged when the House didn't 
pass a bill that would come their way. But good news for Leader 
McConnell and Senator Cornyn, we are not done. People are hurting, and 
we are going to come together on a bill.
  For those who attempted to say that those in the Freedom Caucus kept 
moving the goalposts, I know that was not said maliciously, but it was 
said. Anyone who said that was speaking just out of ignorance of what 
actually was the case.
  Anybody that bothers to actually check and get the facts will find 
that, as many problems as people in the Freedom Caucus--and I am 
probably the newest member, I guess--had with this bill, we were doing 
what we could to reach a compromise that would give enough help, enough 
relief to Americans who are desperate for that help and that relief 
that we could hold our nose and vote for it.
  There were all kinds of issues in that bill that create problems. For 
one thing, I would have thought a good amendment that would easily be 
accepted would be that, since this creates a new entitlement program, a 
tax credit program where you actually can get more money back--like a 
child tax credit, where we have so many people who are actually 
illegally in the country, claiming children, as there have been 
reports--and, of course, not everybody cheats on this. But there are 
numerous examples of stories around the country of people claiming to 
have children--mass numbers, dozens of them in the same house, and we 
don't know if they are in the country, we don't know if they are in 
another country, we don't know if they exist--and people getting more 
and more money back.
  I had a senior citizen from Tyler telling me she is no longer working 
for H&R Block, that she used to during tax season. But it just grated 
on her so much that it created tension headaches and she couldn't sleep 
during tax season because she had so many people who did not have a 
Social Security number. But they got a tax number, and she would fill 
out the returns for them. Invariably, each would pull out a sheet of 
paper and would say: Don't I get this?
  And it was the income tax credit--child earned credit.
  She would fill it out, as they requested. And, invariably, they would 
get much more money back than they paid in. So it was a way of 
redistributing--it is not wealth, because the people that are in east 
Texas paying those taxes, they are not wealthy. They are struggling to 
get by. That is why they can't afford the high deductibles that 
ObamaCare has driven them to.
  Here it looks like we are going to have another program unless we get 
this amendment in there when we bring the bill back up.

                              {time}  1930

  So I am hoping that that will be one of the adjustments because we 
were seeking to have something in there to require you to be legally in 
this country before you could get more money back from your income tax 
than you paid in. It is a new form of welfare, just like some have 
found the tax credit to be, where they get more back than they paid in.
  So that is a concern, creating a new entitlement as we are about to 
go over the $20 trillion mark in debt, that we are coming up with a new 
way to go even deeper and quicker into further debt. But there were a 
number of issues here with the bill.
  The thing that I kept hearing--and I had telephone townhalls, Mr. 
Speaker, with, really, tens of thousands of people that we reached out 
to in east Texas. The technology is so great, I can ask questions and 
have them punch a number for yes, no, and get results on what people 
are thinking. It was feelings about ObamaCare and the need to do 
something about it and the help that is needed and the losses of 
insurance they had before ObamaCare, problems they have had since 
ObamaCare.
  East Texans, my constituents, need help. They want help. They want 
ObamaCare repealed, and they want a system back where they can choose 
their doctor, they have a relationship with their doctor, and they 
don't have an insurance company between them and their doctor or their 
hospital telling them what they can or can't have. And they don't want 
the government in between them and their healthcare provider telling 
them what they can or cannot have.
  The health savings accounts that Republicans believe strongly could 
get us off this final road to complete rationed care, socialized 
medicine, like they have in England--it was a pleasure to talk to the 
sister of a member of Parliament from England. I have been in his home 
in England; he has been in my home in Tyler, Texas, just a great MP.
  But talking about our systems, and I pointed out, I have a wife, I 
have got three adult daughters, and so I am kind of sensitive to being 
pushed into a system like England has, no offense to those in England. 
But when we saw the numbers back during the ObamaCare debate that 
indicated a 19 percent higher survivability rate from the same point of 
breast cancer being discovered, well, that is one out of five are dying 
in England unnecessarily, or at least back there when we got those 
numbers. I am not sure what the numbers are now.
  It may be that ObamaCare has created more problems and now we are 
moving, already, toward the percentages of recovery that England had 
that were not as good as ours. But I would just as soon not lose one 
out of five women who have breast cancer, which we were not losing in 
the U.S. and they were losing in England.
  It was interesting. I didn't realize, and I learned yesterday that, 
actually, that is why, in England, yes, they have socialized medicine, 
but you can also pay for private care on top of the socialized medicine 
because it just takes forever to get the kind of treatment that you 
need when you need it. So people with any means in England, they have 
the socialized medicine that is so inefficient, that tax funds pay for 
so inefficiently, and you get as much government as you do health care. 
But, if you have money, then, on top of the massive taxes you pay, you 
can also, then, pay for your own health care on top of that. That is 
different from Canada.

[[Page 4995]]

  But, look, the bottom line is we don't need to continue down this 
route. So, again, I am encouraged we are going to come together and we 
are going to work toward a remedy.
  It disturbed me that we heard from people who sounded like they knew 
what they were talking about, that rates are going to go up for a 
couple of years, and we are hoping that maybe 3 years after the 
Republicans would lose the majority in the next election because people 
are so upset about their higher premiums that then it might come down, 
premiums might come down 10 percent.
  But the concern to me is not about losing the majority. It is about 
losing Americans unnecessarily if we don't fix this disastrous 
ObamaCare that is costing seniors. It is costing 50- to 64-year-olds. 
It is costing young people money that they shouldn't have to spend in 
the way that they are being required.
  So some say we were moving the goalposts as the House Freedom Caucus, 
but, actually, from the beginning, we did indicate we would like to 
remove what experts are telling us in title I would dramatically bring 
down the cost of premiums very quickly--very quickly.
  But we had agreed. Heck, we agreed with the Democrats, before they 
pushed through ObamaCare, let's work on a law together, bipartisan, 
that will make sure that insurance companies can't play games over 
preexisting conditions because it has resulted in unfairness and, at 
times, I can say as a former judge, actually, fraud. Let's work on that 
one.
  Then I think there was fairly universal agreement on both sides of 
the aisle here that, if you are 26, you are still living with your 
parents, then you ought to be able to be on their health insurance. 
From my standpoint, I didn't even care. I didn't think we actually even 
needed an age, a cutoff age.
  If you are 50 and you are still living with your parents, which we 
hope will soon be remedied by an economy turning around with a new 
President who knows how to get things going, but if you are still at 
home when you are 50, I don't have a problem. If you are still living 
with your parents, then you ought to be able to have a family insurance 
policy and be on it. So those were not problems.
  I had a doctor friend back in east Texas who said I was a purist. I 
like him. He is a great guy. He apparently was a great surgeon. But I 
realized that, in his letter, he was speaking from a great deal of 
ignorance as he continued to point out things that simply weren't true, 
unless a purist is someone who says: Okay. Okay. I will vote for the 
bill, but you have got to give us something in the way of amendments to 
this bill that will help my constituents bring down the price.
  Now, see, to me, that is not a purist because we were all willing to 
compromise in the Freedom Caucus. Actually, in communicating with 
President Trump two different times, we thought we had an agreement. 
Then we would hear back from our leadership: No. No. You can't do that. 
Either there is a problem with the Parliamentarian and it puts the 
whole bill at risk, or, gee, you are going to lose votes from some 
other group.
  But I still believe, as I did then, if we would get the 
intermediaries out of the way, that Republicans can come together, 
Tuesday, more moderate group, Freedom Caucus. We can get people 
together like we did 3 years ago in July. We can get together and work 
out a compromise.
  Now, to me, someone who agrees twice to a compromise that really 
bothers them is not the purist that I would expect, but then again, I 
guess it depends on your own personhood as to what you think is pure 
and what you think is not.
  So, anyway, I appreciate very much, Mr. Speaker, the former Speaker, 
Newt Gingrich, pointing out yesterday that it is a good thing that this 
bill did not pass on Friday because we know, as Speaker Gingrich 
pointed out, in 1994, Democrats lost the majority in this room because 
they tried to push through HillaryCare. We know that in 2010, Democrats 
lost the majority in this room because they had pushed through 
ObamaCare against the majority will of the American people.
  As former Speaker Gingrich pointed out, if we had rammed through this 
bill and, for example, people didn't see premiums come down before the 
next election, we would justifiably lose the majority in this House, 
and there are some good people that are serving here that should not be 
defeated. They are doing the best they can.
  But we can do better than where the bill stood on Friday, and I am 
very grateful to Speaker Ryan, to leader McCarthy, our whip, for 
working so hard today, reaching out, seeing them all over the place 
trying to work, talking with different ones of us. It is really 
encouraging, and I would hope, in the future, that we will start those 
things, we will--yes, we appreciate all the listening sessions, but 
then, as happened too often under Speaker Boehner, somebody, we don't 
even know who--there were a couple of things that made me wonder: Who 
wrote this? Is this the insurance lobby? Where did this come from?
  But bring the bill out and let us see it instead of telling every 
Republican: It is going to go through committee; and Democrats are 
going to have a million amendments and we have got to vote down every 
one of them; we don't want any Republican amendments; we are going to 
take it like it is.
  Well, see, to some of us, that is not really regular order. Regular 
order is a chance to have amendments, and especially from people in the 
majority who see real problems with the bill.
  So we can do that, and I look forward to doing that. And since we 
knew the Senate wasn't going to take it up until May sometime anyway, 
we have got time to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope you felt the same as I did hearing all across our 
Conference, people saying, look, this is important enough. We are going 
to have time where we go back to our districts between now and the 
middle of May when the Senate might take this bill up.
  Let's make sure we don't go on recess, go back to our districts to 
have people scream at us because we hadn't passed something. Let's stay 
here, and let's get it done like we did 3 years ago on the border 
security bill.
  But we have got a lot of work to do. There are serious problems with 
the bill. But we also now know, despite what some have represented, 
that, gee, we can't know what the Parliamentarians would say or 
recommend. It is great to know that the Parliamentarian in the Senate, 
actually, Assistant Parliamentarians work a great deal like our 
splendid Parliamentarian here.
  If you are getting ready to file a bill or if you are thinking about 
an amendment, you can actually go to any one of our Parliamentarian or 
assistants, show them the language. They can't give an obligatory 
ruling, and they generally tell us when they advise us: This is what I 
think, how the rule would apply there, and you may want to tweak this 
or that.
  They always have the caveat: But remember, I am the Parliamentarian. 
I don't rule on anything. All I would do, if I am allowed, or it is 
requested, I will whisper in the ear of the presiding--which, in the 
Senate, hopefully, would be Vice President Pence.
  And, gee, the Byrd Rule is not that complicated. When you are under 
reconciliation, it needs to be about the budget. So, if anything that 
is amended or added to or part of the bill will materially affect the 
budget, it survives the Byrd Rule and it stays in. That is it.
  The word in the Byrd Rule is ``incidental.'' It can't be just 
incidental or have an incidental effect on the budget. It has got to 
have a material effect; otherwise, it is considered extraneous.
  Well, I would hope, knowing my friend, a former Member of the House 
here, former Conference chair, now Vice President, I would hope and 
certainly imagine if our friend, the Vice President, is in the 
presiding officer's chair in the Senate and a Democratic Senator stands 
up and says, ``I make a point of order because I believe this violates 
the Byrd Rule, where the House inserted a provision, you have to show 
that you are you lawfully in the U.S. in order to get the tax credit,''

[[Page 4996]]

well, there may be people that are so used to massive numbers here in 
Washington that they would say, well, those millions or tens or 
hundreds of millions, that may not be material, that may be only 
incidental.

                              {time}  1945

  I hope my friend, my Vice President, would understand that, to 
Americans, the kind of money we would be talking about is hard-earned 
and it is material to the budget. So what happens if the Vice President 
then rules--who is the President of the Senate--well, your point of 
order is overruled, it is not appropriate, it doesn't violate the Byrd 
rule. Well, then that same Democrat or another could jump up and say: I 
appeal the ruling of the char.
  Then what happens?
  Normally, a Republican would stand and move to table the appeal of 
the ruling of the Chair. And then there are far more than enough 
Republicans to vote to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, 
which means the ruling stands, nothing is fatal, and we get closer to a 
repeal of ObamaCare. Even more important than that, we get closer to 
giving our constituents the help they really need.
  So it has been a long few weeks. It was a very long conference, but I 
am encouraged, Mr. Speaker. I hope that Americans end up encouraged. I 
am glad the bill didn't pass on Friday just as I was 3 years ago when 
the original de facto amnesty bill that Speaker Boehner tried to shove 
through. I think we can get to a good bill. I am looking forward to 
seeing that happen and working with my friends here to get it done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________