Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. After listening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I am reminded of some freezes I would like to see. In addition to this freeze on our pay for a year, I would like to see us put a freeze on regulations on small business. The previous speaker just mentioned that he believes we have somewhat of an arcane procedure for providing for pay raises to Members of Congress. That may be true. But there is certainly no more arcane activity that we engaged in than when we passed the health care bill in that having a new burden on business, particularly small business. And I speak of section 9006 of the health care bill, which has nothing to do with health, but has everything to do with regulation in that now, as opposed to the law which has existed for many years in which you had to file a 1099 on someone who provided a service for you, the purpose of which was to make sure that there was some paper trail to see if you were paying payroll taxes, we now have decided under this bill, the health care bill, section 9006, to require anybody involved in a trade or a service, that is any type of business who makes a purchase from some other corporate entity of any type that amounts to more than $600 cumulatively over a single year, that requires a 1099 to be filed with the person that you purchase the product from and the Federal Government. What this means is that now if you purchase plane tickets and it amounts to more than $600 and you are engaged in a business, you will have to file a 1099 with United Airlines or American Airlines and the Federal Government. If you purchase food for your company and it amounts to more than $600, you will have to file a 1099. If you happen to be a rancher and you purchase bales of hay, you are going to have to keep a running tab all year long, and when you go over $600 you are going to have to file a 1099. If you in fact utilize FedEx or UPS, if during the course of the year it is more than $600, you will have to file a 1099 with FedEx or UPS and the Federal Government. So this is a new burden that will require accounting procedures for anybody involved in business, particularly imposed on small business. But more than that, there is a double-edged sword to this. And that is this is a dagger at the heart of small business. Because if you have this obligation, it is easier to deal with one single big vendor than to have a number of them. Instead of going to your local hardware store if you are a small company and you need some hardware, you ought to go to one of the big guys because their universe of products is greater. And so if you have everything you purchased from them, knowing it is going to be over $600, you only have a single 1099 to file. So what we have done in one fell swoop is make it more difficult to actually operate with this new regulatory scheme, and on the other hand, create disincentives for small business. Now, when we contacted the Internal Revenue Service to see how they are going to interpret it, they said we haven't interpreted it yet because we are waiting for HHS to give us guidance. So now we have tax policy going to be determined by HHS. All I'm saying is, if people think that we've had arcane procedures for means of pay raises for Members of Congress, it is nothing compared to what we've done in this health care bill with regulation on small business. I actually call that provision of the health care bill the ``universal snitch act'' because, when you file this 1099, it has nothing to do with your obligation to pay taxes. It has got to be premised on the idea that every vendor you deal with cheats and that the only way to catch cheaters is to have this new paper trail. So I don't know. It just seems repugnant to me that we would do that, and I happen to have a bill that I introduced yesterday that would repeal that. I just bring this up because the gentleman from Texas prompted this thought in my mind about freezes that would be appropriate. Then when the previous speaker mentioned arcane procedures, there was nothing more arcane than the health care bill we passed. In fact, when we called the IRS, they weren't sure that this was in the bill. When we talked to the Congressional Research Service, they said, Oh, it couldn't be. Then when we pointed out that the new language in the bill is property and not just services--and that includes anything that you purchase--it has an unbelievable obligation on small business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, providing Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011, sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell), actually mirroring language that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has had before our body for some period of time. Both gentlemen have worked on this together, it is my understanding. Across the country, we know that there are serious issues plaguing Americans, mainly a deteriorating economy and very high unemployment rates. In my home State, the underemployment rate is over 20 percent. In my district, Sacramento County has an unemployment rate of 12.9 percent, which is actually lower than some of the cities in my district. The city of Galt, for example, has an unemployment rate of 15 percent. So it goes without saying that things are not well in our economy and people are suffering. As Americans around the country are struggling and sacrificing to make ends meet, it appears that we in Congress should not be immune. Other institutions are doing likewise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently announced in his Year-End Report for the Judiciary that he would not be requesting the usual salary increase for Federal judges given that ``so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by hardship.'' The President has also announced a pay freeze for top White House officials and other appointees in the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, recently in this House we passed H. Res. 1257, supporting the goals and ideals of National Financial Literacy Month, 2010. This legislation sought to raise public awareness about financial education through highlighting the importance of maintaining and managing personal finances, increasing personal savings, and reducing indebtedness in the United States. Some would ask whether we in Congress ought to undertake that same examination with respect to our spending in this House and our spending overall on the Federal budget. At a time when we are passing resolutions telling Americans to be more cognizant of their financial situation, their debt, their savings, we do need to do the same in the House. Millions of Americans are not getting a pay raise this year. Many, unfortunately, are not even getting paychecks. Under these circumstances, Congress must forgo a pay raise to save the hardworking taxpayers and hard-looking job seekers in this country a little of their money. Relative to the overall Federal budget, this single act doesn't have that great an impact. But any dollar, any Federal dollar, is something that we should treat with utmost responsibility because it comes to us in a sense involuntarily from our constituents. It comes through taxes or future taxes to pay for current debts. So under these circumstances I think most of my colleagues, if not all of my colleagues, would agree that this is the time for us to forgo a pay raise. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the indomitable distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who has worked on this issue for some time. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the pride of the Coast Guard, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would just urge my colleagues to support this resolution. This is appropriate at this particular time. I think all Members of Congress recognize the difficult economic straits we are in. It is a simple resolution. It forgoes the pay raise for the year 2011, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the biggest issue on the minds of the American people is jobs. So imagine my surprise when I took another look at the so-called health care reform bill and found a provision which is just another job-killer provision. Beginning in 2012 under section 9006 of the Obama care bill, any company, large or small, that purchases more than $600 worth of goods or services from any corporation during the previous year will be required now to file a 1099 with the government and with that company. That means you have to keep track of all the food that you buy, the paint that you buy, the secretarial supplies that you buy, and then you have to give this information to the government. Not because of any obligation on your part to pay something but on the part of the other individual. The assumption is that everybody else cheats, and so what this is, is nothing more than a universal snitch tax. It requires all Americans to give up information on somebody else. Repeal this nonsense. Get rid of this burden. Save small business, and cosponsor H.R. 5141.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that we are recognizing Father Coughlin's service to our Nation and to this House as the Chaplain of the House of Representatives in the same week that a Federal judge has instructed us that the National Day of Prayer is somehow unconstitutional. I look and I see, Mr. Speaker, over your head the words ``In God we trust,'' the national motto, which indicates that one does not have to be a person of faith to be an American citizen. But the idea of the worth of the individual and the idea that the rights of the individual came from God and not from some monarch is essential to the understanding of the beginnings of this Republic. And from the beginnings of this Republic we have had a Chaplain ministering to the needs of the Members. It is not a new idea or novel idea. It is an idea that is firmly entrenched in the tradition of this institution and this country. Father Coughlin has been a great example of that tradition. And we hope he continues. I might say that he ministers to all of us no matter what party of which we are a member, but I sort of enjoy the fact that he ministers to those of us on this side since I found myself in the minority on most of the years I have served here, and therefore by definition the underdog. So when I met Father Coughlin's great mother, who is dedicated to the great underdog of all time, the Chicago Cubs, I felt some kinship. And I thought it interesting just a couple of years ago when Father told me that his mother, in her nineties, still serves as an usher at Wrigley Field. But to show you the ability that Father has to take a situation that may be fraught with some peril and give guidance, he told me that he finally convinced his mother that she should not be ushering both ends of a doubleheader. So that we do understand that she now goes home after the first game of a doubleheader at Wrigley Field. It is that type of pragmatic guidance, combined with the great spiritual principles, that makes him such a great friend to all of us here in the House of Representatives, and allows us to do our job with a little more civility than we otherwise would, understanding that what we do is important, maybe we're not that important, even though we might be from time to time in our minds. He reminds us of transcendent values and helps us through very difficult days with an objective of helping us to do the people's business here in the House of Representatives. It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to serve in the House of Representatives. It is a privilege and a pleasure for me to have the friendship of Father Coughlin and the assistance of Father Coughlin as he gives that to all of us who serve here. And so I would hope that all Members would join us in supporting House Resolution 1216. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, now it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a distinguished Episcopalian Member of this House who is also a heartfelt friend and admirer of Father Coughlin.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join others in expressing our support for House Resolution 1216, congratulating our Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel Coughlin, on his 10th year of distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives. I think the only thing Father Coughlin is going to be upset about is that we're going to reveal his age here on the floor today. Since the very first Congress, Members of the House have benefited from the services of chaplains and ministers. Throughout history, they have helped all of us, the individuals serving in the Congress. They have helped us navigate our responsibilities to the American people, and they have aided us in our quest to integrate faith and reason in our execution of the law. As has been mentioned, Father Coughlin is the first Roman Catholic House Chaplain. Following after the Reverend James Ford, Father Coughlin has diligently, humbly, compassionately, and intelligently served this House, its Members, our families, and this Nation. Born during the Great Depression, Father Coughlin has a prestigious record, one that demonstrates his deep desire to heal a broken society. A graduate of St. Mary of the Lake University in Illinois, he was ordained for the Archdiocese of Chicago in the spring of 1960. In addition to serving as a pastor and as a director in various offices within the Chicago diocese, Father Coughlin has studied world religions, has lived with Trappist monks, has worked with the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India, and has served as scholar-in-residence at the North American College in Rome. We wouldn't ask him which of those he enjoyed the most and whether it was more difficult working among the Members of Congress or living with the Trappist monks. As a matter of fact, I recall that no one has ever compared us to the Trappist monks. In March 2000, he was sworn in during the 106th Congress as the 59th Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, Father Coughlin has brought a wealth of experience, education, and discernment to this House. We have all benefited from his wisdom, from his patience, and from his kindness. We are right to honor the 10 years of service that Father Coughlin has given us thus far, and I believe that we all wish him many more days with us as we deliberate in the people's body of this soft-governing Republic. There is no doubt we need his help. I thank the sponsor of the resolution, Congressman Lipinski, and I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for bringing this resolution to the floor. I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution. Hopefully, we will get a unanimous vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I asked if I could borrow this display here which really should have minuses in front of all these numbers because essentially these companies had to file in their financial reports the losses that they will incur immediately as a result of the passage and signing into law of the health care reform bill. Now that's bad enough, but even worse was the initial response by this House to them following the law. And it was to receive a letter commanding their CEOs come before a committee of this House, a subcommittee of this House, with all of their internal documents as to how they could come up with this position. Now think about it. This is one of the concerns many of us expressed about having the government take over medical care in this country to the extent this bill allows it: if you criticize the government, you will be called to heel before a committee of the House. Now it is true that that call has been removed, but they have received a letter which told them the Congress will continue watching. This is not democracy. This is not independence. This is what we fought against.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from my district, where I had an interesting meeting with people representing one of my companies, that is one of the companies in my district that employs hundreds of people. They told me that as a direct result of the passage of the health care bill and the reconciliation package they have laid off 75 people. Hundreds of jobs are in jeopardy. Why? Because they happen to work for a company called The Ed. Fund, a private sector firm that facilitated the availability of college, yes, loans. Thirty-one thousand people in this industry are in jeopardy of losing their jobs because we decided we needed to nationalize that industry. It's not only the wrongheaded approach to the health care problem, it's an anti-stimulus, anti-job bill. Seventy-five jobs already lost in my district, hundreds in jeopardy, thousands across this Nation. Thank you very much, U.S. Congress.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would that request, if it were cleared, be considered germane to the bill under consideration?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, additional parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. When I am informed that it must be cleared, do I understand that to mean it must be cleared by the Speaker or the majority leader?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, with respect, may I make a further inquiry, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, is such unanimous consent request, is it, in fact, in order under the rules of the House?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, because of confusion over its legal effect, I ask unanimous consent that the text of President Obama's Executive order referring to abortion funding, that it be considered as a freestanding amendment to the text of H.R. 3590 and we be allowed to vote on it separately.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in the famous play, ``A Man for All Seasons,'' there is a tremendous scene there where Sir Thomas More looks out and sees Richard Rich, who used to be a supporter of his, who was giving testimony against him. And he notices that he has a medallion on him designating that he happens to be the new attorney general for Wales. And, in response, Mr. Thomas More says, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales? Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have worked so hard in the pro-life movement for years and years and years, and who understand the importance of the historic effort made by our former colleague, Mr. Hyde, I beg those who have joined us over these years to understand what they are doing if they sign off on an executive order. An executive order is not law. The reason we have had to have the Hyde amendment over the years is that the courts have said that there is a statutory mandate to provide abortion unless we say it does not exist. Therefore, an executive order does not take precedence over the law. People should know where they are. Don't be like Richard Rich of Wales.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would have to ask, if you were to make this a question for a fifth grade government class or a fifth grade U.S. history class as to whether or not that is the way in which you restore the confidence of the American people in their institutions of government. I suspect I know what the answer would be. But of course we are not fifth graders. We are presumably adults around here. We have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. And while we might technically get around that requirement by following the letter of the Constitution, wouldn't it be better if we followed the spirit of the Constitution? And so once again, Madam Speaker, we are presented in this case with a bill that sounds very good for a worthy cause but gives no consideration whatsoever to the ultimate cost to the American taxpayer because, in many cases, they are 2,000 and 3,000 miles away; they are not here. So out of sight, out of mind. Oh, yes. And let's forget August. It didn't exist. And the people who were here have been described by some on this floor as un-American and not representative of the American people. I would suggest they are representative of the American people, and I would say that we, at some point in time, have to get away from our business as usual and get back to the people's business. This would be a good place to start. I hope we will have a strong finish on that this weekend when we come to our senses and recognize that the bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, otherwise known as the takeover of medical care in this country, that we should come to our senses and say enough is enough.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, once again, we have a bill which has a wonderful name with a wonderful purpose; but it appears that we are forgetting the fact that we're broke. As I understand this bill, this will be a 10 percent increase per year for 5 years for this education program. I don't know any school district in my district that is going to be able to increase their funding by 10 percent per year for the next 5 years. My State of California, we are broke. I don't know where we're going to get funding. At some point in time, the American people are going to ask us, do you ever connect your responsibilities with fiscal responsibility? And because this is a good idea that we want people to be educated on environmental matters, particularly dealing with the ocean, with the coastline and with watershed, do we just throw out the idea, throw off the table the idea that maybe we ought to be fiscally responsible, or do we ignore it? Similarly, we are probably going to deal with a bill this weekend that throws out the idea that we need to do something to fix some of the problems in our health care system, but apparently we just say, forget the costs. We also appear to be saying, forget the rules. And we are also apparently saying with respect to that, forget the Constitution. Oh, by the way, the bill that I understand we are going to be presented with later this weekend is entitled this: An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in the case of Members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. Now, that doesn't sound like the health care bill, does it? And there is a reason for it. Once again, we have forgotten about transparency and, I would say, responsibility, because the Constitution of the United States says that all revenue-raising measures must start with the House of Representatives. Now, why would the Founding Fathers say that? It is because they realized the tremendous power of reaching into the pocket of an individual citizen and taking their money by way of taxes for, presumably, good programs. But because that power is so immense, the Founding Fathers believed that that power should reside initially in the House of Representatives because we are to be more responsive to our constituency, by way of going before them once every 2 years for election or reelection, as opposed to the Senate, which only does one-third of their membership and Members have 6 years before they have to go back to their constituency. So what does that have to do with the bill that I just mentioned? Well, there was this bill dealing with the first-time homebuyers credit, in the case of the Armed Forces, that started in the Ways and Means Committee, passed out of the House, went over to the Senate. And what they did was they took the title of the bill, and--at least I can find nothing left of the bill that came from here over there--they gutted the bill and replaced it with this 2,000-plus-page health care bill. Technically, they are complying with the Constitution, but they are violating the spirit of the Constitution, which said that revenue- raising bills--and this is a super-revenue-raising bill--should start here. Now, to compound that, we used to talk about something in the criminal law called compounding a felony. I will call it compounding a political felony. We now are told that that bill that didn't originate in the House as the constitutional Founders thought it should will now come to the House. But we won't really vote on it. We will vote on some other animal called a rule and thereby deem it to be passed. So think what we are doing to the spirit of the Constitution. We are not starting this humongous bill in the House of Representatives. We have allowed it to be captured in a shell bill that went over to the Senate, and then, the additional indignity to our constituents is they will not have the opportunity for those of us duly elected to vote on the precise question that the Senate voted on. Now, I heard a lot of talk about transparency. I heard a lot of talk about regaining the trust of the American people and regaining the confidence of the American people in their institutions, a lot of talk about us reestablishing the confidence of the American people in their institutions of government.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for the courtesy on this floor. I admire courtesy and civility here. I just wish we had more of it on both sides from time to time, particularly as we are in these contentious days dealing with one of the most important issues of our time--the health care bill. I would stand in support of all the things that the gentleman from Florida said about this rule making in order these two bills. It is not unusual for us to make in order two bills under a rule, but what I would suggest is that that is somewhat different than what we evidently are going to be asked to do later this weekend. As I understand it from the ranking member on the Rules Committee, it is contemplated that we will have a rule that will be ``self-executing'' dealing with a substantial portion of the American economy, that is the entire arena of health care. I don't think enough attention has been given to the difference between the appropriate procedure that we are enacting here versus that which is to go forward later this weekend. I served in this body in the 1980s and then left and came back about 6 years ago. In the intervening time there was an effort, on a bipartisan basis, made by this House and the Senate, with the signature of the President, on a piece of legislation that was called the line- item veto. The line-item veto was a process that was contemplated which would allow the President of the United States to receive an appropriation bill from the Congress and then to look at that appropriation bill and find out and decide whether there were certain items that he thought were not appropriate, there's too much spending in an overall appropriations bill. It would have given the President the right to sign the overall bill, but on the one hand, to take out, X out, line out certain items. And so this provided a constitutional question before the Supreme Court in the case of Clinton v. City of New York, because they had to wait until the President actually exercised the right presumably given to him by the legislation passed by this Congress. And so the question was: Was that manner in which laws were passed consistent with the requirements of the Constitution? And the Constitution sets out the terms under which we're able to pass laws. Essentially, it says three things must happen: It must pass the House of Representatives; it must pass the United States Senate; and it must be presented--it's called presentment--presented to the President and signed by the President. Interestingly enough, in the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens--I believe the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court at the present time--when he investigated it, he said this. He said, The Constitution requires that it be the exact text in all three circumstances. Those are his words. The exact text. He went on to say that if in fact a paragraph were absent from the law that the President signed, meaning the President exercised his line item veto and had taken it out, it would invalidate the constitutional requirement for passage of a law because it would not be the exact text. So, as I understand it, contrary to the rule that we are debating here today, the contemplated rule to cover the health care bill will say something along the lines of: We incorporate a bill which will be deemed to have passed if we pass the rule; or other language to say: thereby passing. So then you will have the interesting question of whether or not we are acting on--that is, I as an individual Member of Congress representing my constituency--I am voting on the ``exact text'' as was voted on in the Senate, which then goes to the President for signature. And I would argue that if you cannot remove a paragraph from the ``exact text,'' as the Supreme Court told us, in any of the three aspects of the bill, that you cannot add text. And that is, if you have a rule which incorporates the bill, you naturally have other language that goes along with it, particularly if it makes reference to other subject matter. And so in contrast to the rule we have here, which should be supportable under the circumstances that it does not violate the Constitution in any way, shape, or form, even though it is a little different than when we adopt a rule that permits two bills to come to the floor, in the instance of having a self-executing rule we will then be presenting to the Supreme Court a constitutional issue upon which they have not directly ruled. It is, however, my interpretation of their ruling in Clinton v. City of New York that it is the mirror image of what the court found to be unconstitutional. That is, if the exact text requirement cannot be fulfilled by removing a single paragraph from the text; similarly, if you add language to the text in the vote that is presented to the membership, it would be not the same thing, so that we would be prohibiting the Members of this institution, the House of Representatives, from their constitutional obligation to vote on the exact question presented in the other body so that that same exact question can be presented to the President of the United States for his signature. Now I understand that some say, Aha, there's another section of the Constitution which says that the House of Representatives and the Senate in their respective bodies shall be the sole arbiter of the rules of their Chambers. And that is true. But it is also true that we cannot, by our rules, do what is otherwise unconstitutional. And so Members should understand that while, unfortunately, when we debate rules often times there's the absence of many of our Members here, because the rules process is considered to be technical, in some ways taken for granted, in other ways nonobjectionable, not rising above the ordinary, with all due respect to the members of the Rules Committee. In the instance of a self-executing rule, so-called, on one of the most controversial issues presented to this Congress, certainly in my years of service here, we cannot blithely dismiss legitimate questions about what our obligation is here. I have said on this floor before, and I continue to say, the Constitution is an inconvenient truth. A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia made an interesting point. He said, The essence of a democracy or a democratic republic such as ours is, majority rules. If majority rules, you don't have a democracy. But he said one of the unique things about America is that we have some limitations on majority rule. Those limitations are found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They limit what the majority can do and protect minority rights. But he said, The interesting thing is, those limitations were imposed on the majority by the majority. In other words, it is through the adoption of the Constitution that the majority has limited itself. And he suggested that that should give caution to members of the court to not supersede their legitimate authority by finding new limitations on the majority that were not contemplated by those who adopted the Constitution, and if you need further limitations or protections of minority interests, the way to do that is to amend the Constitution, which is again done by the majority. Similarly, I would suggest, that those of us who take an oath to uphold the Constitution as representatives of our constituents in this body must follow the dictates of the Constitution and the limitations of the Constitution. In some language in that case that I cited earlier, the 12-year-old case of Clinton v. City of New York, the court talked about how it may or may not be a good public policy that the law that was otherwise found to be unconstitutional, that the fact that it may or may not be good public policy is irrelevant to the question of whether it's constitutional. So the argument that we have presented to us here most recently in a nationally televised interview by the President of the United States, that whatever vote takes place is going to be on health care and therefore it's okay, and he'll sign it, forgets the inconvenient truth that the Constitution does not permit us to do that, and it does not permit the President to do that. So while a lot of people are talking about the fact we're going to be here over the weekend--and that's extraordinary--I would wish that we would concentrate on the more extraordinary question of whether we are following the Constitution. Because if in fact we circumvent the Constitution by ``allowing'' a bill to become law in which each Member of the House and the Senate did not have the opportunity to vote on the exact language, we are not punishing the Members of Congress; we are punishing our constituents, who have a constitutional right to have laws passed in the way that is articulated in the Constitution, which provides specificity as to how that is done so that the power of the Federal Government will be exercised in the limited sense that was given to it by the people through the Constitution. And so while I support all of the comments made by the gentleman from Florida with respect to this rule and find this rule to be relatively noncontroversial and to be more of the same, the rule that we are being told of that we will consider this weekend is not more of the same, is not ordinary, is in fact extraordinary, and I would suggest such an extraordinary stretch that it will be rendered unconstitutional. Why would we follow a procedure that will call into question the very constitutional foundations of the contents of the bill if in fact it is such an important issue? If it in fact is something that needs to be dealt with with such urgency, ought we not to follow the Constitution in each and every aspect and ought we not be guided by the most recent decision of the Supreme Court on a law which we thought was a good law on a bipartisan basis, but which, unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow us to enact. And I would hope that my colleagues who may not be here on the floor but may have an opportunity to review these remarks will take seriously my concerns. We may very well be preparing to embark on an unconstitutional journey which not only will take the healthy skepticism that our Constitution provides for government--not rejecting government, but we have a healthy skepticism of the power of government that is a part of our constitutional process--but we will turn it from a healthy skepticism to an unfortunately destructive cynicism. And if there is anybody who believes that is good for this country, I would suggest they are wrong. This is a tough issue that we're going to have to deal with later this weekend. Let us at least do it in a constitutional way, and let us not pass something for the American people that will be called into question in court challenge after court challenge after court challenge and delay the impact or implementation of whatever we believe on a bipartisan basis ought to be the governing law with respect to the health care system. So with that, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.