Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate that observation from my friend from Missouri. I would like to finish the declarations, the pledges that he and I have both made. Number 3 is improve, rather than diminish, the quality of care that Americans enjoy. Now, we have heard so many horror stories, terrible situations where someone did not get proper health care. And nobody wants to see that happen. But despite the problems, most of us here contend that we have the best health care available of anywhere in the world. It is right here in America. We saw a good example of that after years and years of hearing some friends say we need to have a health care system like Canada. We need to have a health care system like England. Well, you start hearing stories like the secretary in Tyler. She told me she immigrated from England. She said her mother had cancer in England. And what happens in that scenario, you are put on a list. You are put on a list to get a mammogram, to have surgery, a biopsy, to get radiation or chemo. Whatever you are going to get, you are put on a list. She said my mother died from cancer not because it was not curable, but because she lived in England. She said I was found to have cancer. I didn't have to wait on some list to get it taken care of. She said I know I'm alive because I moved to America and didn't stay in England, which brings me to an article in February. This was from the National Post, ``Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States. Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media. The Premier's press secretary confirmed the report Monday evening. Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it will be paid for. Ms. Dunderdale will become acting Premier while Williams is away. He is expected to be away from 4 to 6 weeks. For many, the Premier's need for heart surgery comes as a surprise, especially in light of the fact that he is an avid hockey player and has shown no outward signs of illness as of late. On Friday, Mr. Williams met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and while speaking to reporters seemed healthy and in good spirits. A decision to leave Canada for the surgery, especially if it is available here, raises questions about the Premier's confidence in Newfoundland's health care system.'' So you have a Premier from Canada, his health care is important to him. He wants to keep being the Premier, and so he comes to the United States, or already has. As I understand it, he already has had the surgery here in the United States. We have the best health care that has ever been anywhere in the world in time or in geography. It's here.

Mr. GOHMERT. And they have still not scored my bill. I would go ahead and point out that it is not just in health care that CBO has scored 50 Democratic bills and six Republican bills, which does not include mine, despite the efforts and the requests from the highest ranking Republicans. From the legislation that has formally been scored by CBO in the 111th Congress, there have been a total of 530 bills scored; 442 of those were Democratic bills and 88 were Republican bills. So I appreciate very much the Director of CBO, Mr. Elmendorf. He sounds very sincere that he is doing everything that he can to be fair and objective. But you as the CBO Director, knowing that you really probably would rather not be woodshedded again at the White House and knowing that if you do not allow any of these wonderful Republican ideas to be scored, you can profoundly change the discussion on health care in America. You can prevent some of the best ideas in America on health care that didn't just come from the people whose names are on the bill. The ideas on my health care bill, they came from brilliant people from around the country who have dealt with the issue. I appreciate Newt Gingrich sending friends of his over, some of the brightest minds on health care helping come up with some of the best proposals. I appreciated Newt's help and those he sent over. And now you get a score and see what you've got. I appreciated his direction. I can't get a score because the so-called fair and objective CBO wants to score 50 Democratic bills, six Republican bills, and one of those will not be mine. It could make a difference. Now I realize, and I have waited a long time to get loud and vocal about the ignoring that Republicans have had from CBO because I know by making such a big deal about their lack of objectiveness in the number of Republican bills scored by CBO that I am inviting CBO to come in, and there are so many variables in any bill, Democrat or Republican, where they can take a presumption and that presumption can just run the cost right through the roof or run it right down through the floor, and that is all dependent upon the presumptions that they make. So I realize by coming forward there is a good chance that if one day a rather angry and upset CBO finally gets around to scoring my bill, they are probably going to fix my wagon. I understand that. I understand that the presumptions might not be what they should be in order to give the bill a proper scoring to my way of thinking, but I just felt like we had to say something to point out that the emperor doesn't have the beautiful set of clothes that everyone is going around saying he has. There is a lack of objectivity certainly in the bills that are being scored.

Mr. GOHMERT. I sure would have tuned in to watch that. But of course if it had been on C-SPAN, the content of the conversation may have been a whole lot different. But we do know what has occurred in this Congress since last year. Now, it bugs me to no end to continue to hear, as I did--and I heard a friend from across the aisle say in just a ridiculous misrepresentation that the Republicans--again, they don't have any plans. They don't want any changes. That is absolutely ridiculous. In our Republican Study Committee--the more conservative of the Republican Members of Congress is generally the way it's touted. There are Republicans that aren't conservative that aren't part of the RSC. But we have just a summary of 70 bills to help reform health care, not to give more control to the insurance companies, not to give more control to government, but to help reform health care so that it's patient controlled, and it's affordable, accessible, all of these things. These are real bills. They have numbers on them. Let me just share with you, I had addressed I guess probably around November the fact that I had been trying to get my health care bill scored since August. I realize who is in the majority and with that comes lots of privilege. We sure know about that. It is hard to get a meeting room, the kind we used to have, and the kind we used to provide to the other side, just to have a meeting. But we do with what they allow us to have. But we can meet outside. That doesn't stop us from doing what we need to do. But when it comes to CBO, I appreciated getting a call from the Director of CBO and I appreciated all of the glowing things that were said about the wonderful bipartisan gentleman he is, but the trouble is you have to look at what has been produced since that woodshedding at the White House. I really do believe he wants to be fair, and I really believe he thinks he is fair. But when it comes to health care bills, there have been 50 bills that have been formally scored that are Democrat-requested scores for their bills, and there have been six Republican bills formally scored. We have been able to get about one- tenth of the bills scored that the Democrats have. I have been trying since August. I made the request in writing of CBO back in August. Then eventually I am told, well, you don't have the highest ranking Republican on the committee of jurisdiction requesting it. So I talked to Joe Barton, our highest ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee where Chairman Waxman rammed this thing through the committee. He sent a letter requesting that CBO score my bill. We waited awhile. Okay, do you have it in the works? Is it coming? Then we were told you don't have a request from the highest ranking Republican on the Joint Tax Committee. So I asked Dave Camp, a wonderful colleague. Dave said absolutely. He shoots a letter over to CBO and says score Gohmert's bill. That was back in September. And since then, on a spur of the moment, it could be a Democratic Senator or the Speaker or Chairman Waxman or somebody down here, man, they request one, they won't even have a full bill, and until just last week when they were given an 11-page summary and 19-page summary of the summary, thank God CBO finally did the appropriate thing and said that we can't score a summary and a summary of a summary. We don't have enough to work with to give you a score. Thank goodness they finally said that, because they have sure scored some stuff that wasn't appropriate to be scored.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, we sure know about that, don't we. Number two on the list of pledges is, Reject any addition to the crushing national debt heaped upon all Americans. And I know there's been--in the summit there are all these wonderful, glowing things that were said about the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. Everybody talks about the CBO scoring. Well, the CBO scoring says this. CBO scoring is sacrosanct, and I know people have paid great tribute to it. But I still remember last year when the President was not happy with CBO and called the Director over to the White House. There was a little woodshedding that apparently went on. We were not allowed to see that on C-SPAN. That would have been a real interesting conversation.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, and I heard the brilliant gentleman Frank Luntz at a focus group that analyzed the summit. Fifteen of the people in there had voted for President Obama, 15 of them had voted for John McCain, and it was interesting to hear some of the observations. I loved what one gentleman said. He didn't sound like a lawyer. He just sounded like a good commonsense person. He said, I just know that I have never been in a government office in line to get some service and seen a government employee come running out and say, Let me open another window. This line is too long. But he said, You know, we've seen that in private businesses because if you make somebody wait in the line too long, they'll go to the next business and not stay in your business. And his point was, he did not want those people who would not come around and open an extra window to be the ones that are in charge of his health care. I thought it was a beautiful point.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I would direct your attention to the Declaration of Health Care Independence. I know my friend Mr. Akin was there when we unveiled that declaration here in the Capitol when I think we've got 100 or more Members of Congress that have signed on to that. There are thousands and thousands of people across the country that have gone online and looked for a Declaration of Health Care Independence and found Web sites where they could sign on so that people could keep building the pressure. So the truth is, I'm very gratified by some of the comments the President made here because, once again, he is embracing many of the things that we have had in this Declaration of Health Care Independence for some time. And the wonderful thing about these 10 points that we asked people to pledge who signed this is that the President has already said that he supports these things. I would just like to run through these 10 again. Number one, protect the vital doctor-patient relationship. As the President should know, we have signed a pledge to that effect. That's what we want. So we're gratified to see him include it in his speech today, but we've been there. We were hoping we could get him to sign it before now to join with us to show that we are of one accord. I yield to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah, I called it a straw dog. A straw horse, I have heard that used as well.

Mr. GOHMERT. I'm sure the gentleman then would agree there is no need for further study or to try to look for ways to have alternative resolutions to medical malpractice disputes. We've seen what works, and yet it's not going to force States to get rid of their caps on pain and suffering or attorneys' fees. It merely will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to generously reward any State that will get rid of their caps on damages and attorneys' fees. Let me also mention this, that is only one of the proposals. Another is that health care exchange plans are what is being proposed in this supposedly cut-down bill. The health care exchange plan is the skeletal structure that allows the government to take over health care. So to say it's scaled back, you know, the snake is still in there. It's just going to have to go a little further to bite you. So this is not a good proposal. It's not a fair proposal. And one other thing in the President's speech that I thought was very unfair, he says, On the other end of the spectrum, there are those--and this includes most Republicans in Congress. Now I prefer to speak for myself and not have somebody who profoundly disagrees with me tell me what I believe. But according to this, the President's speech, this includes most Republicans in Congress who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry. The gentleman from Missouri and I have been on this floor many times, and in the last 5 years--particularly that I've been here, I know the gentleman's been here longer than I have--but repeatedly I know we have all said, I don't want the government between me and my doctor, and I want the insurance company restricted so they're not between me and my doctor. I don't want the insurance company to just run amok and run wild. I want us to get back to a doctor-patient relationship. So when somebody speaks for us and in the next paragraph, the President says, I don't believe--as opposed to the crazy Republicans he mentioned in paragraph four--I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America, we've been saying that same thing for years. We agree on that. We don't want the government, we don't want insurance companies to have more control over our health than we do. It's time to put the patients back in charge.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, the gentleman is accurate. It is the reverse, but the States are not going to be told, You have to get rid of your caps. We have already seen in Texas and California medical malpractice insurance rates come plummeting down.

Mr. GOHMERT. No. Actually, pain and suffering is noneconomic damages. So attorneys' fees and things like pain and suffering, which is hard to put a figure on.

Mr. GOHMERT. If the Supreme Court takes a fair and literal look at the Constitution, they will know this was not an enumerated power reserved to the Federal Government. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, it's reserved to the States and the people. I would like to point out one other thing. In this article that was already out, that came out so quickly after the President's speech today--it's from CNN. It can be found on the CNN Web site. But they point out that the President is proposing four different things. First of all, combating waste, fraud and abuse, and I will come back to that. But this article says: ``Obama is also considering a Republican- supported idea to appropriate $50 million to help States find alternative resolutions to medical malpractice disputes, including health costs.'' Well, when this information came out today during the President's speech, I was in a meeting with about 50 other Republican Members of Congress, and I couldn't believe that statement. He said this was a Republican idea, and he said, You know, we're embracing this Republican idea. I want to know which one of my moronic Republican friends proposed such a ridiculous program as that. Nobody knew of any Republican who proposed that. I know the President wouldn't lie, but I'm sure there is a Republican somewhere in the country--maybe somebody that deems themselves half socialist, half Republican that proposed this. I can't find anybody who knows of a Member in Congress who has proposed this bill because we don't need to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services $50 million, $50 billion or one red dime to come up with a way to help States find alternative resolutions for medical malpractice disputes. That's already in the House bill, and what this provides is a fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to bribe States-- that's my word. Any State that has a cap on attorneys' fees or a cap on noneconomic damages, the Secretary is authorized to pay whatever sums are necessary, in her opinion, basically to reward a State that gets rid of any caps like that. That's what it boils down to.

Mr. GOHMERT. That's exactly right. And I know the President before us mentioned--well, you know, States require you to buy car insurance. The fact is, you buy insurance for the privilege, as the law has determined, to drive on the road. You don't have to drive just to live in America. If this bill passes, you will have to buy insurance just to live in America, or you will be fined; you will be hammered with the extra amount of money you will have to pay. And let me finish one other thing about that insurance. There is no State in the United States of America that requires anyone to insure their car for damages to their own car or damages physically to themselves. The only requirement in any State is for insurance to cover against the damage you may do to someone else. So once again, this will be breaking brand-new ground, never done in history, not envisioned by the Constitution, not anywhere in the enumerated powers. You have to buy insurance on yourself just to live. So I yield to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is correct. And one of the great ironies in this is we have so many friends across the aisle that I know are very sincere when they believe with all their hearts they want to help what they call the little guy in America. I am sure they haven't read this bill as thoroughly as I have. But if they will trouble themselves to do so, they will see that under the bill that passed the House that we just had to rush through, if you make just above the poverty line as determined in the bill so you don't get free health insurance, but you don't make enough to buy the policy that the Federal Government mandates, you pay an extra percentage, I believe it is 2 percent on your income tax. We are talking about low middle class, some of those folks working two and three jobs just to keep food on the table. And what is the majority going to do to them? Why, if you can't afford as good a plan as we order you to get, we're going to increase your income tax. You can't afford insurance, and yet you're going to increase the income tax? I just know that there are people that care deeply about the poor, those who are the working poor, doing what they can to struggle to get by. And yet they're going to hammer those very people. It's just ludicrous.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is exactly correct. If you go on further, everybody that is offering insurance in an area has to offer the same exact basic plan. It is a basic plan. And then if an insurance company provides that one basic plan, they may offer one enhanced plan. But again, the commissioner specifies exactly what that plan is. And if you offer an enhanced plan, you may also have one premium plan for such area. But the bottom line is there will be many areas in the country, once everybody loses their own health insurance within a couple of years, everybody goes under this plan, the commissioner tells everybody what has to be in their plan. Everybody. And you have no choice, you have to go with what they said. And so the other thing is that once an insurance company provides that, they have no flexibility. Now there is debate about whether or not there would be a public option or a publicly financed insurance company to compete. We know how that works. We saw it with flood insurance. When the Federal Government comes in and provides that alternative, that competition, you run the private insurance companies out of business because the Federal Government operates in the red, run the private businesses out, and then the Federal Government does as our Federal flood insurance program has, continue to run deeper and deeper into red ink.

Mr. GOHMERT. One-size-fits-all for the area.

Mr. GOHMERT. Absolutely. We would have even more information. And that would be more helpful. But the best we can tell, since the President did not propose a specific bill, once again very elusive in what is being proposed, page 167 does not appear to have been changed. And that says the commissioner shall specify--that is the Federal commissioner under this bill--the benefits to be made available under the Exchange-participating health benefits plans. Now, that means every plan that has had a term or condition change or has added an additional insured, those have been lost, and then within a couple of years everybody is under this. So the commissioner shall, one of about 3,000 or so ``shalls'' in the bill, specify benefits to be made available. And then it goes on and says the entity offers only one basic plan for such service. So the commissioner is going to require that everybody provide exactly the same plan.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman asks a good question. I appreciate the question, because once again, that affords great insight. If you look over at page 167 of the bill that was passed in the House, and as best I can tell, even though all we have is the 11-page summary and then the 19-page summary of the summary----

Mr. GOHMERT. It is a privilege to be on the floor any time when you know the history of this place and what all is going on before us. I'm so grateful for my friend from Missouri, my friend from Utah pointing out such important things about the health care debate that is ongoing. It is critical. We're talking about the lives of Americans. This is not something that should be considered lightly or done too quickly. It is incredibly ironic to realize here we are now into March of 2010, and beginning back over a year ago we were told there is no time to waste. We do not have time for Republicans to have any input. We don't really want to hear from Americans. This is too important, we were told, to delay. We have got to have this done by May. Well, even though the Democrats have plenty of votes to more than pass this bill, they didn't get it done by May. They could have done it without any votes from Republicans, yet it was the Democrats themselves that were not able to pass this bill, and the reason is there were Democrats who were also concerned about what was in this bill, just as many of them are still very concerned that what's in the bill is not appropriate and not good for the people in their districts or their States. So here we are. Then we heard, Well, we need to get this done by July 4th. Then we heard we need to get it done by the August recess. Then, we need to get it done before Halloween. Well, then we need to get it done by Thanksgiving. Each time, the need to pass it immediately was given as a reason that there just wasn't time to incorporate any Republican ideas. The trouble is, these were not Republican ideas. These are ideas that come from some of the smartest people in the country; that come from doctors, that come from economists, people that have worked through these issues, and yet still the effort has been made to ask America-- not ask, but demand America stick out your tongue and say ``ah'' while we cram this down your throat. It needs to be looked at even more closely. And there is a technique that's been known in debate world as creating a straw dog. You create the straw dog and say that's what your opponent believes and is trying to do. You get righteously indignant, and you beat up the straw dog, showing how you tore your opponent up because your opponent had this ridiculous idea. The problem was, in that debate device it's simply not accurate because that is not what the opponent was saying. In this case, I don't really see us as having opponents. We are out here trying to do what is best for America, and yet most of America, through their representatives, have not had a chance to be heard. That includes many represented by Democrats. We are joined by my friend from Utah. And I would be glad to yield such time as Mr. Bishop might use.

Mr. GOHMERT. Sure.

Mr. GOHMERT. The answer is that yes, you can keep your plan if you like it for maybe a year, then you lose it. Maybe 2 if you are lucky. On the other part, if you like your doctor--and the gentleman from Utah has quoted it exactly. I have the text of the President's speech here. He said, ``If you like your plan you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.'' The thing is nobody, not even my dear friends here on the floor with me, can promise you that if you like your doctor you get to keep your doctor. I will give you one good reason why. I have talked to numerous doctors that are my age and older who have told me, many of them, that I have not accumulated what I had hoped to by this time. But they are very sincere, and they say, But it has gotten so frustrating dealing with the government over Medicare and Medicaid, and even dealing with insurance companies, they've had enough. And I have been told, I am sure my friends have been, too, that if this bill passes they are walking away from the practice of medicine. They are walking away. It will not be worth it. I have heard that from so many people. So for somebody to say if we pass this bill, and I don't care who it is, any Democrat or any Republican that were to say if we pass this bill and you like your doctor you can keep him, it is wrong. You can't make that promise because many of the doctors you like the best have already said we are walking away.

Mr. GOHMERT. One of the things I love about being on the same committee with the gentleman from Utah is he may not be a lawyer, but he has incredible insight and discernment and can shoot right to the crux of an issue. So when we do that, as the gentleman has asked, and we look at page 91 of the House bill, and I have asked others, look at the 11-page summary the President proposed and then look at the 19-page summary of the summary that the White House gave to us, both the 11- page summary and the White House 19-page summary of the summary, and see if you can tell if one single letter of the law under section 202 of the House bill is changed. I have been told by attorneys that have looked at it, it does not appear the President is proposing any change to page 91 of the House bill. So when you look for the answer, Do you keep your insurance?, well, you look to the language. And the language is this: ``Section 202, Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage. ``(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined. Grandfathered health insurance coverage means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met.'' And Y1 is just the day that the new bill starts. ``Number one, Limitation on New Enrollment.'' In order to keep your insurance if you like it, number one, and I quote, ``The individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.'' So if you add a single additional insured to the policy that you have--you are on a company policy, or if you are like a couple of guys that told me recently that their unions negotiated a fantastic health care plan, they love it, they are not worried about the rest of the country because they get to keep their plan. Unfortunately, as I asked, Does anybody ever get added to your health care policy? And they said, Well, yeah, people retire all the time and they get in there and we all have the same great policy. I had to explain, Bad news. As soon as they add one more person on your health care policy, you lose your policy. And then that throws you over under the Federal insurance exchange program that the government controls. There will be private insurance companies that will be allowed initially, until they go broke, they will be allowed to offer policies, but they are mandated exactly what they have to provide in those policies. But here is the real kicker, the second limitation on changes in terms or conditions. The second condition about keeping your policy is this, and I quote, ``The issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost sharing.'' Now, that is why I replied to the gentleman earlier, the answer is you might get to keep your insurance policy for a year, 2 years if you're lucky. But there is no way that you could have an insurance policy go for more than a couple of years without having to make some changes in their terms and conditions. For one thing, we know that health care, with medicine, knowledge, and practice changes all the time. We find out that some types of procedures are more dangerous than we knew. And so a policy said we will no longer cover that because the benefits do not outweigh the risks that are involved. Another thing is you have new technology, sometimes less expensive ways to treat something. Well, obviously you want those included in your coverage. They would be added. That changes a term or condition. So within 1 year or 2 years everybody in the country that liked their policy, just as the President promised, get to keep it for about a year or 2, and then they lost it. So when the President says you get to keep it, that is accurate. He just doesn't tell you you won't keep it very long. I would be glad to yield to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. Truly, the examples that were given here today of children who have lost their lives, children who have suffered is untenable. There is nobody in this body that I can imagine who would think this is appropriate. Of course it is not. Our hearts go out to the families, all of us who have raised children, had children go through school. I have a great fear of something like that. But there was also a fear that our Founders had. There was a fear of even coming together for the Constitutional Convention because they were afraid that it would allow for a Constitution that would set in motion a Federal Government that would continue to take away the powers of the people in the local government and the State government. So the only way they were able to come together on this Constitution was to assure the people there that if they would pass the Constitution, they would put together 10 amendments to make sure that the Federal Government would never do the very things we're doing here. There is no State that would put up with this knowingly. Every State would say, This is ridiculous; of course we don't want children killed in school. But what gets me is during my first 2 years here when we were in the majority in this body, I was one of the few Republicans that said No Child Left Behind is not appropriate. And I was joined by many across the aisle who said the Federal Government shouldn't have a program like No Child Left Behind. You don't know more here in Washington than people know back in the school districts. And I appreciated the support of my colleagues across the aisle. I told that to the White House. That's an area we are going to disagree on because you should not be mandating back to the States and the local governments and the local school boards, because they are competent. I know that it's not the intent of this bill, but the underlying message is, You people back in your States and local school boards and local governments are a bunch of morons. You can't figure out that sitting on a precious little child and killing them is inappropriate. So the big, smart Federal Government has to come in and let you know that that's not appropriate. We don't need that. We didn't need No Child Left Behind as a mandate rammed down the throats of the State and local government. We don't need this. We need logic and reason, and we need proper schooling; but it doesn't come at the tip of a fisted mandate from Washington. We need to encourage the States to do the right thing. But under the 10th Amendment, the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States or reserved to the States. We doggone sure ought to respect that.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa, and I appreciate the points that he's been making. You heard so much information today. It was a bit mind-boggling when you think about the number of people that were in the so-called summit today, and not only did they not have a copy of the bills that they were going to try to ram down America's throat, they seemed to be a little miffed when people like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan had data right at their fingertips to talk about, because it's very discomforting, I would imagine, if you get very indignant and say there's no money in any of these bills for abortion. We heard the same thing right here on this floor just within feet of where my friend from Iowa is. We heard people say when we debated the House bill that there is no money in this bill for abortion. And I don't infer any evil intent or intent to deceive, but I know when people say that, since clearly they have no intent to deceive, they just hadn't read the bill before they came to the floor or went to the summit to try to convince people about. And let's face it. It was called a summit today. Summit meaning height. It was the height of something. And we'll let the Speaker figure out for us what that height was, but it was the height of something, the summit of something. But the President himself, I think he was within maybe 1 minute of taking 2 hours of all that time by himself. And I was certified as a mediator. I went through training and certification as an international arbitrator. I know something about coming together and mediating. And when you have one side sitting here and another side sitting over here and you say I am going to be fair-handed between the time, and you take individually more time beating up on the poor little guys over here who got even less time among that whole group. I am not sure how many there were on each side, but certainly over a dozen. And the one mediator takes 2 hours of the time just pushing his position, belittling the position of others. And any time he is corrected, since obviously he has no intent to deceive, so when he makes a mistake on exactly what the facts are, having somebody try to correct it and then having them interrupted, as my friend points out. But like we had the discussion here on the floor, our friend Bart Stupak across the aisle had an amendment to take out the abortion provisions that would allow Federal funding for abortion. So gee, why in the world would you need an amendment to take out the abortion funding if there were no abortion funding in the bill? But, as I am sure my friend from Iowa knows, if you went to page 110 of the House bill, there is, and, of course, I have been through, I got tags all through this stuff as you can see, because I was trying to go through to see what was fact and what was fiction. But right here on page 110, subsection capital B, ``Abortions''--this is the topic--``Abortions for which public funding is allowed.'' And then it goes on and sets things out like that. So when somebody comes to the floor and says there is no public funding for abortion in this bill at all, and we know also that the Senate refused to allow anything close to the Stupak amendment to cut out Federal funding, then we know that this same kind of language was in the bill that was going to survive and that they were going to work from. Because as I have heard my friend Mr. Stupak say, if that language is not taken out with a Stupak-type amendment, he can't vote for it, nor can maybe 40 of our friends across the aisle. But ``Abortions for which the public funding is allowed.'' Now, you know people did not read that on the floor. And our Speaker did not know that that language was there. I am sure she didn't prepare the bill. And we also know that they didn't read some of the other provisions. Because I am sure that when people from the President on down say, ``If you like your health care you are going to get to keep it,'' I am sure they didn't intend to deceive anybody. I am sure they didn't. But it also tells me they hadn't read the bill that is before us. And this language, from the best I can tell, as my friend pointed out earlier, from the 11-page summary and then the 19-page summary of the summary. Both of those can be obtained, of course, from the White House Web site. You can either look at their 11-page summary or their 19-page summary of the summary. But I can't find that this language is removed in their summary or summary of the summary. So if you look at page 91 of the bill, it's entitled, ``Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.'' This is the provision that will allow you to keep your coverage if you like it. So, being an old judge, chief justice, I kind of feel like I appreciate the representations, but as I used to tell the lawyers that argued before me, I appreciate your opinion, but I would really rather see the language for myself so I can read it and figure out what it really says. So, you go look at the language itself, and voila, subsection A, ``Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage.'' And it describes that, ``The term grandfathered health insurance coverage means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1.'' That is the first date that the bill goes into effect. And then you have got two basic subparagraphs, number one, ``Limitation on new enrollment.'' And that says, and I will quote from that subsection, in order to keep your coverage if you like it, it says, ``The individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage.'' Now, you get what that means. It means the two different gentlemen I have had over the last few weeks that approached me back in my district, and one of them said, ``I am not concerned at all about what you're doing about health care because I was part of a union and a part of a big corporation. I retired. They got me a great health care plan, and I'm pleased with it. And I'm not worried about anybody else.'' The other, as it turned out, had been part of the same union, part of the same company and retired. He was concerned, and he said, ``Tell me more about how I can keep my policy.'' For people like that, all they would have to do is read this individual provision. So the gentleman who said, I'm really not worried, I said, ``Well, let me ask you, since this says here that you can't keep your coverage even if you like it if another individual is enrolled in such coverage, I have to ask, does anybody ever get added to your health care coverage from your union that you were part of and retired from and now have this great retired medical policy?'' And he says, ``Well, yeah, people retire all the time.'' Bad news. That is really bad news, because that means they get added to the policy. That means under ``Limitation on New Enrollment,'' number one, you're eliminated from keeping your coverage and you get bounced over onto the Federal insurance exchange program. The second limitation might affect some other Americans who like their insurance and would like to keep it. It is this. The title is, ``Limitation on changes in terms or conditions.'' I am just reading from the bill. I'm not making this up. ``The issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost sharing.'' You get that? If the insurance company that has the policy you like, like these two gentlemen that retired from a major company after having their union negotiate a good policy, if any term or condition in their policy changes, if the benefits change at all, they add benefits, they take any benefits away, they say, well, you know what, we found out this treatment was not safe so we're removing it from something we'll provide coverage for, you find out something is a brand new treatment that works, we add that, well, you've changed your benefits. And it says here you can't change your benefits if you're going to keep it. And if you change the copay, if you change the deductible, if you change the price of the policy, bad news. Under number two, you lose your policy and you get kicked over under the Federal insurance exchange program. Now, I was intrigued today to hear one of our Democratic friends there at the White House summit give a wonderful example about the Federal insurance exchange program. He gave this example or something like this. I was listening to two or three things at the same time, I had hearings and meetings and things going on. But as I understood it, he said, ``Well, like when I want to go look for a flight or make travel arrangements, I will go onto Orbitz or Expedia or something like that. Well, that's all this Federal insurance program is. You know, it helps you find the best policy.'' Well, that is a wonderful point. I have been trying to find where the government owns Orbitz and Expedia. I can't find that they own those programs. The best I can determine, whether it's Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, whatever, I can't find the government owns any of those. I can't find that it is a Federal Orbitz, a Federal Expedia, Travelocity, whatever it is. I can't find that. Apparently, these are private companies. And apparently, from what he said, he likes what the private companies are doing. Well, we want people in America to have choice. We want them to have the best choice. And I bet you if you asked Americans, and said, ``We're thinking about creating a travel agency, and the government will make all your travel arrangements for you. You just contact our government office. We're going to give you an option to all the other airlines, all the other travel agencies. We're just going to let the government do that because we feel like you are owed a public option when you travel.'' I wonder how many people would ever go to the Federal option, because it is not competitive. The Federal Government never has to compete. It can run in the red. They don't care. Their salaries are not dependent on how well the company does. And so I also want to point out that if you look here at section 501, the title of section 501 is ``Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage.'' ``Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage.'' And this place is supposed to care about the little guys, the guys that are out there working from dawn until dusk and some of them into the night to try to make enough money and then go to another job and moonlight to try to help the family, help the kids have what they need to get through school? And you're going to say, You know what? You make a little too much to be under the poverty line that will allow us to just give you free health insurance or health care, so under section 501, we're just going to have to tax you because you're not buying a Cadillac insurance policy. But then again, we also know if you have a Cadillac insurance policy--which to me, Cadillacs are great cars. I used to have one before I ever came to Congress. I can't afford one now, but they were good cars. And, unfortunately, Cadillacs may not be what they used to be now that the government motors owns them or makes them. But nonetheless, can you imagine the arrogance of a government that tells people, You're not buying as expensive of an insurance policy that I think you ought to have so I am going to tax you for it? And in the summary, the President's plan points out--or the changes to the House and Senate bill says, in the summary, You know what? The medical device tax--what some of us referred to as the wheelchair tax. Of course, they initially stuck the medical device tax in there, and there was no threshold above which you had to be to pay an extra tax if you had the misfortune of needing a medical device. And so some began to refer to it as the tampon tax, because that meets the requirements of a medical device and it could be taxed. And the threshold of a hundred dollars is put in there. So the President says, You know what? We may just create a whole new excise tax that everybody is going to have to pay. Sorry about that $250,000 exclusion I told you about at one time, but you're still going to have to pay more taxes. This is chock full of this stuff. That is why most Americans do not want this bill. And if you look, there are all kinds of, still, pot sweeteners for Senators or Representatives that were reluctant. They changed some of those, but the pot sweeteners were in there to try to get their vote. They don't help all Americans. They sweeten the pot only for those votes that they think they need to get it passed. That is not right. That is not good for all Americans. That's not consistent with the equal protection that is promised to all Americans under the Constitution. You ought to have equal opportunity, and they don't have it. I appreciate so much the time as my friend has yielded.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I went online and got the President's proposal here, and it is 11 pages, and it is a summary. And then I got the summary of the summary, and it looks like it is about 19 pages summarizing the 11 pages. So I guess we are creating jobs by trying to do summaries of the summaries of the summaries. That is not good enough. People are out of work. We heard last year, a year ago that if we did not pass the stimulus bill, the porkulus bill, if that didn't pass, unemployment might go as high as 8.5 percent. God, would that we would be there instead of where we are today. This is not going to create jobs. It is going to suck more money out of the economy that government uses that the businesses will not have to create jobs. Let's help America. Let's put people back to work so they can afford their own health care.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend yielding. This is such a perplexing time. The American people, the vast majority, have made clear that they don't want what has come through the House and what has come through the Senate. And you know yes, I came from east Texas. I've worked in some pretty nasty barns and fields. And one person said to me, So you're going to go in and compromise, you know, talk about the Senate and the House bill and try to work out a compromise? Because when you try to compromise between one type of horse manure and another type of horse manure, you're still not going to really like what you got unless you're going to use it for fertilizer. But the thing is we heard last week--I read that a representative of the AARP and unions had said that they had been behind the scenes privately behind closed doors working on a compromise between these bills that the vast majority of Americans said they don't want. And that was going to be unleashed today. Apparently, it was revealed this morning. So I am really struggling with this. We're going to have negotiations on C-SPAN, but we're not going to do it when it really counts because we got the bill. We heard from the representatives at AARP and this administration they've been working in secret behind closed doors, like the auto task force that wouldn't even come to Congress and tell us what had been going on behind closed doors. There is no accountability in that. We don't know, as the President promised, who was negotiating for whom. Did the AARP executives get another exemption in this bill so there is no salary cap on them even though they can sell millions in insurance? Did the unions exempt themselves from something else and get a sweetheart deal? We don't know because the C-SPAN cameras weren't there. But now that the bill has been revealed this morning that was all negotiated in secret, now we're going to have a meeting, and we're going to have Republican leaders and Democrat leaders come together and talk about the bill that was negotiated in secret? And I tell you, credibility, as my friend, the former judge, knows, whether it's in the courtroom as we dealt with or whether it's in public, credibility is everything. And this massive bill doesn't give a whole lot of time. Seventy-two hours is not much time to go through a massive bill like that and try to figure out the sweetheart deals that are in there because sometimes it's hidden by referencing another law. And then you've got to go chase down that law and see how this affects this, and whether that controls--like the references to ERISA in the big House bill. Well, that was a sweetheart deal to get some insurance companies on board. And then there was a sweetheart bill to get plaintiffs lawyers on board, and then there was a sweetheart deal for pharmaceuticals in there. But you had to know where to look, and you had to know the other references, and you had to know the effect of bureaucrats' rules on all of those laws. We hadn't had that chance. But going back to the issue of credibility. Right there at that podium as an invited guest in this Chamber the President of the United States came in here and said as a matter of record, ``There are those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too is false.'' That came out of the President's mouth. ``This too is false. The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.'' Yet he knew, he knew when he was saying those things that this body passed a bill, and the Senate passed a bill, that did not require identification. And at every level Republicans tried to inject the amendment that you had to identify yourself in order to get access to this Federal taxpayer-funded health care insurance, the public insurance. Well, he surely had to know that those efforts were beat back at every turn. So there was no requirement to show your identification that you're legally here to get insurance. So giving the President the benefit of the doubt or just, you know, giving him the benefit of everything, then you'd have to figure, well if he didn't know that that's what had happened, then you're going to have to go in and negotiate with a man who doesn't know what's in a bill or isn't in the bill or what the effect will be, because clearly that bill was going to allow illegal aliens and will, if it's passed. And I haven't had a chance today because we've been so busy up here, haven't had a chance to go through the brand new bill. But then the President also said, ``Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.'' But the very House bill that we had in here, was the only bill we had to work with at the time, and there was a provision in there that was titled, basically, ``Abortions for which Federal dollars may be used.'' Obviously I am sure the President would never misrepresent things, so he clearly did not know what he was talking about. And you are going to come in and negotiate about a bill that people there don't know what is in it? You know, we dealt with that with the crap-and-trade bill.